Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: do patients care?

Meta-analysis of Laparoendoscopic Single-site and Vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Hysterectomy Compared with Multiport Hysterectomy: Real Benefits or Diminishing Returns?

OBJECTIVE

Because minimally invasive hysterectomy has become increasingly performed by gynecologic surgeons, strategies to further improve outcomes have emerged, including innovations in surgical approach. We sought to evaluate the intraoperative and perioperative outcomes and success rates of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) and vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) hysterectomy in comparison with those of conventional multiport laparoscopic (MPL) hysterectomy.

DATA SOURCES

A librarian-led search of PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed for case-control, retrospective cohort, and randomized controlled trials through May 2020.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

The inclusion criterion was publications comparing LESS or vNOTES hysterectomy with conventional MPL hysterectomy for the management of benign or malignant gynecologic disease. Four authors reviewed the abstracts and selected studies for full-text review. The manuscripts were reviewed, separately, by 2 authors for final inclusion and assessment of bias using either the risk-of-bias assessment tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion with, or arbitration by, a third reviewer. The titles of 2259 articles were screened, and 108 articles were chosen for abstract screening. Full-text screening resulted in 29 studies eligible for inclusion.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Extracted data were placed into REDCap (Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN), and MPL hysterectomy was compared with single-port hysterectomy using meta-analysis models. The outcomes included estimated blood loss (EBL); operative (OP) time; transfusion; length of hospital stay (LOS); conversion to laparotomy; visual analog scale pain scores at 12 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours; any complications; and 7 subcategories of complications. Random-effects models were built for continuous outcomes and binary outcomes, and the results are reported as standardized mean difference (SMD) or odds ratio (OR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals, respectively. Meta-analysis could not be performed for vNOTES vs MPL, given that only 3 studies met the eligibility criteria. When LESS and MPL were compared, there was a shorter OP time for MPL (SMD = -0.2577, p <.001) and lower rate of transfusion (OR = 0.1697, p <.001), without a significant difference in EBL (SMD = -0.0243, p = .689). There was a nonsignificant trend toward higher risk of conversion to laparotomy in the MPL group (OR = 2.5871, p = .078). Pain scores were no different 12 or 24 hours postoperatively but were significantly higher at 48 hours postoperatively (SMD = 0.1861, p = .035) in the MPL group. There were no differences in overall or individual complications between the LESS and MPL groups. In the vNOTES comparison, 2 studies demonstrated shorter OP times, with reduced LOS and no difference in complications.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis, we identified that LESS hysterectomy has comparable and low overall rates of complications and conversion to laparotomy compared with MPL. Notably, the OP time seems longer, and the pain scores at 48 hours may be lower with LESS hysterectomy than with MPL hysterectomy. Limited data suggest that vNOTES hysterectomy may have shorter OP times and improved EBL, transfusion rates, LOS, and pain scores compared with MPL hysterectomy, but further study is needed. There remains a deficit in high-quality data to understand the differences in cosmesis among these surgical approaches. The quality of data for this analysis seems to be low to moderate.

First in-human experience with a novel robotic platform and Magnetic Surgery System

BACKGROUND

Magnetic technologies have been introduced to reduce invasiveness of surgical procedures. This study was aimed to analyse the performance of a novel combined magnetic-robotic controller as an enhanced accessory to the Magnetic Surgical System in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

METHODS

This was a prospective study of 10 consecutive patients undergoing LC with this novel surgical system.

RESULTS

Ten patients were included, nine were female. The mean age was 30.3 ± 9 years. All patients had chronic cholecystitis. Procedures were completed successfully. The median operative time was 50 ± 11 min. The system performed effectively in all cases with no need of additional interventions. There were no device-related complications or side effects. All patients were discharged the same day. Recovery was uneventful during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the first in-human successful performance of surgeries utilizing a novel combination of magnetic and robotic technologies in one integrated system.

Randomized controlled trial of single incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy with long-term follow-up

Background

Within the last years, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) emerged as an alternative to multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC). SLC has advantages in cosmetic results, and postoperative pain seems lower. Overall complications are comparable between SLC and MLC. However, long-term results of randomized trials are lacking, notably to answer questions about incisional hernia rates, long-term cosmetic impact and chronic pain.

Methods

A randomized trial of SLC versus MLC with a total of 193 patients between December 2009 and June 2011 was performed. The primary endpoint was postoperative pain on the first day after surgery. Secondary endpoints were conversion rate, operative time, intraoperative and postoperative morbidity, technical feasibility and hospital stay. A long-term follow-up after surgery was added.

Results

Ninety-eight patients (50.8%) underwent SLC, and 95 patients (49.2%) had MLC. Pain on the first postoperative day showed no difference between the operative procedures (SLC vs. MLC, 3.4 ± 1.8 vs. 3.7 ± 1.9, respectively; p = 0.317). No significant differences were observed in operating time or the overall rate of postoperative complications (4.1% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.731). SLC exhibited better cosmetic results in the short term. In the long term, after a mean of 70.4 months, there were no differences in incisional hernia rate, cosmetic results or pain at the incision between the two groups.

Conclusions

Taking into account a follow-up rate of 68%, the early postoperative advantages of SLC in relation to cosmetic appearance and pain did not persist in the long term. In the present trial, there was no difference in incisional hernia rates between SLC and MLC, but the sample size is too small for a final conclusion regarding hernia rates.

Trial registration

German Registry of Clinical Trials DRKS00012447

Single-port versus multiport laparoscopic surgery comparing long-term patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcome

Introduction

Several studies and meta-analysis showed Single-port or Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SPL) to be superior over Multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPL) mainly in terms of postoperative pain and cosmetic result. But very little is known whether these results are only a short-term effect or are persistent on the long run after SPL. We therefore evaluated and compared long-term outcomes regarding cosmesis and chronic pain after SPL and MPL.

Methods

We conducted a comparative study with propensity score matching of all patients undergoing SPL or MPL between October 2008 and December 2013 in terms of postoperative cosmetic results and chronic pain. Follow-up data were obtained from mailed patient questionnaires and telephone interviews. Postoperative cosmesis was assessed using the patients overall scar opinion on a 10-point scale and the Patients scale of the standardized Patient and Observer Scar assessment scale (POSAS). Chronic pain was assessed by 10-point scales for abdominal and umbilical scar pain.

Results

A total of 280 patients were included in the study with 188 patients (67.1%) after SPL and 92 patients (32.9%) following MPL. 141 patients (50.4%) underwent a cholecystectomy and 139 patients (49.6%) underwent an appendectomy. The mean follow-up time was 61.1 ± 19.1 months. The mean wound satisfaction assed by the overall scar and the PSOAS Patients scale score of the patients showed no significant difference between MPL and SPL. Patients after SPL reported more overall complains than after MPL (8.7% vs. 2.5%, respectively), but without statistical significance (p = 0.321). Umbilical pain scores were comparable between the two groups (1.4 ± 1.0 vs. 1.4 ± 1.0, p = 0.831).

Conclusion

We found no difference in long-term cosmetic outcomes after SPL and MPL. Chronic pain at the umbilical incision site was comparable on the long run.

Description and Initial Experience with the "LIFT" (Less Incisions but Four Trocars) Technique for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Background: Modifications to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) aim to reduce trauma to the abdominal wall and improve cosmetic outcomes. Although single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) provides excellent cosmetic results, the procedure is technically demanding. Herein, we describe the LIFT technique ("Less Incisions but Four Trocars"), with four trocars but only one 3-mm visible incision, using conventional instruments. Methods: Retrospective study with the LIFT technique for cholecystectomy during 2017. Access to the abdomen is obtained with two trocars (11 and 5 mm) through the same intraumbilical skin incision, and two extraumbilical 3-mm trocars for a correct triangulation (one of them concealed below the bikini line). The results are compared with a series of patients operated on with LC by the same surgical team during 2016. Results: During the study period, 90 procedures were performed. Both techniques showed similar results in terms of surgical time, conversion rate, complications, and hospital length of stay. The patients operated on with the LIFT technique reported better cosmetic evaluation and less postoperative pain at 3 months compared with LC. Conclusion: The LIFT technique is a safe and feasible alternative for cholecystectomy that can provide a significant improvement from the cosmetical point of view, mostly for those patients who are especially concerned with their body image.

[Laparoscopic Heller myotomy after failed POEM and multiple balloon dilatations : Better late than never]

BACKGROUND

Despite the lack of long-term results, peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has been increasingly propagated as a feasible alternative to pneumatic balloon dilatation (BD) and laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) in patients with achalasia. After a long-term follow-up, a large percentage of patients reported recurrence of dysphagia. It is unclear which kind of procedure (redo POEM or LHM) should be utilized in these patients with failed POEM.

CASE REPORT AND RESULTS

We report the case of a 37-year-old female patient with type I achalasia who was successfully treated with LHM after a failed POEM procedure. After the manometric diagnosis of type I achalasia, the patient was treated with six balloon dilatations within a period of 5 months. Because of the persistence of symptoms a POEM procedure was performed with no relief and the patient was referred for surgical treatment. An esophagography showed a pronounced widening of the middle and the distal esophagus with a persistent narrowing of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) and because of these indications LHM was performed. The intraoperative examination revealed extensive scarring of the submucosal layer with the muscularis mucosae of the distal esophagus; nevertheless, it was possible to carry out a 5 cm long cardiomyotomy without mucosal injury. The operation was completed with a Dor fundoplication. There were no postoperative complications. After surgery the patient reported an immediate and complete relief of dysphagia.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The published experiences with POEM seem to show promising short-term results in terms of dysphagia relief; however, the few available mid-term analyses demonstrated no essential advantages when compared to LHM; therefore, the LHM must still be considered the gold standard procedure for definitive treatment of achalasia. According to our case report, LHM was shown to be a safe and effective although laborious treatment option due to scarring even after failed treatment by POEM.

Meta-analysis of single-port versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy comparing body image and cosmesis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate improvements in cosmetic results and postoperative morbidity for single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) in comparison with multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC).

METHODS

A literature search was undertaken for RCTs comparing SILC with MLC in adult patients with benign gallbladder disease. Primary outcomes were body image and cosmesis scores at different time points. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative and postoperative complications, postoperative pain and frequency of port-site hernia.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven RCTs were included, with a total of 3051 patients. The body image score favoured SILC at all time points (short term: mean difference (MD) -2·09, P < 0·001; mid term: MD -1·33, P < 0·001), as did the cosmesis score (short term: MD 3·20, P < 0·001; mid term: MD 4·03, P < 0·001; long-term: MD 4·87, P = 0·05) and the wound satisfaction score (short term: MD 1·19, P = 0·03; mid term: MD 1·38, P < 0·001; long-term: MD 1·19, P = 0·02). Duration of operation was longer for SILC (MD 13·56 min; P < 0·001) and SILC required more additional ports (odds ratio (OR) 6·78; P < 0·001). Postoperative pain assessed by a visual analogue scale (VAS) was lower for SILC at 12 h after operation (MD in VAS score -0·80; P = 0·007). The incisional hernia rate was higher after SILC (OR 2·50, P = 0·03). All other outcomes were similar for both groups.

CONCLUSION

SILC is associated with better outcomes in terms of cosmesis, body image and postoperative pain. The risk of incisional hernia is four times higher after SILC than after MLC.

Two-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Children

PURPOSE

To evaluate two-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (2I-LC) in children, and compare outcomes with four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (4P-LC).

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on children (≤21 years) with gallbladder disease treated with 2I-LC or 4P-LC between February 2010 and February 2016. 2I-LC is performed using two 5-mm ports and a 2-mm endoscopic grasper within a 12-mm umbilical incision, and a 3-mm subxiphoid port for dissection. Demographic, diagnostic, operative, and outcome data were recorded, and the two groups were compared with chi-squared, Fisher, and t-tests. Patients requiring conversion from 2I-LC to 4P-LC were examined to determine factors predicting the need for additional ports.

RESULTS

Three hundred eighty-nine laparoscopic cholecystectomies were performed (2I-LC 72.0%, 4P-LC 19.0%). Body mass index (BMI) was greater in the 4P-LC group. 2I-LC was more commonly performed for biliary dyskinesia, but not biliary colic, acute cholecystitis, choledocholithiasis, and gallstone pancreatitis. Operative time was greater in 4P-LC. There were 6 wound infections (2I-LC 1.8%, 4P-LC 1.5%), 1 common bile duct injury (2I-LC 0.4%, 4P-LC 0.0%), and 1 small bowel injury (2I-LC 0.0%, 4P-LC 1.5%). 2.4% of 2I-LC required conversion to 4P-LC, with BMI and operative time greater than the 2I-LC group, but not different from 4P-LC with no complications.

CONCLUSIONS

2I-LC is a safe alternative to 4P-LC for pediatric gallbladder disease, allowing for traction and countertraction to expose the critical view. Operative time was longer in the 4P-LC group, likely secondary to selection bias with higher BMI and preoperative diagnosis of gallstone disease. Overweight patients are more likely to require additional ports.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for biliary tract disease

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), or laparoendoscopic single-site surgery, has been employed in various fields to minimize traumatic effects over the last two decades. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has been the most frequently studied SILS to date. Hundreds of studies on SILC have failed to present conclusive results. Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been small in scale and have been conducted under ideal operative conditions. The role of SILC in complicated scenarios remains uncertain. As common bile duct exploration (CBDE) methods have been used for more than one hundred years, laparoscopic CBDE (LCBDE) has emerged as an effective, demanding, and infrequent technique employed during the laparoscopic era. Likewise, laparoscopic biliary-enteric anastomosis is difficult to carry out, with only a few studies have been published on the approach. The application of SILS to CBDE and biliary-enteric anastomosis is extremely rare, and such innovative procedures are only carried out by a number of specialized groups across the globe. Herein we present a thorough and detailed analysis of SILC in terms of operative techniques, training and learning curves, safety and efficacy levels, recovery trends, and costs by reviewing RCTs conducted over the past three years and two recently updated meta-analyses. All existing literature on single-incision LCBDE and single-incision laparoscopic hepaticojejunostomy has been reviewed to describe these two demanding techniques.

Minilaparoscopy with Interchangeable, Full 5-mm End Effectors: First Human Use of a New Minimally Invasive Operating Platform

BACKGROUND

The most common paradigm in minimally invasive surgery is entry of a single trocar through separate incisions in the abdomen. However, in an effort to decrease postoperative pain and minimize scarring, alternative techniques have been described. Needlescopic surgery uses instruments that are 3 mm or less in diameter. Prior uses of needlescopic instruments have been hindered somewhat by diminished shaft strength and small end-effector size. The Percuvance™ (Teleflex, Wayne, PA) system uses a 2.9-mm shaft with interchangeable 5-mm end effectors in order to minimize abdominal wall trauma while maintaining the functionality of traditional laparoscopic instruments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients evaluated for laparoscopic surgery by two surgeons with a foregut and general surgery practice at the Cleveland Clinic (Cleveland, OH) were included in the study. Fifteen consecutive patients were enrolled in the study. Patient demographics and operative results were reviewed.

RESULTS

In March 2015, 15 patients underwent surgery using the Percuvance surgical system at the Cleveland Clinic. There was one conversion to open surgery due to extensive intraabdominal adhesions and unclear anatomy. There was one re-exploration for presumed anastomotic leak, which was negative. Operative time and length of hospital stay were similar to those of standard laparoscopic procedures. There were no deaths in this series. Subjective surgeon experience was overall positive, and functionality of the Percuvance system seemed equal to that of standard 5-mm laparoscopic instrumentation.

CONCLUSIONS

This initial experience with the Percuvance system demonstrated effective exchange of 5-mm port sites for needlescopic instruments with similar handling to traditional laparoscopic instruments. This interchangeable system may allow performance similar to standard laparoscopic port instrument orientation and principles in the setting of decreased-caliber access.

The early outcome of single-incision versus multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background:

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is a newly developed method of performing cholecystectomy and has been increasingly used. The aim of this study is to see if SILC has any advantages over conventional (three-port) laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC).

Materials and Methods:

In this cross-sectional study, 52 patients who underwent SILC (group A) during the period from May 2011 to March 2013 were compared with 62 patients who underwent CLC (group B) at two centers affiliated to Shiraz University of Medical Sciences in Shiraz, Iran. Data were gathered on operation time, pre- and postoperative complications, patients’ postoperative pain, pain reliever use, duration of hospital stay, and return to work, and these data were compared using SPSS software version 16.

Results:

The mean age of patients was 38.01 ± 13.24 in group A and 44.82 ± 15.11 in group B. Mean body mass index (BMI) was 23.97 ± 4.78 and 26.22 ± 4.67 in groups A and B, respectively. The mean operation time was 76.4 ± 29.0 min in group A and 72.9 ± 24.1 min in group B (P = 0.496). Preoperative complications were 3.8% in group A and 0 in group B (P = 0.206). Postoperative complications were 17.3% in group A and 11.3% in group B (P = 0.423). The mean for early postoperative pain revealed no significant difference (P = 0.814), but the mean pain on discharge was significantly higher in group A patients (P = 0.034). Regarding the mean admission time and return to normal activity, we found no significant differences.

Conclusion:

SILC does not have any special advantages over CLC with regard to surgical outcomes, but it can be a safe alternative to CLC, especially in patients concerned about cosmoses.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: consensus conference-based guidelines

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard technique for gallbladder diseases in both acute and elective surgery. Nevertheless, reports from national surveys still seem to represent some doubts regarding its diffusion. There is neither a wide consensus on its indications nor on its possible related morbidity. On the other hand, more than 25 years have passed since the introduction of LC, and we have all witnessed the exponential growth of knowledge, skill and technology that has followed it. In 1995, the EAES published its consensus statement on laparoscopic cholecystectomy in which seven main questions were answered, according to the available evidence. During the following 20 years, there have been several additional guidelines on LC, mainly focused on some particular aspect, such as emergency or concomitant biliary tract surgery.

METHODS

In 2012, several Italian surgical societies decided to revisit the clinical recommendations for the role of laparoscopy in the treatment of gallbladder diseases in adults, to update and supplement the existing guidelines with recommendations that reflect what is known and what constitutes good practice concerning LC.

Patient perception of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Safety and relief of symptoms appeared to be most important to patients with gallbladder disease, whereas postprocedural aesthetics was less important.

Background and Objectives:

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is gradually being adopted into general surgical practice. The potential risks and benefits are still being studied, and little is known about how patients perceive this new surgical technique.

Methods:

After providing patients with basic educational materials on laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and SILC, we administered a questionnaire exploring patients' perspectives of the importance of postoperative pain, scar appearance, risk of complications, and cost regarding their preference for SILC versus LC.

Results:

Among 100 patients (mean age, 43.3 years), the majority were women (85%), white (85%), college educated (77%), and privately insured (85%). Indications included biliary dyskinesia (43%), biliary colic (48%), and acute cholecystitis (9%). Patients stated that they would be somewhat or very interested in SILC if recommended by their surgeon (89%), although 35% were somewhat or very concerned about the lack of long-term results. The majority would accept no additional risk to undergo SILC. Scar appearance was somewhat or very important to <40% of patients, whereas pain was somewhat or very important to 79%. Only 27% of patients would spend >$100 to undergo SILC. When asked to rank pain, appearance, symptom resolution, personal cost, and risk of complications, 52% ranked symptom resolution, 20% ranked pain, and 19% ranked risk of complications as most important.

Conclusions:

Safety and relief of symptoms are most important to patients with gallbladder disease, whereas postprocedural esthetics was relatively unimportant and few would be willing to pay more for SILC versus LC. However, if the surgeon recommends SILC, most patients would trust this recommendation.

Single-incision versus standard multiple-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of experimental and observational studies

OBJECTIVE

The advantages of single-incision surgery for the treatment of gallstone disease is debated. Previous meta-analyses comparing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and standard laparoscopic multiport cholecystectomy (SLMC) included few and underpowered trials. To overcome this limitation, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized studies.

METHODS

A MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library literature search of studies published in and comparing SILC with SLMC was performed. The primary outcome was safety of SILC as measured by the overall rate of postoperative complications and biliary spillage. Feasibility was another primary outcome as measured by the conversion and operative time. Postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, perioperative blood loss, time to return to normal activity, and cosmetic satisfaction were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 43 studies of which 30 were observational reports and 13 experimental trials, for a total of 7489 patients (2090 SILC and 5389 SLMC). The overall rate of complications was comparable between groups (relative risk [RR] = 1.08; 95% CI = 0.87-1.35; P = .46), as were the rates of biliary spillage (RR = 1.16; 95% CI = 0.73-1.84; P = .53) and conversion rate (RR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.53-1.46; P = .62). Operative time was in favor of SLMC (weighted mean difference = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.67-0.79; P < .0001). Secondary outcomes favored SILC, but with marginal advantages.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC is a feasible technique but without any significant advantage over SLMC for relevant end points. Although secondary outcomes favored SILC, the small magnitude of the advantage and the low quality of assessment methods question the clinical significance of these benefits.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with improved cosmesis scoring at the cost of significantly higher hernia rates: 1-year results of a prospective randomized, multicenter, single-blinded trial of traditional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive techniques have become an integral part of general surgery with recent investigation into single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC). This study presents the final 1-year results of a prospective, randomized, multicenter, single-blinded trial of SILC vs multiport cholecystectomy (4PLC).

STUDY DESIGN

Patients with biliary colic and documented gallstones or polyps or with biliary dyskinesia were randomized to SILC vs 4PLC. Data measures included operative details, adverse events, and conversion to 4PLC or laparotomy. Patients were followed for 12 months.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients underwent randomization to SILC (n = 119) or 4PLC (n = 81). Enrollment ranged from 1 to 50 patients with 4 sites enrolling >25 patients. Total adverse events were not significantly different between groups (36% 4PLC vs 45% SILC; p = 0.24), as were severe adverse events (4% 4PLC vs 10% SILC; p = 0.11). Incision-related adverse events were higher after SILC (11.7% vs 4.9%; p = 0.13), but all of these were listed as mild or moderate. Total hernia rates were 1.2% (1 of 81) in 4PLC patients vs 8.4% (10 of 119) in SILC patients (p = 0.03). At 1-year follow-up, cosmesis scores continued to favor SILC (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this trial show SILC to be a safe and feasible procedure when compared with 4PLC, with similar total adverse events but with an identified significant increase in hernia formation. Cosmesis scoring and patient preference at 12 months continue to favor SILC, and more than half of the patients were willing to pay more for a single-site surgery over a standard laparoscopic procedure. Additional longer-term population-based studies are needed to clarify if this increased rate of hernia formation as compared with 4PLC will continue to hold true.

Patient-reported outcomes after single-incision versus traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized prospective trial

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is a newer approach that may be a safe alternative to traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TLC) based on retrospective and small prospective studies. As the demand for single-incision surgery may be driven by patient perceptions of benefits, we designed a prospective randomized study using patient-reported outcomes as our end points.

METHODS

Patients deemed candidates for either SILC or TLC were offered enrollment in the study. After induction of anesthesia, patients were randomized to SILC or TLC. Preoperative characteristics and operative data were recorded, including length of stay (LOS). Pain scores in recovery and for 48 h and satisfaction with wound appearance at 2 and 4 weeks were reported by patients. We used the gastrointestinal quality of life index (GIQLI) survey preoperatively and at 2 and 4 weeks postoperatively to assess recovery. Procedural and total hospital costs per case were abstracted from hospital billing systems.

RESULTS

Mean age of the study group was 44.1 years (±14.8), 87% were Caucasian, and 77% were female, with no difference between groups. Operative times were longer for SILC (median = 57 vs. 47 min, p = 0.008), but mean LOS was similar (6.8 ± 4.2 h SILC vs. 6.2 ± 4.8 h TLC, p = 0.59). Operating room cost and encounter cost were similar. GIQLI scores were not significantly different preoperatively or at 2 or 4 weeks postoperatively. Patients reported higher satisfaction with wound appearance at 2 weeks with SILC. There were no differences in pain scores in recovery or in the first 48 h, although SILC patients required significantly more narcotic in recovery (19 mg morphine equivalent vs. 11.5, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

SILC is a longer operation but can be done at the same cost as TLC. Recovery and pain scores are not significantly different. There may be an improvement in patient satisfaction with wound appearance. Both procedures are valid approaches to cholecystectomy.

Innovations in Endosurgery-Journey into the Past of the Future: To Ride the SILS Bandwagon or Not?

Progress in surgical practice has paralleled the civilizational evolution. Surgery has progressed from being the last resort in saving life to being form and function preserver. Post-renaissance Industrial age gave an impetus to this march of surgery. The currently on going digital technological revolution has further catalysed this march. Having achieved the stabilized and acceptable clinical outcomes, the surgeon has embarked on a journey of improving patient reported outcomes (PRO). Improvement in PROs with the advent of laparoscopic surgery with the attendant emphasis on minimising invasion has led to debates about invasion being just parietal or holistic in physiological sense. There is a concern that parietal invasiveness shouldn't be a trade-off for compromised clinical outcomes. Single Incision Laparoscopic Surgery (SILS) in its current avatar with current instrumentation seems to be an enthusiastic bandwagon rolling on with the cosmetic benefits acting as veil to hide the potential clinical concerns. History of surgical innovations is riddled with tales of vindictiveness and vicissitude. Lest the same fate befalls SILS we would do better to examine the SILS bandwagon in its current form till the emerging technologies address the current concerns.