Colectomía mediante puerto único vs colectomía mediante laparoscopia multipuerto. Revisión sistemática y metaanálisis de más de 2.800 procedimientos

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of single-port versus multi-port robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

It is unknown whether the da Vinci single-port system performs similarly to the previous multi-port system during complicated procedures, such as rectal cancer surgery. Therefore, we compared the short-term clinical outcomes of single-port and multi-port robotic total mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study reviewed 128 patients who underwent robotic total mesorectal excision between July 2020 and June 2022, of whom 84 (42 each: single-port versus multi-port) were included in the propensity score-matched cohort. Perioperative and pathologic outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Median tumor height was similar between groups (single-port versus multi-port, 5.9 ± 2.1 vs 5.6 ± 1.8 cm, P = .719). Preoperative chemoradiotherapy was performed equally. The total operative time was less (160.0 ± 42.2 minutes vs 199.6 ± 78.6 minutes, P = .005), the total length of incision was shorter (4.0 ±0.3 vs 5.4 ± 0.7 cm, P = .003), postoperative hospital stay was shorter (6.2 ±1.7 vs 7.2 ±2.8 days, P = .050), and C-reactive protein levels on postoperative day 3 trended to be lower (7.3 ± 4.7 vs 8.9 ± 5.6 mg/L, P = .096) in the single-port group, compared with the multi-port group. Postoperative complications did not differ between groups (single-port versus multi-port, 11.9% vs 16.6%, P = .864). Anastomotic leakage occurred in 1 and 2 patients in the single-port and multi-port groups, respectively. The circumferential resection margins were positive in 1 patient in the multi-port group.

CONCLUSION

The perioperative outcomes of single-port robotic total mesorectal excision were comparable to those of multi-port robotic TME. The single-port robot can be considered a surgical option for treating rectal cancer.

Single-port versus multiport robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: initial experiences by case-matched analysis of short-term outcomes

Purpose

The da Vinci single-port (SP) system has been used in various surgical fields, including colorectal surgery. However, limited experience has been reported on its safety and feasibility. This study aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes of SP robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer compared with multiport (MP) robotic surgery.

Methods

Rectal cancer patients who underwent curative resection in 2020 were reviewed. A total of 43 patients underwent robotic total mesorectal excision (TME), of which 26 (13 in each group, SPTME vs. MPTME) were included in the case-matched cohort for analysis. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes and pathological results were compared between the 2 groups.

Results

Median tumor height was similar between the 2 groups (SPTME vs. MPTME: 5.9 cm [range, 2.2-9.6 cm] vs. 6.7 cm [range, 3.4-10.0 cm], P = 0.578). Preoperative chemoradiotherapy was equally performed (38.5%). The median estimated blood loss was less (20.0 mL [range, 5.0-20.0 mL] vs. 30.0 mL [range, 20.0-30.0 mL], P = 0.020) and the median hospital stay was shorter (7 days [range, 6-8 days] vs. 8 days [range, 7-9 days], P = 0.055) in the SPTME group. Postoperative complications did not differ (SPTME vs. MPTME: 7.7% vs. 23.1%, P = 0.587). One patient in the SPTME group and 3 in the MPTME group experienced anastomotic leakage.

Conclusion

SP robotic TME showed perioperative outcomes similar to MP robotic TME. The SP robotic system can be considered a surgical option for the treatment of rectal cancer. Further prospective randomized trials with larger cohorts are required.

Single-Port Robotic Intersphincteric Resection for the Treatment of Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci Single-port (SP) system is designed to facilitate single-incision robotic surgery in a narrow space. We developed a new procedure of intersphincteric resection (ISR) using the SP platform and evaluated the technical safety and feasibility of this procedure for the treatment of very low rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eleven rectal cancer patients who underwent SP robotic ISR between August 2020 and July 2021 were included. Patients' clinical characteristics, operative and pathologic findings of the patients were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

The median tumor height was 3 cm (range, 2-4 cm). A single docking was performed, and the median docking time was 3 min 10 sec (range, 2 min 50 sec-3 min 30 sec). The median total operation time was 210 min (range, 150-280 min), and the median time of pelvic dissection was 57 min (range, 45-68 min). All patients presented with negative distal resection margins [median 1 cm (range, 0.5-2.0 cm)], and only one patient had less than 1mm of circumferential resection margin (0.9 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

Our initial experience suggests that SP robotic ISR is safe and feasible.

Clinical outcomes of single incision laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis between well-experienced and novice surgeons

Background

Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a recent advancement in minimally invasive techniques for colorectal cancer (CRC). However, SILS is a technically challenging procedure for novice surgeons. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes of SILS for CRC performed by novice surgeons compared with those performed by well-experienced surgeons.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 1004 consecutive patients with stage I-IV CRC who underwent SILS between May 2009 and December 2018, using propensity score-matched analysis.

Results

After propensity score-matching, we enrolled 344 patients (n = 172 in each group). Before matching, significant group-dependent differences were observed in terms of age (P = 0.034) and tumor location (P < 0.001). After matching, preoperative clinical factors were similar between groups, but operative time was longer in the Novice group (213 vs 171 min, P < 0.001). Other operative factors and morbidity rates did not differ significantly between groups. The number of harvested lymph nodes was smaller in the Novice group (23 vs 25, P = 0.040), and the number of patients with lymph node metastases was smaller in the Novice group (57 vs 86, P = 0.002). The 3-year disease-free survival rate was 85.8% in the Novice group and 89.9% in the Experienced group (P = 0.512). Three-year overall survival rate was 92.2% in the Novice group and 90.0% in the Experienced group (P = 0.899).

Conclusion

SILS for CRC was safely performed by novice surgeons under the guidance of well-experienced surgeons, and could provide satisfactory oncological outcomes.

Splitting the imaging system from the laparoendoscopic single site surgery device in endoscopic uniportal surgery: ZEUS project

The use of a rigid tube endoscope (RTE) through a laparoendoscopic single site surgery device for intracavitary visualization during endoscopic uniportal surgery (EUS) is directly related to the fulcrum effect and physical competition (externally between surgeons and on instrumentation through the single port). These facts may have precluded a wider spread of EUS. In an attempt to separate the imaging system from the laparoendoscopic single site surgery device, a tiered project (3 models) that can help overcome these drawbacks is detailed. ZEUS1, a new non-RTE imaging system device for EUS was successfully tested in EUS surgery in a pig model. Still under investigation, ZEUS2 becomes a wired structure that serves as the basis for an endoscopic microcamera with intracavitary pan-tilt-zoom functions. ZEUS3 uses the inner ring of the surgical wound protector as a microchamber crown. Further studies are needed to materialize the ZEUS2 and ZEUS3 models and confirm their efficacy and safety.

Da Vinci SP robotic approach to colorectal surgery: two specific indications and short-term results

BACKGROUND

Da Vinci® Single Port (dvSP) was recently developed. Its application in colorectal surgery is under investigation. The aim of this study was to explore the safety and feasibility of dvSP for intersphincteric (dvSP-ISR), right colectomy (dvSP-RC), and transverse colectomy (dvSP-TC). Surgical indication and short-term results were analyzed.

METHODS

All consecutive patients from a prospective database of patients who underwent dvSP-ISR, dvSP-RC, and dvSP-TC at Korea University Anam Hospital from November 2020 to December 2021, were analyzed. Perioperative, pathological, and oncological short-term outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 7 dvSP-ISR, 5 dvSP-RC, and 1 dvSP-TC were performed. Median age was 56.0 (55.0-61.0) years for the dvSP-ISR and 54.0 (44.7-63.5) years for the dvSP-RC/TC. Median body mass index was 22.8 (17.1-24.8) kg/m² for the dvSP-ISR and 23.6 (20.8-26.9) kg/m² for the dvSP-RC/TC. All dvSP-ISR patients received neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiotherapy, including one patient with squamocellular carcinoma who was treated with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/mitomycin. All other patients, excluding one dvSP-RC patient with Crohn's disease, had an adenocarcinoma. Median operation time was 280 (240-370) minutes for the dvSP-ISR and 220 (201-270) minutes for the dvSP-RC/TC. Estimated blood loss was insignificant. No intraoperative complications or conversions to multiport/open surgery was reported. Median post-operative stay was 7.0 (6.0-10.0) days for the dvSP-ISR and 5.0 (4.0-6.7) days for the dvSP-RC/TC. Quality of mesorectum was complete for six patients, and nearly complete for one. Median number of retrieved lymph nodes were 21 (17-25) for the dvSP-ISR and 28 (24-49) for the dvSP-RC/TC. Proximal and distal resection margins were tumor free. Four patients experienced post-operative complications not related to the platform which were: ileus, voiding dysfunction, infected pelvic hematoma, and wound infection. Median follow-up was 9 (6-11) months and 11 (7-17) months for the dvSP-ISR and dvSP-RC/TC, respectively. Two patients had systemic recurrence; all others were tumor free.

CONCLUSIONS

The dvSP platform is safe and feasible for intersphincteric resection with right lower quadrant access, and right/transverse colectomy with suprapubic access. Further studies are needed to evaluate benefit differences compared to multiport robotic platform.

Three-Port with Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction versus Conventional Laparoscopic Anterior Resection for Rectal-Sigmoid Cancer: A Matched Pair Analysis

BACKGROUND

The conventional laparoscopic colorectal surgery requires four or more ports to accomplish the laparoscopic dissection, and a mini-laparotomy to remove the specimen, which is a main cause of postoperative pain and incision complications, and compromise the cosmetic results. Reduced port surgery and natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) surgery hold the promise to overcome these drawbacks. This study planned to compare peri-operative outcomes of patients with rectal-sigmoid cancer undergoing three-port laparoscopic anterior resection with NOSE (three-port NOSE LAR) to those of patients receiving conventional LAR.

METHODS

Twenty-five patients with rectal-sigmoid cancer underwent three-port NOSE LAR between December 2018 and October 2020. For comparison, 50 patients with rectal-sigmoid cancer underwent conventional LAR in the same period were matched. The peri-operative outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Operating time of three-port NOSE group was slightly longer than that of conventional group (135 min vs. 121 min, p = .147). The incision length of three-port NOSE group was shorter than that of conventional group (2.9 cm vs. 7.4 cm, p = .000). Complication rates in three-port NOSE group and conventional group were similar (12.0% vs. 20.0%, p = .524). The tumor size was smaller in three-port NOSE group than the conventional group (2.1 cm vs. 3.5 cm, p = .000). Pain score was lower in three-port NOSE group than the conventional group at postoperative day 1 (1.6 vs. 3.0, p = 0.045) and day 2 (0.2 vs. 2.1, p = .003). The BIQ score was significantly higher in the three-port NOSE group compared to the conventional group (42.9 ± 3.5 vs. 38.2 ± 2.5, p = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Three-port NOSE LAR for rectal-sigmoid cancer is feasible and provides similar peri-operative outcomes compared to conventional LAR. It reduces postoperative pain and produces better cosmesis.

Splitting the imaging system from the laparoendoscopic single site surgery device in endoscopic uniportal surgery: ZEUS project

The use of a rigid tube endoscope (RTE) through a laparoendoscopic single site surgery device for intracavitary visualization during endoscopic uniportal surgery (EUS) is directly related to the fulcrum effect and physical competition (externally between surgeons and on instrumentation through the single port). These facts may have precluded a wider spread of EUS. In an attempt to separate the imaging system from the laparoendoscopic single site surgery device, a tiered project (3 models) that can help overcome these drawbacks is detailed. ZEUS1, a new non-RTE imaging system device for EUS was successfully tested in EUS surgery in a pig model. Still under investigation, ZEUS2 becomes a wired structure that serves as the basis for an endoscopic microcamera with intracavitary pan-tilt-zoom functions. ZEUS3 uses the inner ring of the surgical wound protector as a microchamber crown. Further studies are needed to materialize the ZEUS2 and ZEUS3 models and confirm their efficacy and safety.

An initial experience with a novel technique of single-port robotic resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci single-port (SP) system is designed to facilitate single-incision robotic surgery in a narrow space. We developed a new procedure of rectal resection using this system. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the technical feasibility and safety of SP robotic rectal resection for rectal cancer patients based on our initial experience.

METHODS

A study was conducted on consecutive patients with mid or low rectal cancer who had SP robotic resection at our institution between July and September 2020. The demographic characteristics, perioperative data, and pathology results of the patients were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 5 patients (3 males, 2 females, median age 57 years (range 36-73 years). The median tumor height from the anal verge was 4 cm (range 3-5 cm). Two patients received preoperative chemoradiotherapy for advanced rectal cancer. A single docking was conducted, and the median docking time was 4 min 20 s (range 3 min 30 s to 5 min). The median total operation time was 195 min (range 155-240 min), and the median time of pelvic dissection was 45 min (range 36-62 min). All patients had circumferential and distal tumor-free resection margins. One patient experienced an anastomosis-related complication. The median duration of hospital stay was 7 days (range 7-8 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Our initial experience suggests that SP robotic rectal resection is safe and feasible. Further clinical trials comparing SP and multiport robotic rectal resection should be conducted to verify the superior aspects of this new system.

A learning curve in using organ retractor for single-incision laparoscopic right colectomy

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has the potential to improve perioperative outcomes, including less postoperative pain, shorter operation time, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay. However, SILS is technically difficult and needs a longer learning curve. Between April 2016 and September 2019, a total of 198 patients with clinical stage I/II right colon cancer underwent curative resection. In the case of the SILS approach, an organ retractor was usually used to overcome SILS-specific restrictions. The patients were divided into two groups by surgical approach: the SILS with organ retractor group (SILS-O, n = 33) and the conventional laparoscopic surgery group (LAC, n = 165). Clinical T status was significantly higher in the LAC group (p = 0.016). Operation time was shorter and blood loss was lower in the SILS-O group compared to the LAC group (117 vs. 197 min, p = 0.027; 10 vs. 25 mL, p = 0.024, respectively). In the SILS-O group, surgical outcomes including operation time, blood loss, number of retrieved lymph nodes, and postoperative complications were not significantly different between those performed by experts and by non-experts. Longer operation time (p = 0.041) was significantly associated with complications on univariate and multivariate analyses (odds ratio 2.514, 95%CI 1.047-6.035, p = 0.039). SILS-O was safe and feasible for right colon cancer. There is a potential to shorten the learning curve of SILS using an organ retractor.

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.

The comparison of health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction between single-incision and multiport laparoscopic colectomy for cancer: A sub-study of a randomized, prospective clinical trial

AIM

The present study clarified the effect on the health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy compared with multiport laparoscopic colectomy for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, randomized, control trial comparing single-incision and multiport laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer. We performed a pre-planned secondary analysis of health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction data of 200 patients. Health-related quality of life was evaluated using the Japanese 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) version 2.0 before surgery and at 1 month after surgery. Patient satisfaction was compared using seven questionnaires at 1 month after surgery.

RESULTS

One hundred patients were assigned to each group. After excluding 18 patients (9.0%) who did not complete the SF-36, 182 patients (91.0%) were included in the analysis (92 cases of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy and 90 cases of multiport laparoscopic colectomy). The SF-36 scores at 1 month after surgery were not significantly different between the two arms. The role physical, bodily pain, vitality and physical component summary were significantly lower at 1 month after surgery than before in both groups. However, the role emotional was significantly lower after surgery than before only in the single-incision laparoscopic colectomy group. In terms of patient satisfaction at 1 month after surgery, there were no significant differences in any of the seven items on the questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy was similar to multiport laparoscopic colectomy in terms of health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction. However, single-incision laparoscopic colectomy may be inferior than multiport laparoscopic colectomy in terms of the role emotional.

Role of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer

Rectal cancer is one of the most common malignancies worldwide. Surgical resection for rectal cancer usually requires a proctectomy with respective lymphadenectomy (total mesorectal excision). This has traditionally been performed transabdominally through an open incision. Over the last thirty years, minimally invasive surgery platforms have rapidly evolved with the goal to accomplish the same quality rectal resection through a less invasive approach. There are currently three resective modalities that complement the traditional open operation: (1) Laparoscopic surgery; (2) Robotic surgery; and (3) Transanal total mesorectal excision. In addition, there are several platforms to carry out transluminal local excisions (without lymphadenectomy). Evidence on the various modalities is of mixed to moderate quality. It is unreasonable to expect a randomized comparison of all options in a single trial. This review aims at reviewing in detail the various techniques in regard to intra-/perioperative benchmarks, recovery and complications, oncological and functional outcomes.

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.

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.

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 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.

Long-term Outcomes of Single-Site Laparoscopic Colectomy With Complete Mesocolic Excision for Colon Cancer: Comparison With Conventional Multiport Laparoscopic Colectomy Using Propensity Score Matching

BACKGROUND

Complete mesocolic excision has been suggested to improve oncological outcomes for patients with colon cancer. However, the long-term outcomes of single-site laparoscopic colectomy with complete mesocolic excision remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the long-term outcomes of single-site laparoscopic colectomy with complete mesocolic excision compared with conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer, as well as the short-term outcomes.

DESIGN

This is a single-center, retrospective study.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at Osaka University Hospital in Japan.

PATIENTS

A total of 971 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer between 2008 and 2014 were included. Of these patients, 517 were analyzed using propensity score matching (231 with single-site laparoscopic colectomy and 286 with conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Recurrence, survival, intraoperative morbidity, and postoperative complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

Before propensity score matching, the single-site laparoscopic colectomy group had greater proportions of women and of patients with right-sided and early stage tumors compared with the conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy group. After matching, the 2 groups each included 200 patients and did not significantly differ in any patient characteristics. The median follow-up period was 41.4 months. The 2 groups showed similar rates of intraoperative morbidity (p = 0.22) and postoperative complications (p = 0.87). Rates of 3-year disease-free and overall survival in single-site laparoscopic colectomy and conventional, multiport, laparoscopic colectomy groups were 95.5% and 91.3% (p = 0.44) and 100.0% and 98.7% (p = 0.24). The 3-year disease-free and overall survival rates in each stage did not significantly differ between the 2 groups.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its retrospective nature.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-site laparoscopic colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for colon cancer provided acceptable perioperative outcomes and oncological outcomes, similar to those achieved with conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy. Evidence accumulation from randomized controlled trials will be necessary to promote the wide acceptance of single-site laparoscopic colectomy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A326.

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Anterior Resection Using a Curved Stapler

INTRODUCTION

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy is technically limited because of such factors as instrument crowding, in-line viewing, and insufficient countertraction. In particular, it is technically difficult to cut the distal rectum from the umbilicus using an articulating linear stapler in single-incision laparoscopic anterior resection.

TECHNIQUE

After treating the mesorectum, the 5-mm trocar is replaced with a 12-mm trocar. The cartridge of the curved stapler is mounted while the shaft of the stapler is inserted into the 12-mm port extracorporeally. The curved stapler is inserted through the umbilical incision with the cartridge. A multichannel port is then mounted, and the abdominal cavity is reinsufflated. The curved stapler can then be operated intracorporeally. This procedure facilitates the vertical dissection of the rectum from the umbilicus.

RESULTS

A total of 27 consecutive patients were analyzed in this study. All the procedures were safely performed without any complications. The median distance from the peritoneal reflection to the transection point of the distal bowel in single-incision laparoscopic anterior resection was 5.0 cm (range, -2.0 to 15.0). One stapler firing was required to achieve distal bowel division in 26 patients (96.3 %), whereas 2 firings were required in 1 patient (3.7 %). The median distal margin was 7.0 cm (range, 3.0-13.0). The time from the insertion of the stapler to transection was 180 seconds (range, 100-420). There were no cases of anastomotic leakage.

CONCLUSIONS

In single-incision laparoscopic anterior resection, it is feasible to perform rectal transection from the umbilicus by using a curved stapler. This technique may allow for the omission of 1 trocar from the operation.

Randomized clinical trial of single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic colectomy

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) for colonic cancer remain unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes of SILC compared with multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MPLC) for colonic cancer.

METHODS

Patients with histologically proven colonic carcinoma located in the caecum, ascending, sigmoid or rectosigmoid colon, clinically diagnosed as stage 0-III by CT, were eligible for this study. Patients were randomized before surgery and underwent tumour dissection with complete mesocolic excision. Safety analyses were conducted according to randomization groups.

RESULTS

A total of 200 patients were enrolled and randomized to the MPLC (100 patients) or SILC (100 patients) arm. Surgical outcomes were similar between the MPLC and SILC arms, including duration of operation (mean 162 versus 156 min respectively; P = 0·273), blood loss (mean 8·8 versus 21·4 ml; P = 0·102), conversion to open laparotomy (2·0 versus 1·0 per cent; P = 0·561), reoperation (3·0 versus 3·0 per cent; P = 1·000), time to first flatus (both median 1 day; P = 0·155) and postoperative hospital stay (both median 6; P = 0·372). The total skin incision length was significantly shorter in the SILC arm (mean 4·4 cm versus 6·8 cm in the MPLC arm; P < 0·001). The median duration of analgesia use was 5 days in the MPLC and 4 days in the SILC arm (P = 0·485). Overall complication rates were equivalent (15·0 versus 12·0 per cent respecitvely; P = 0·680).

CONCLUSION

SILC is not superior to MPLC.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000007220 (http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm).

Task performance in standard laparoscopy in comparison with single-incision laparoscopy in a modified skills trainer

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopy (SIL) is similar to conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAP), but carries specific technical challenges due to lack of triangulation, reduced dexterity, conflicts due to inline instrumentation, and impaired visualization. This study was designed to evaluate technical skill performance of SIL versus LAP surgery in a simulated environment.

METHODS

We developed a modified laparoscopic skills trainer for SIL based upon the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) model. This includes a standard laparoscopic tower for visualization, allowing replication of the conflicts between scope and instruments. It also has a modified trainer box allowing use of different access devices and instruments for SIL. Sixteen subjects at different levels of training (novice through expert) completed four FLS tasks with standard LAP techniques. They then practiced the same tasks using SIL technique until they reached a steady state of performance. The first and last SIL trials were recorded.

RESULTS

Baseline SIL peg transfer was worse than FLS (254 ± 157 s vs 99 ± 27, p < 0.0002). Final SIL time was still significantly worse than FLS (173 ± 130, p < 0.02). FLS, baseline SIL, and final SIL circle cutting were not significantly different (p = 0.058). Final SIL loop ligation was significantly faster than FLS (48 ± 19 vs 70 ± 42, p < 0.05). FLS suturing was faster than SIL suturing (281 ± 188 vs. 526 ± 105, p < 0.01). There was substantial dropout due to frustration with SIL, and only two surgeons were able to successfully complete SIL suturing.

CONCLUSIONS

There are technical challenges with SIL that vary depending on task. Peg transfer and suturing were significantly impaired in SIL, while circle cutting was not significantly affected, and ligating loop was faster with SIL than LAP. These challenges may impact clinical outcomes of SIL and should influence training in SIL as well as future product development.

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: Current status and implementation of the latest technological innovations

The introduction of laparoscopy is an example of surgical innovation with a rapid implementation in many areas of surgery. A large number of controlled studies and meta-analyses have shown that laparoscopic colorectal surgery is associated with the same benefits than other minimally invasive procedures, including lesser pain, earlier recovery of bowel transit and shorter hospital stay. On the other hand, despite initial concerns about oncological safety, well-designed prospective randomized multicentre trials have demonstrated that oncological outcomes of laparoscopy and open surgery are similar. Although the use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery has increased in recent years, the percentages of patients treated with surgery using minimally invasive techniques are still reduced and there are also substantial differences among centres. It has been argued that the limiting factor for the use of laparoscopic procedures is the number of surgeons with adequate skills to perform a laparoscopic colectomy rather than the tumour of patients’ characteristics. In this regard, future efforts to increase the use of laparoscopic techniques in colorectal surgery will necessarily require more efforts in teaching surgeons. We here present a review of recent controversies of the use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery, such as in rectal cancer operations, the possibility of reproducing complete mesocolon excision, and the benefits of intra-corporeal anastomosis after right hemicolectomy. We also describe the results of latest innovations such as single incision laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for colon and rectal diseases.