Single-incision laparoscopy versus standard laparoscopy for colorectal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Single-incision Laparoscopic Colonic Surgery: A Systemic Review, Meta-analysis, and Future Prospect

Although single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has gained some attention as a feasible alternative to conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) in colonic surgery, it became less prevalent than expected. Hence, we conducted this systematic review to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and oncological outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) with meta-analysis and discussion of the future prospect of SILS. The search was conducted from September to October 2023 using PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Articles on colorectal cancer comparing SILC with multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MPLC) from all randomized controlled trials and comparative studies with 50 patients or more per arm were examined. The primary outcomes were the intra- and postoperative complication rates, and the secondary outcomes were the perioperative and oncological outcomes. The trends of the SILS number in Japan and the trends of the number of articles on SILS in PubMed were also reviewed. There were no significant differences in perioperative complication rates, operative factors, and oncological outcomes between SILC and MPLC, although heterogeneity was observed mainly in operative factors and the total length of the skin incision was significantly shorter in SILC. Therefore, SILC is technically and oncologically feasible and safe when performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons. The case number of SILS was gradually increasing but the rate of SILS was decreasing in Japan. The number of articles on SILS was also decreasing. SILS has gained foothold to some extent but has plateaued. The emerging new robotic platform may reappraise the concept of SILS.

Perioperative outcomes for single-port robotic versus single-incision laparoscopic surgery: a comparative analysis in colorectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) may offer improved cosmesis, reduced postoperative pain and faster recovery than conventional platforms, but widespread implementation was limited by technical demands. A single-port robotic platform was recently introduced, with components that further enhance SILS benefits without the technical challenges. No study to date has compared the two platforms to validate benefits. Our goal was to compare outcomes of SP robotics and SILS in colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

A prospective cancer registry was reviewed for CRC patients undergoing curative resection through a SILS or SP robotic approach from 2010 to 2022. Patient and cancer demographics, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes were compared in a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort, adjusting for baseline characteristics. The main outcome measures were complications, operative time, and oncologic quality measures.

RESULTS

Matching resulted 50 SP robotic and 50 SILS patients. Cohorts were well matched in all demographics, but SP robotic rectal cancer cases were significantly closer to the anorectal ring than SILS (1.8 cm vs. 3.4 cm, p = 0.018). SP robotic and SILS platforms had similar operative times. Intraoperative conversions was comparable, but more SILS cases required additional ports to be placed (p = 0.040). The intraoperative complications rate, complete total mesorectal excision rates, and lymph node yield were not statistically significantly different. There were no positive margins in either group. Postoperatively, groups had analogous day of return of bowel function, comparable morbidity, and discharge destination. There was no mortality in either group. The length of stay was significantly shorter with SP robotics than SILS (mean 4.135 vs. 5.282 days, median 4 (2-8) vs. 5 (2-14) days; p = 0.045).

CONCLUSIONS

Single-port robotics provided high quality oncologic surgery, adding the technical benefits of robotics to clinical and cosmetic benefits of single-port surgery. There were comparable operative time, complication rates, and oncologic outcomes in CRC cases, with shorter hospital stays with SP robotics. This early data is encouraging for expansion SP robotic technology.

Stoma-site approach single-port laparoscopic versus conventional multi-port laparoscopic Miles's procedure for low rectal cancer: A prospective, randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes of patients with low rectal cancer after stoma-site approach single-port laparoscopic Miles procedure or conventional multi-port laparoscopic Miles procedure, as well as to evaluate the safety and efficacy of stoma-site approach single-port laparoscopic surgery in low rectal cancer.

METHODS

Between September 2020 and September 2021, 51 low rectal cancer patients scheduled for Miles procedure at the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery of Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College were randomly assigned to the single-port laparoscopic surgery group (SPLS) and the multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) group. The perioperative outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

In this study, 25 patients underwent SPLS and 26 underwent MPLS. All patients completed the study, and there were no perioperative deaths in either group. Observation indicators such as intraoperative bleeding (39 mL vs. 41 mL), number of lymph nodes (20.12 ± 3.29 vs. 21.84 ± 3.74), average hospital stay (7.15 ± 1.52 vs. 7.64 ± 1.66), and time to flatulence (2.5d vs. 2.5d) showed no significant differences between the SPLS and MPLS groups (p > 0.05). However, the operation duration (180 min vs. 118 min) and perioperative complications showed statistically significant differences between the two groups (p < 0.05). In addition, patients in the SPLS group had significantly higher satisfaction scores than those in the MPLS group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

For patients with low rectal cancer requiring Miles surgery, stoma-site approach single-port laparoscopic surgery has comparable safety and efficacy to multi-port laparoscopic surgery.

Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Approaches to Treat Colorectal Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Literature

Surgery is usually required to treat colorectal cancer (CRC). Medical technology has advanced, providing various approaches to tackle this disease. Different surgeries are available, such as laparoscopic surgery, single-incision laparoscopic surgery, natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, and robotic surgery. Laparoscopic surgery has several benefits including reduced blood loss and shorter recovery time. It can also improve lung function and minimize complications. However, it requires more time to perform and has a higher risk of complications during the procedure. Robotic surgery provides a three-dimensional view of the surgical area allowing for greater precision in rectal surgeries and access to difficult-to-reach pelvic regions. This method utilizes robotics technology which reduces surgical time and speeds up recovery for patients. There are various surgical options available for treating CRC; however, laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery offer unique advantages despite their own drawbacks. As technology continues to evolve, medical techniques will continue improving existing methods while providing new options resulting in better outcomes for patients. Compared to laparoscopy, robotic surgery has a lower rate of operative conversions and a shorter learning curve. However, it also has some drawbacks, such as a longer docking time, lack of tactile sensation, and higher cost. Therefore, the choice of surgical method should depend on patient characteristics, surgeon preference and expertise, and available resources. Currently, specialized centers offer robotic surgeries which are more expensive and take longer compared to open and laparoscopic approaches. Nonetheless, they are considered safe and feasible when compared to traditional surgery. Short-term outcomes for robotic surgeries are better, while long-term postoperative complication rates remain similar. However, there is a need for additional well-defined randomized control trials conducted across multiple centers to validate the use of robotic surgery over open and laparoscopic approaches. Improving patient care and outcomes is the objective of this comprehensive literature overview on surgical approaches for CRC.

Ascending colon cancer and situs inversus totalis – altered surgeon position for successful laparoscopic hemicolectomy: A case report

BACKGROUND

Situs inversus totalis (SIT) is a rare congenital condition in which the structure of the abdominal and thoracic cavities is the mirror image of normal. This anatomic reversal makes laparoscopic surgery difficult when treating colorectal cancer.

CASE SUMMARY

We describe the successful laparoscopic hemicolectomy of a 68-year-old Chinese woman with SIT and ascending colon cancer. Based on preoperative imaging and careful consideration of the patient’s anatomy, the position of the surgeon was modified such that the surgeon stood between her legs, while the surgical assistant and endoscopist stood to the surgeon’s left. Trocar position was also adjusted appropriately. The surgery lasted 178 min, during which the patient lost 50 mL of blood. Pathology analysis of the resected tumor confirmed an adenocarcinoma in clinical stage pT3N0M0, without lymph node involvement. The patient experienced no postoperative complications and was discharged 10 d after surgery.

CONCLUSION

This case illustrates that careful positioning of the surgeon can facilitate laparoscopic surgery of SIT patients.

Comparison of clinical efficacy of single-incision and traditional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies

Background

Single-incision laparoscopy surgery (SILS) is a new laparoscopic technique that has emerged in the past decade. Whether it has advantages over conventionl laparoscopy surgery (CLS) is inconclusive. This article aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer through high-quality literature text mining and meta-analysis.

Methods

Relevant articles were searched on the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from January 2012 to November 2021. All data was from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in order to increase the confidence of the analytical results.The main outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative complications.

Results

A total of 10 RCTs were included, involving 1609 patients. The quality of the included studies was generally high. No significant difference was found between SILS and CLS in the postoperative complications, operation time, postoperative hospital stay, number of lymph nodes removed, readmission, reoperation, complication level I- II, complication level IIIa, complication level IIIb, prolonged Ileus, blood loss, infection, anastomotic leakage and operation time. The results showed that SILS group had a higher rate of intraoperative complications, but it had lower incision length and better cosmetic effects.

Conclusion

These results indicate that SILS did not have a comprehensive and obvious advantage over the CLS. On the contrary, SILS has higher intraoperative complications, which may be related to the more difficulty of SILS operation, but SILS still has better cosmetic effects, which is in line with the concept of surgical development. Therefore, the SILS needs to be selected in patients with higher cosmetic requirements and performed by more experienced surgeons.

Single-Incision Pediatric Laparoscopic Surgery: Surgical Outcomes, Feasibility Indication, and the Systematic Review

Background: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILs) has reported the evidence in basic and advanced pediatric laparoscopy. The objective was to review the feasibility and outcomes between basic and advanced procedures of the conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLs) and the SILs at our institute, and to compare the results with the published studies in a systematic review and meta-analysis. Patients and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted from January 2017 to March 2020. Demographic data, operations, conversion rate, and complications were collected and analyzed. The MEDLINE and PubMed were searched in relation to the pediatric SILs and the pediatric CLs in the published series from 1985 to 2021. We combined our retrospective study with a systematic review for meta-analysis. Results: Two hundred twenty-seven patients underwent pediatric laparoscopic surgery during the study period. The procedures included 199 (87.7%) for basic laparoscopy (appendectomy, cholecystectomy, testicular vessel ligation, closure of indirect inguinal hernia, and hydrocele) and 28 (13.3%) for advanced laparoscopy (Meckel diverticulectomy, pull-through operation for Hirschsprung's disease, choledochal cyst excision, and Nissen fundoplication). There was no statistical significance in operative time, length of stay (LOS), conversion rate, recurrence, and complication. The systematic review demonstrated 19 studies and, combined with our present study, produced 2865 patients for analysis. The meta-analysis reported increased LOS in the SILs group in cholecystectomy (mean difference [MD] 0.23 day, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.02-0.43 day, P = .03 and I² = 0%) and choledochal cyst excision (MD 0.18 day, 95% CI 0.02-0.33 day, P = .03 and I² = 0%). There was no statistical difference in operative time, LOS, conversion, and complication in other procedures. Conclusion: The SILs is a feasible indication and safe for surgical pediatric laparoscopy including basic to advanced procedure laparoscopy. It is demonstrated that there were no statistical differences in the operative time, LOS, and the complication. However, LOS in some procedures seems to be different due to the complexity and guideline.

Incidence and risk factors for umbilical incisional hernia after reduced port colorectal surgery (SIL + 1 additional port)-is an umbilical midline approach really a problem?

PURPOSE

Umbilical midline incisions for single incision- or reduced port laparoscopic surgery are still discussed controversially because of a higher rate of incisional hernia compared to conventional laparoscopic techniques. The aim of this study was to evaluate incidence and risk factors for incisional hernia after reduced port colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A total 241 patients underwent elective reduced port colorectal surgery between 2014 and 2020. Follow-up was achieved through telephone interview or clinical examination. The study collective was examined using univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients with complete follow-up were included into this study. Mean follow-up time was 36 (IQR 24-50) months. The study collective consists of 77 (51.3%) female and 73 (48.7%) male patients with an average BMI of 26 kg/m² (IQR 23-28) and an average age of 61 (± 14). Indication for surgery was diverticulitis in 55 (36.6%) cases, colorectal cancer in 65 (43.3%) patients, and other benign reasons in 30 (20.0%) cases. An incisional hernia was observed 9 times (6.0%). Obesity (OR 5.8, 95% CI 1.5-23.1, p = 0.02) and pre-existent umbilical hernia (OR 161.0, 95% CI 23.1-1124.5, p < 0.01) were significant risk factors for incisional hernia in the univariate analysis. Furthermore, pre-existent hernia is shown to be a risk factor also in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

We could demonstrate that reduced port colorectal surgery using an umbilical single port access is feasible and safe with a low rate of incisional hernia. Obesity and pre-existing umbilical hernia are significant risk factors for incisional hernia.

Analogies between medusa and single port surgery in gastroenterology and hepatology: A review

Single port surgery (SPS) was introduced as an attractive, minimally invasive surgical technique that ensures esthetic results for many types of visceral surgery. Initially, surgeons immediately set about performing SPS without preliminary knowledge or training, which resulted in higher complication rates. Today, current studies conclusively show that SPS is scientifically rehabilitated and indicated for simple and complex laparoscopic procedures. We here describe the astonishing analogies between Greek mythology and modern surgery.

Single-Incision vs. Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: An Update of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Although the advantages of single-incision laparoscopic surgery have been reported in several meta-analyses, the low quality of studies included in the meta-analyses limits the reliability of such a conclusion. In recent years, the number of randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of SILS in colorectal cancer has been on the rise. This update systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs aims to compare efficacy and safety of SILS and CLS in the patients with colorectal cancer. Methods: Relevant data was searched on the CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, Sinomed, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases from inception until February 5th, 2021. All RCTs comparing SILS and CLS were included. The main outcomes were 30 days of mortality, postoperative complications, intraoperative complications, whereas secondary outcomes were the number of lymph nodes removed, duration of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, abdominal incision length, reoperation, readmission, conversion to laparotomy, operation time and anastomotic leakage. Results: A total of 10 RCTs were included, involving 1,133 participants. The quality of the included studies was generally high. No significant difference was found between SILS and CLS in the 30 days mortality rate. The results showed that SILS group had a lower rate of postoperative complications (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.49-0.92), higher rate of intraoperative complications (RR = 2.26, 95%CI: 1.00-5.10), shorter length of abdominal incision (MD = -2.01, 95% CI:-2.42-1.61) (cm), longer operation time (MD = 11.90, 95% CI: 5.37-18.43) (minutes), shorter hospital stay (MD = -1.12, 95% CI: -1.89-0.34) (days) compared with CLS group. However, intraoperative blood loss (MD = -8.23, 95% CI: -16.75-0.29) (mL), number of lymph nodes removed (MD = -0.17, 95% CI: -0.79-0.45), conversion to laparotomy (RR=1.31, 95% CI: 0.48-3.60), reoperation (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.30-3.33) and readmission (RR =1.15, 95% CI: 0.12-10.83) and anastomotic leakage were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion: These results indicate that SILS did not has a comprehensive and obvious advantage over the CLS. Surgeons and patients should carefully weigh the pros and cons of the two surgical procedures. Further RCTs are needed to prove long-term outcomes of SILS in colorectal cancer.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Studies find similar perioperative outcomes between single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colon cancer. However, few have reported long-term outcomes of SILS versus CLS. We aimed to compare long-term postoperative and oncologic outcomes as well as perioperative outcomes between SILS and CLS for colon cancer.

METHODS

A total of 641 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer from July 2009 to September 2014 were eligible for the study. Data from 300 of these patients were used for analysis after propensity score-matching (n = 150 per group). Variables associated with short- and long-term outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

The SILS group had a shorter mean total incision length, less postoperative pain, and a similar mean rate of incisional hernia (2.7% versus 3.3%) compared with the CLS group. The 7-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 92.7% versus 94% (p = 0.673) and 85.3% versus 84.7% (p = 0.688) in the SILS and CLS groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CLS, SILS for colon cancer appeared to be safe in terms of perioperative and long-term postoperative and oncologic outcomes. The results suggested that SILS is a reasonable treatment option for colon cancer for a selected group of patients.

Long-term Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Single-incision Versus Multi-port Laparoscopic Colectomy for Colon Cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes that were the secondary endpoints of a RCT of multi-port laparoscopic colectomy (MPC) versus SILC in colon cancer surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The actual long-term outcomes, such as the 5-year RFS, OS, and recurrence patterns after surgery, have not been evaluated by a RCT.

METHODS

Patients with histologically proven colon carcinoma located in the cecum, ascending, sigmoid or rectosigmoid colon clinically diagnosed as stage 0-III were eligible for this study. Patients were preoperatively randomized and underwent complete mesocolic excision. The 5-year RFS, OS, and recurrence patterns were analyzed (UMIN-CTR 000007220).

RESULTS

Between March 1, 2012, and March 31, 2015, a total of 200 patients were randomly assigned to either the MPC arm (n = 100) or SILC arm (n = 100). The median follow-up for all patients was 61.0 months. An intention-to-treat analysis showed that the 5-year RFS was 91.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 85.1%-96.9%] in the MPC arm and 88.0% (95% CI 82.1%-93.9%) in the SILC arm (hazard ratio: 1.37; 95% CI 0.58-3.24; P = 0.479). The 5-year OS was 95.0% (95% CI 91.1%-98.9%) in the MPC arm and 93.0% (87.1%-98.9%) in the SILC arm (hazard ratio: 1.39; 95% CI 0.44-4.39; P = 0.568). There were no significant differences in the recurrence patterns between the 2 arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though the results of the 5-year OS and RFS in this trial were exploratory and underpowered, there were no statistically significant differences between the SILC and MPC arms. SILC may be an acceptable treatment option for select patients with colon cancer.

Steerable Surgical Instrument for Conventional and Single-Site Minimally Invasive Surgery

Background. This article aims to present an innovative design of a steerable surgical instrument for conventional and single-site minimally invasive surgery (MIS), which improves the dexterity and maneuverability of the surgeon while offering a solution to the limitations of current tools. Methods. The steerable MIS instrument consists of a deflection structure with a curved sliding joints design that articulates the distal tip in two additional degrees of freedom (DoFs), relative to the instrument shaft, using transmission by cables. A passive ball-joint mechanism articulates the handle relative to the instrument shaft, improves wrist posture, and prevents collision of instrument handles during single-site MIS procedures. The two additional DoFs of the articulating tip are activated by a thumb-controlled device, using a joystick design mounted on the handle. This steerable MIS instrument was developed by additive manufacturing in a 3D printer using PLA polymer. Results. Prototype testing showed a maximum tip deflection of 60° in the left and right directions, with a total deflection of 120°. With the passive ball-joint fully offset, the steerable tip achieved a deflection of 90° for the right and 40° for the left direction, with a total deflection of 130°. Furthermore, the passive ball-joint mechanism in the handle obtained a maximum range of motion of 60°. Conclusions. This steerable MIS instrument concept offers an alternative to enhance the application fields of conventional and single-site MIS, increasing manual dexterity of the surgeon and the ability to reach narrow anatomies from other directions.

Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies

PURPOSE

To compare single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and multiport laparoscopic surgery (MLS) for colorectal cancer in terms of short- and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies comparing SILS and MLS for colorectal cancer were enrolled. Outcomes of interests included intraoperative, postoperative, pathological, and survival outcomes.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies (6 RCTs and 10 PSM studies) published between 2012 and 2020 with a total of 2425 patients were enrolled. Compared with MLS, SILS was associated with less postoperative pain at postoperative day (POD) 1 (P = 0.02, MWD = -0.73, 95%CI: -1.37, -0.09) and POD2 (P < 0.001, MWD= -1.10, 95%CI: -1.45, -0.74) and shorter length of total incision length (P < 0.001, MWD = -3.31, 95%CI: -3.95, -2.67). No differences were observed in terms of operative time, blood loss, intraoperative and postoperative complications, incision hernia, and pathological or survival outcomes between SILS and MLS. Subgroup analysis for right-sided colon cancer, sigmoid colon cancer, and rectosigmoid colon cancer showed that the SILS group was only associated with less postoperative pain and shorter total incision length. The surgical and pathological outcomes were comparable between SILS and MLS.

CONCLUSIONS

SILS is a beneficial alternative to MLS in select colorectal cancer patients, especially for right-sided colon cancer, sigmoid colon cancer, and rectosigmoid cancer, with better cosmetic effects and less postoperative pain. Simultaneously, SILS does not compromise intraoperative and postoperative complications, surgical quality, or long-term outcomes.

Comparison of Survival between Single-Access and Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery in Rectal Cancer

Introduction

Innovative laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer can be classified into 2 types: firstly, new instruments such as robotic surgery and secondly, new technique such as single-access laparoscopic surgery (SALS) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). Most reports of SALS for rectal cancer have shown pathologic outcomes comparable to those of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS); however, SALS is considered to be superior to CLS in terms of lower levels of discomfort and faster recovery rates. This study aimed to compare the survival outcomes of the two approaches.

Methods

From 2011 to 2014, 84 cases of adenocarcinoma of the rectum and anal canal were enrolled. The operations were anterior, low anterior, intersphincteric, and abdominoperineal resections. Data collected included postoperative outcomes. The oncological outcomes recorded included 3-year and 5-year survival, local recurrence, and metastasis.

Results

SALS was performed on 41 patients, and CLS was utilized in 43 cases. The demographic data of the two groups were similar. Intraoperative volumes of blood loss and conversion rates were similar, but operative time was longer in the SALS group. There were no significant differences in postoperative complications or pathological outcomes. The oncologic results were similar in terms of 3-year survival (100% and 97.7%; p = 1.00), 5-year survival (78.0% and 86.0%; p = 0.401), local recurrence rates (19.5% vs 11.6%, p = 0.376), and metastasis rates (19.5% vs 11.6%; p = 0.376) for SALS and CLS, respectively.

Conclusion

SALS and CLS for rectal and anal cancer had comparable pathological and survival results, but SALS showed some superior benefits in the early postoperative period.

Long-term outcomes of single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer: results of a propensity score-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) for colon cancer (CC), as practiced in real-world settings, especially in relation to disease stage, have not been established. We examined, retrospectively, both short- and long-term outcomes of SILC versus those of multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MPLC) performed for CC in a propensity-score-matched cohort.

METHODS

The study involved 263 patient pairs matched 1:1 from among 691 patients who, between January 2008 and May 2014, underwent either SILC or MPLC for a primary solitary CC at our hospital. Short-term and long-term operative outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Operation time was the only surgical outcome that varied significantly between the two groups (p = 0.0004). Overall 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) in the SILC group was 93.7 (95% CI 89.6-96.2)%, and CSS per pathological stage (I, II and III) was 98.5 (90.0-99.8)%, 96.0 (88.2-98.7)%, and 88.3 (79.6-93.6)%, respectively, whereas overall 5-year CSS in the MPLC group was 93.3 (89.4-95.9)%, and CSS per pathological stage was 100%, 95.4 (88.3-98.3)%, and 84.1 (74.1-90.8)% (p = 0.5278, 0.2679, 0.7666, and 0.9073), respectively. Overall 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) in the SILC group was 94.0 (90.2-96.4)%, and 3-year DFS per pathological stage was 98.6 (90.4-99.8)%, 90.1 (81.4-95.0)%, and 79.0 (69.4-86.2)%, respectively, whereas overall 3-year DFS in the MPLC group was 93.2 (89.4-95.7)%, and 3-year DFS per pathological disease stage was 100%, 94.5 (87.4-97.7)% and 75.5 (64.7-83.8)% (p = 0.2829, 0.7401, 0.4335 and 0.8518), respectively. Thus, oncological outcomes did not differ significantly between groups. Incisional hernia occurred in 21 (8.0%) SILC group patients and 17 (6.5%) MPLC group patients, without a significant between-group difference (p = 0.6139).

CONCLUSION

Our data indicate that perioperative and oncological outcomes of SILC performed for CC are comparable to those of MPLC performed for CC.

Single incision laparoscopic abdominal surgeries: case series of 155 various procedures, an observational cohort study

Objectives

Over the last decade, surgeons have started to think of the ways in which to further reduce the trauma of surgery and improve cosmesis. Consequently, many surgeons have yielded to single incision laparoscopic surgeries (SILS) in order to maximize operative and postoperative outcomes. This study aimed to highlight the feasibility and challenges of different procedures by presenting our data about different fields of abdominal SILS practices with long term follow-up.

Material and Methods

We retrospectively analysed an observational cohort of 155 patients who underwent surgery for different indications using the SILS technique.

Results

Of the 155 SILS procedures: 75 (48.4%) were cholecystectomies; 22 (14.2%) were splenectomies; 17 (11%) were hernia repairs; 11 (7.1%) were appendectomies; 8 (5.2%) were partial colon resections; 8 (5.2%) were adrenalectomies; 6 (3.8%) were distal pancreatectomy & splenectomies; 3 (1.9%) were subtotal gastrectomies; 3 (1.9%) were partial liver resections; and 2 (1.3%) were Nissen fundoplications. Ten (6.5%) early and 3 (1.9%) late postoperative complications were detected. No mortality or late morbidity (> 30 days) was detected due to SILS procedures.

Conclusion

SILS is a feasible technique in experienced hands for specific procedures. Meticulous patient selection is also important for good cosmetic results and outcomes.

Course of the thoracic nerves around the umbilicus within the posterior layer of the rectus sheath: a cadaver study

Rectus sheath block is used to anesthetize thoracic nerves around the umbilicus. However, the appropriate point for anesthetic injection during rectus sheath block has not been determined anatomically. Here, we examined the course of thoracic nerve T10 at the posterior layer of the rectus sheath and the anatomical relationship between the nerve and the rectus abdominis and transversus abdominis muscles in formalin-fixed adult cadavers. The cranio-caudal distance from a horizontal line running through the umbilicus to where the thoracic nerve T10 passes through the posterior layer of the rectus sheath was 33.8 ± 14.4 (mean ± standard deviation) mm, while that from the horizontal line running through the umbilicus to the position where the lateral edge of the rectus abdominis muscle and the medial border of the transversus abdominis muscle cross was 33.1 ± 17.1 mm. The position where the lateral edge of the rectus abdominis muscle and the medial border of the transversus abdominis muscle cross approximates the position where thoracic nerves T10 passes through the posterior layer of the rectus sheath. Our results identify effective landmarks to guide the performance of rectus sheath block.

Hernia incidence following a randomized clinical trial of single-incision versus multi-port laparoscopic colectomy

BACKGROUND

The short-term results of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) showed the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness when performed by skilled laparoscopic surgeons. However, the long-term complications, such as SILC-associated incisional hernia, have not been evaluated. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of incisional hernia after SILC compared with multi-port laparoscopic colectomy (MPC) for colon cancer.

METHODS

From March 2012, to March 2015, a total of 200 patients were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomized to the MPC arm and SILC arm. A total of 200 patients (MPC arm; 100 patients, SILC arm; 100 patients) were therefore analyzed. In all cases the specimen was extracted through the umbilical port, which was extended according to the size of the specimen. A diagnosis of incisional hernia was made either based on a physical examination or computed tomography.

RESULTS

The baseline factors were well balanced between the arms. The median follow-up period was 42.4 (range 9.4-70.0) months. Twenty-one patients were diagnosed with incisional hernia, giving an incidence rate of 12.1% in the MPC arm and 9.0% in the SILC arm at 36 months (P = 0.451). In the multivariate analysis, the body mass index (≥ 25 kg/m²) (hazard ratio [HR] 3.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-8.92; P = 0.044), umbilical incision (≥ 5.0 cm) (HR 3.22; 95% CI 1.16-8.93; P = 0.025), and history of umbilical hernia (HR 3.16; 95% CI 1.02-9.77; P = 0.045) were shown to be correlated with incisional hernia.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no significant difference in the incidence of incisional hernia after SILC arm versus MPC arm with a long-term follow-up. However, this result may be biased because all specimens were harvested through the umbilical port. The study was registered with the Japanese Clinical Trials Registry as UMIN000007220.

Clinical and oncological outcomes of single-incision vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the clinical and oncological outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for patients with rectal cancer (RC) who underwent total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case-control study of patients with RC operated between 12/2013 and 12/2017 in Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine. In total, 177 patients who underwent CLS and 51 who underwent SILS met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching method (PSM).

RESULTS

Compared with the CLS group, the SILS group showed shorter operation time [105 (40) vs. 125 (55) min, P = 0.045], shorter total incision length [4 (1) vs. 6.5 (1.5) cm, P < 0.001], lower VAS score on POD2 [1 (1) vs. 2 (1), P < 0.001], shorter time to soft diet [7 (1) vs. 8 (2) days, P = 0.048], and shorter length of hospital stay [9 (2) vs. 11 (3) days, P < 0.001]. The postoperative complications were similar between two groups [1(2%) vs. 5 (9.8%), P = 0.205]. No readmissions or mortality in either group occurred within 30 days of surgery. All 102 specimens met the requirements of TME. No significant differences were observed in the pathologic outcomes between the two groups. The median follow-up period was 32.6 months in the SILS group and 36.8 months in the CLS group (P = 0.053). The 3-year disease-free survival rates and overall survival rates of the SILS and CLS groups were 89.8% vs. 96.0% (P = 0.224) and 90.9% vs. 96.9% (P = 0.146), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CLS, TME surgery for rectal cancer can be performed safely and effectively using the SILS technique with better cosmetic results, less postoperative pain, faster postoperative recovery, and acceptable clinical and oncological outcomes.

Endoscopic Transoral Hybrid Supracricoid Partial Laryngectomy with Cricohyoidoepiglottopexy

Objectives:

The hybrid supracricoid partial laryngectomy with cricohyoidoepiglottopexy (SCPL-CHEP, that is, open partial horizontal laryngectomies OPHL Type IIa) has been described using a flexible next generation robotic surgical platform for manipulation. We sought to evaluate the feasibility of performing this procedure using endoscopic transoral (EndoT) surgical techniques without robotics.

Methods:

Preclinical cadaveric study using two human cadavers. Hybrid SCPL-CHEP was performed with a flexible endoscope for visualization and hand-held instruments for manipulation (SILS Hook monopolar and Dissect, HAVAS LaryngoFIT malleable straight jaw instruments, and Stratafix 4-0 spiral knotless barbed suture).

Results:

EndoT hybrid SCPL-CHEP was successfully performed. The hand-manipulated rigid instruments allowed for transoral incisions and mucosal suturing. We provide the procedural steps of EndoT hybrid techniques.

Conclusions:

EndoT hybrid SCPL-CHEP was technically feasible in the preclinical cadaveric laboratory setting and appeared comparable to the hybrid SCPL-CHEP via transoral robotic surgery (TORS). Selected handheld instruments and flexible endoscopy appear to facilitate minimally invasive surgery of the larynx. This novel procedure and technique warrant further clinical study for consideration of feasibility, applicability, and patient benefit.

Single-incision Laparoscopy Versus Multiport Laparoscopy for Colonic Surgery: A Multicenter, Double-blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcome of single-port laparoscopy (SPL) and multiport laparoscopy (MPL) laparoscopy for colonic surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Benefits of SPL over MPL are yet to be demonstrated in large randomized trials.

METHODS

In this prospective, double-blinded, superiority trial, patients undergoing laparoscopic colonic resection for benign or malignant disease were randomly assigned to SPL or MPL (NCT01959087). Primary outcome was length of theoretical hospital stay (LHS).

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-eight patients were randomized and 125 analyzed: 62 SPL and 63 MPL, including 91 right (SPL: n = 44, 71%; MPL: n = 47, 75%) and 34 left (SPL: n = 18, 29%; MPL: n = 16, 25%) colectomies, performed for Crohn disease (n = 53, 42%), cancer (n = 36, 29%), diverticulitis (n = 21, 17%), or benign neoplasia (n = 15, 12%). Additional port insertion was required in 5 (8%) SPL patients and conversion to laparotomy occurred in 7 patients (SPL: n = 3, 5%; MPL: n = 4, 7%; P = 1.000). Total length of skin incision was significantly shorter in the SPL group [SPL: 56 ± 41 (range, 30-300) mm; MPL: 87 ± 40 (50-250) mm; P < 0.001]. Procedure duration, intraoperative complication rate, postoperative 30-day morbidity, postoperative pain, and time to first bowel movement were similar between the groups, leading to similar theoretical LHS (SPL: 6 ± 3 days; MPL: 6 ± 2; P = 0.298). At 6 months, quality of life was similar between groups, but patients from the SPL group were significantly more satisfied with their scar aspect than patients from the MPL group (P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

SPL colectomy does not confer any additional benefit other than cosmetic result, as compared to MPL.

Short-term and midterm outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for right-sided colon cancer

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to clarify the usefulness of SILS for right-sided colon cancer by evaluating the short-term and midterm outcomes.

METHODS

Between 2012 and 2017, 65 selected patients with right-sided colon cancer underwent ileocecal resection, right hemicolectomy, or transverse colectomy; all were enrolled in the study. The same well-trained surgeon performed each procedure by using a multi-instrument access port with three channels, which was placed at the umbilicus via an approximately 3-cm skin incision.

RESULTS

The pathological disease stage distribution was stage 0, 4 cases; stage I, 23 cases; stage II, 19 cases; stage III, 17 cases; and stage IV, 2 cases. The surgical procedures performed were ileocecal resection, 23 cases; right hemicolectomy, 35 cases; and transverse colectomy, 7 cases. The median operative time and intraoperative blood loss were 216 min and 10 mL, respectively. Although 18 cases needed additional ports, none required conversion to open surgery. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 24. No major perioperative morbidities occurred in this patient series. The median postoperative hospital stay was 7 days. The median follow-up period was 30 months, and the 3-year relapse-free and overall survival rates were 100% and 100%, respectively, in the stage 0-I cases and 89% and 96% in the stage II-III cases, respectively.

CONCLUSION

We concluded that SILS is as feasible as multiport laparoscopic surgery and a reliable surgical option in selected cases of right-sided colon cancer.

Comparison of Oncologic Outcomes in Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Non-Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Personal Experience in a Single Institution

The oncologic merits of the laparoscopic technique for colorectal cancer surgery remain debatable. Eligible patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer who were scheduled for an elective resection by one surgeon in a medical institution were randomized to either laparoscopic or open surgery. During this period, a total of 188 patients received laparoscopic surgery and the other 163 patients received the open approach. The primary endpoint was cancer-free five-year survival after operative treatment, and the secondary endpoint was the tumor recurrence incidence. Besides, surgical complications were also compared. There was no statistically significant difference between open and laparoscopic groups regarding the average number of lymph nodes dissected, ileus, anastomosis leakage, overall mortality rate, cancer recurrence rate, or cancer-free five-year survival. Even though performing a laparoscopic approach used a significantly longer operation time, this technique was more effective for colorectal cancer treatment in terms of shorter hospital stay and less blood loss. Meanwhile, fewer patients receiving the laparoscopic approach developed postoperative urinary tract infection, wound infection, or pneumonia, which reached statistical significance. For non-metastatic colorectal cancer patients, laparoscopic surgery resulted in better short-term outcomes, whether in several surgical complications and intra-operative blood loss. Though there was no significant statistical difference in terms of cancer-free five-year survival and tumor recurrence, it is strongly recommended that patients undergo laparoscopic surgery if not contraindicated.

Single incision laparoscopic surgery from a caribbean perspective

Conventional laparoscopy with multiple ports has recently gained a strong foothold in the Caribbean, but single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has lagged behind. In this paper, we compare the data on SILS and conventional multi-port laparoscopy in the English-speaking Caribbean.

Outcome Comparison of Single-port Versus Multiport Versus Under Direct View Completion Proctectomy With Ileal-Pouch Anal Anastomosis for Patients With Ulcerative Colitis

PURPOSE

Whether the reported theoretical benefits of single-port laparoscopic (SPL) approach can be converted to superior clinical outcomes is still unknown for ulcerative colitis (UC) patients undergoing second-stage proctectomy. This study aimed to compare the short-term postoperative and long-term pouch-related functional outcomes of SPL, multiport laparoscopic (MPL), and direct view (DV) completion proctectomy with ileal-pouch anal anastomosis (CP/IPAA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent either SPL, MPL, or under DV CP/IPAA for UC between August 2009 and August 2014 were identified from an institutional review board-approved, prospectively maintained institutional database and reviewed. Demographics, patient characteristics, short-term and long-term complications, and morbidity were compared between the 3 groups. Multivariate logistic or Cox regression analysis was conducted for covariate adjustments.

RESULTS

Groups (SPL: n=36; MPL: n=67; DV: n=97) were comparable in terms of preoperative characteristics and demographics except for age. The SPL group was associated with reduced estimated blood loss, reduced length of stay compared with the MPL and DV groups, and shorter operating time compared with the MPL group (P<0.001). Similar short-term postoperative and long-term pouch-related functional outcomes were noted without significant differences in quality of life scores among the 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SPL CP/IPAA for UC can be safely performed with superior short-term outcomes such as reduced intraoperative blood loss and length of hospital stay compared with MPL and under direct view approaches, and shorter operating time compared with MPL.

Clinical impact of single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal resection for advanced colon cancer: propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy has become an acceptable treatment for right-sided colon cancer. Most centers use multiport laparoscopic right hemicolectomy extracorporeally (MRHE), whereas single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy intracorporeally (SRHI) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare these two techniques using propensity score matching analysis.

METHODS

We analyzed the data from 111 patients who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy between December 2015 and December 2016. The propensity score was calculated according to age, gender, body mass index, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score, previous abdominal surgery, and D3 lymph node dissection. Postoperative pain was evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and postoperative analgesic use was an outcome measure.

RESULTS

The length of skin incision in SRHI was significantly shorter than in MRHE [3 (3.5-6) versus 4 (3-6) cm, respectively; P = 0.007]. The VAS score on day 1 and day 2 after surgery was significantly less in SRHI than in MRHE [30 (10-50) versus 50 (20-69) on day 1, P = 0.037; 10 (0-50) versus 30 (0-70) on day 2, P = 0.029]. Significantly fewer patients required analgesia after SRHI on day 1 and day 2 after surgery [1 (0-3) versus 2 (0-4) on day 1, P = 0.024; 1 (0-2) versus 1 (0-4) on day 2, P = 0.035]. There were no significant differences in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph nodes removed, and postoperative course between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SRHI appears to be safe and technically feasible. Moreover, SRHI reduces the length of the skin incision and postoperative pain compared with MRHE.

Retrospective case-matched study between reduced port laparoscopic rectopexy and conventional laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse

Introduction:

Reduced port laparoscopic Well's procedure (RPLWP) is a novel technique used to overcome the limitations of single-incision laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between RPLWP and conventional laparoscopic Well's procedure (CLWP) and to investigate the learning curve of RPLWP.

Patients and Methods:

From January 2006 to March 2017, a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained laparoscopic surgery database was performed to identify patients had undergone CLWP and RPLWP. From these patients, each of 10 cases were manually matched for age, sex, body mass index. From January 2006 to March 2015, CLWP was used for all procedures whereas, from April 2015, RPLWP was routinely performed as a standard procedure for rectal prolapse.

Results:

No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of operating time, blood loss, intraoperative complications, and conversion to CLWP or open rectopexy. Based on the postoperative outcomes, the hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RPLWP group. The estimated learning curve for RPLWP was fitted and defined as y = 278.47^e-0.064x with R²= 0.838; therefore, a significant decrease in operative time was observed by using the more advanced surgical procedure.

Conclusions:

RPLWP is an effective, safe, minimally invasive procedural alternative to CLWP with no disadvantage for patients when a skilled surgeon performs it.

Clinical and oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for right colon cancer: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for right colon cancer is going to be considered as a new option. The potential benefits, clinical, and oncologic outcomes are still controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate clinical and oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for right colon cancer using propensity score matching analysis.

METHODS

From December 2013 to June 2017, 174 patients underwent laparoscopic radical right hemicolectomy through a single-incision (n = 32) or a conventional (n = 142) approach. The data were prospectively collected and the patients were matched at a radio of 1:1 according to age, sex, body mass index (BMI), previous abdominal surgeries, comorbidities, ASA score (≤ 2/> 2), and pathologic stage.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in estimated blood loss, time to diet, postoperative pain score, length of hospital stay between the SILS and CLS groups. However, the SILS group showed longer operation time (175 (40) vs 145 (52.5), p = 0.011) and shorter incision length (4 (1.4) vs 7 (1.9), p < 0.001). There were 2 (6.3%) postoperative complications in the SILS group and 5 (15.6%) in the CLS group (p = 0.426). The pathologic outcomes were similar between two groups. The median follow-up period was 26.5 months in the SILS group and 34.9 months in the CLS group (p = 0.002). There were 3 recurrences (9.4%) in the SILS group and 3 (9.4%) in the CLS group. The 3-year disease-free survival rates were 92.4 and 93.8% (p = 0.984), and overall survival rates were 92.3 and 93.0% (p = 0.884) in the SILS and the CLS groups, respectively. No incisional hernia was observed during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Though single-incision laparoscopic surgery for right colon cancer showed longer operation time in this study, it appears to be a safe and feasible option with comparable clinical and oncologic outcomes to conventional laparoscopic surgery.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials only exploring the role of single incision laparoscopic surgery versus conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery for colorectal resections

Background

The objective of this article is to evaluate the surgical outcomes in patients undergoing single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) versus conventional multi-incision laparoscopic surgery (MILS) for colorectal resections.

Methods

The data retrieved from the published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the surgical outcomes in patients undergoing SILS versus MILS for colorectal resections was analysed using the principles of meta-analysis. The combined outcome of dichotomous data was represented as risk ratio (RR) and continuous data was shown as standardized mean difference (SMD).

Results

Five RCTs on 525 patients reported the colorectal resections by SILS versus MILS technique. In the random effects model analysis using the statistical software Review Manager 5.3, the operation time (SMD, 0.20; 95% CI, -0.11 to 0.52; z=1.28; P=0.20), length of in-patient stay (SMD, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.51 to 0.14; z=1.10; P=0.27) and lymph node harvesting (SMD, 0.09; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.33; z=0.76; P=0.45) were comparable between both techniques. Furthermore, post-operative complications (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.65-1.54; z=0.02; P=0.99), post-operative mortality, surgical site infection rate (RR, 3.00; 95% CI, 0.13-70.92; z=0.68; P=0.50), anastomotic leak rate (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.11-1.63; z=1.24; P=0.21), conversion rate (P=0.13) and re-operation rate (P=0.43) were also statistically similar following SILS and MILS.

Conclusions

SILS failed to demonstrate any superiority over MILS for colorectal resections in all post-operative surgical outcomes.

Single-incision laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic right colectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery has gained widespread attention because of its potential benefits such as less skin incision and faster recovery. Up to now, only one meta-analysis (performed in 2013; including 9 studies, a total of 585 cases) compared single-incision laparoscopic right colectomy (SILRC) with conventional laparoscopic right colectomy (CLRC). An updated meta-analysis was undertaken to explore more convinced comparative findings between SILRC and CLRC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The search for studies that compared SILRC with CLRC was done on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. A total of 17 studies (including 1778 cases) were identified, the data of appointed outcomes were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

Patient demographics (age, gender, body mass index and previous abdominal operation) did not differ significantly. No significant differences were found between SILRC and CLRC in operative time, conversion, reoperation, perioperative complications, postoperative mortality, and 30-days readmission. Pathological outcomes, including lymph nodes harvested, proximal resection margin, and distal resection margin, were similar. SILRC showed less estimated blood loss (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -15.67 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -24.36 to -6.98; p = 0.0004), less skin incisions (WMD: -1.56 cm; 95%CI, -2.63 to -0.49; p = 0.004) and shorter hospital stay (WMD: -0.73d; 95%CI, -1.04 to -0.41; p < 0.00001), without publication bias.

CONCLUSION

SILRC may provide a safe and feasible alternative to CLRC with similar short-term outcomes and aesthetic advantage of less skin incision. Well-designed randomized controlled trials, involving large cases and carrying long-term outcomes, are needed.

Single Port and Conventional Laparoscopy in Colorectal Surgery: Comparison of Two Techniques

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) was introduced to further the enhanced outcome of conventional multiport laparoscopy (CML). We compared their short- and long-term outcomes in colorectal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective review of patients who underwent elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery during 3-year period. Patients' data, surgery outcomes, and oncological results were compared.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients (33 male, 28 female), mean age 67.4 years, underwent laparoscopic colonic resections: 28 SILS and 33 CML. Twenty-three (37.7%) patients had previous abdominal surgery. There were 19 (31.2%) right, 9 (14.7%) left, and 2 (3.3%) total colectomies, 16 (26.2%) sigmoidectomies, 13 (21.3%) anterior and 2 (3.3%) abdominoperineal resections. Colonic malignancy was a main indication for the surgery in 51 (83.6%) patients. Mean surgery time and postoperative stay were 92.0 minutes and 9 days, respectively. Pathological examination revealed stage I colon cancer in 16 (32%), stage II in 22 (44%), stage III in 10 (20%), and stage IV in 2 (4%) patients. Mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was 19 ± 13.5. No differences were found between groups in demographic data, type of surgery, surgery time and hospital stay, pathological results and tumor staging, and disease-free and overall survivals. In the SILS group, placement of additional trocar was required in 7 (25%) and conversion in 3 (10.7%) cases compared with 1 (3%) case of conversion to formal laparotomy in the CML group. Overall postoperative morbidity was 16.4%. There was no mortality in both the groups. During the study period, 3 patients from the CML group had cancer recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

SILS is a feasible and safe technique compared with CML in terms of surgical and oncological outcomes.

Hybrid Single-Incision Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Surgery Using One Additional 5 mm Trocar

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a feasible and safe procedure for colorectal cancer. However, SILS has some technical limitations such as collision between instruments and inadequate countertraction. We present a hybrid single-incision laparoscopic surgery (hybrid SILS) technique for colon cancer that involves use of one additional 5 mm trocar.

METHODS

Hybrid SILS for colon cancer was attempted in 70 consecutive patients by a single surgeon between August 2014 and July 2016 at Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine. Using prospectively collected data, an observational study was performed on an intention-to-treat basis.

RESULTS

Hybrid SILS was technically completed in 66 patients, with a failure rate of 5.7% (4/70). One patient was converted to open surgery for para-aortic lymph node dissection. Another was converted to open surgery due to severe peritoneal adhesion. An additional trocar was inserted for adhesiolysis in the other two cases. Median lengths of proximal and distal margins were 12.8 cm (interquartile range [IQR], 10.0-18.6), and 8.2 cm (IQR, 5.5-18.3), respectively. Median total number of lymph nodes harvested was 24 (IQR, 18-33). Overall rate of postoperative morbidity was 12.9%, but there were no Clavien-Dindo grade III or IV complications. There was no postoperative mortality or reoperation. Median postoperative hospital stay was 6 days (IQR, 5-7).

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid SILS using one additional 5 mm trocar is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgical technique for colon cancer. Experienced laparoscopic surgeons can perform hybrid SILS without a learning curve based on the formulaic surgical techniques presented in this article.

Telemedicine broadening access to care for complex cases

BACKGROUND

Surgical and nonsurgical specialists are highly centralized, making access to high-quality care difficult for many Americans. We explored the feasibility, benefits, preliminary outcomes, and patient satisfaction with a new type of health visit, in which a surgical oncologist used video telecommunication to manage and treat complex cancer diseases, including patients with severe comorbidities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients visited local VA medical centers throughout Florida to engage in video telecommunication visits with a centralized surgical oncologist in Miami, who directed their oncology treatment. The average length of stay and rate of unplanned readmission were calculated within each organ. The total mileage saved was calculated by subtracting the distance between the patient's home address and the local VA from the distance between the patient's home address and the Miami VA. Travel costs were determined by the VA's reimbursement of $0.415/mile for health-related travel and reimbursement of $150.00 for an overnight hotel stay. A Likert scale with both positively and negatively keyed questions was used to assess patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

In 24 mo, seven unplanned readmissions occurred among 195 operations. Patients experienced an 80.7% reduction in travel distance and saved a total of 213,007.58 miles by visiting their local VA instead of the Miami VA. Survey results indicate that 86% of patients believed that the telemedicine program made medical care more accessible.

CONCLUSIONS

The Specialist-Directed Telemedicine Model can save patients substantial time and money by not traveling to centralized areas, while delivering greater continuity of care and patient satisfaction.