Laparoscopic one port appendectomy: Evaluation in pediatric surgery

Single-incision versus conventional multi-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy for suspected uncomplicated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Appendicectomy is a well-established surgical procedure to manage acute appendicitis. The operation was historically performed as an open procedure and is currently performed using minimally invasive surgical techniques. A recent development in appendicectomy technique is the introduction of single-incision laparoscopic surgery. This incorporates all working ports (either one multi-luminal port or multiple mono-luminal ports) through a single skin incision; the procedure is known as single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy or SILA. Unanswered questions remain regarding the efficacy of this novel technique, including its effects on patient benefit and satisfaction, complications, and long-term outcomes, when compared to multi-incision conventional laparoscopy (CLA). This is an update of a review published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy compared with multi-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy, on benefits, complications, and short-term outcomes, in patients with acute appendicitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library 2018 Issue 2), Ovid MEDLINE (1983 to January 2024), Ovid Embase (1983 to January 2024), the WHO International Clinical Trial Register (January 2024), and Clinicaltrials.gov (January 2024). We also searched reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, conference proceedings, and ongoing trial databases. The searches were carried out on 20 January 2024.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the single-incision procedure SILA against CLA for patients (male and female) over the age of 10 years, diagnosed with appendicitis, or symptoms of appendicitis, and undergoing laparoscopic appendicectomy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data into a standardised form, and assessed the risk of bias in the studies. We extracted data relevant to the predetermined outcome measures. Where appropriate, we calculated a summary statistic: odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous data. We used Review Manager Web for our statistical analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

This review was first published in 2011, when there was no RCT evidence available. For this update, we identified 11 RCTs involving 1373 participants (689 in the SILA groups and 684 in the CLA groups). The participants were similar at baseline in terms of age (mean 31.7 (SILA) versus 30.9 years (CLA)) and sex (female: 53.0% (SILA) versus 50.3% (CLA)). Diagnosis of appendicitis was based on clinical assessment; none of the studies used a diagnosis confirmed by imaging as part of their inclusion criteria. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate, and the outcomes were predominately reported in the short term. Pain scores at 24 hours after surgery may be similar between the SILA and CLA groups (mean score SILA 2.53 versus CLA 2.65; mean difference (MD) in pain score -0.12, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.28; 294 participants, 4 RCTs; low-certainty evidence). SILA probably had superior cosmetic results as indicated by patients using the Body Image questionnaire (5 to 20) (mean score SILA 14.9 versus CLA 12.4; cosmesis score MD 1.97, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.33; 266 participants, 3 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). The rate of visceral and vascular injury was probably similar with both techniques (SILA 0/168 versus 4/169; OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.79; 337 participants, 3 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). The conversion rate to CLA or open surgery may be higher for SILA procedures than the conversion rate from CLA to open surgery (SILA 32/574 versus CLA 7/569; OR 2.95, 95% CI 1.36 to 6.42; 1143 participants, 9 RCTs; low-certainty evidence). Use of an additional port site was probably more likely with SILA compared to CLA (SILA 28/328 versus CLA 4/336; OR 3.80, 95% CI 1.13 to 12.72; 664 participants, 5 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). The recovery time was probably similar for both interventions for hospital stay (mean length of stay in hospital for SILA 2.25 days versus 2.29 days for CLA patients; MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.03; 1241 participants, 10 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) and time to return to normal activities (SILA 9.28 days versus CLA 10.0 days; MD -0.59, 95% CI -1.99 to 0.81; 451 participants, 4 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). We have low-to-moderate confidence in our findings due to differences in the measurement of certain outcomes, and lack of blinding in the studies, which makes them prone to performance bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-to-moderate certainty evidence that single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy is comparable to conventional laparoscopic appendicectomy in terms of complications, length of hospital stay, return to normal activities, and postoperative pain in the first 24 hours. The disadvantage of SILA may be a higher conversion rate, but SILA is probably associated with better patient cosmetic satisfaction.

Perioperative pain management for appendicectomy: A systematic review and Procedure-specific Postoperative Pain Management recommendations

BACKGROUND

Despite being a commonly performed surgical procedure, pain management for appendicectomy is often neglected because of insufficient evidence on the most effective treatment options.

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based recommendations by assessing the available literature for optimal pain management after appendicectomy.

DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES

This systematic review-based guideline was conducted according to the PROSPECT methodology. Relevant randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the English language from January 1999 to October 2022 were retrieved from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Databases using PRISMA search protocols.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included studies on adults and children. If articles reported combined data from different surgeries, they had to include specific information about appendicectomies. Studies needed to measure pain intensity using a visual analogue scale (VAS) or a numerical rating scale (NRS). Studies that did not report the precise appendicectomy technique were excluded.

RESULTS

Out of 1388 studies, 94 met the inclusion criteria. Based on evidence and consensus, the PROSPECT members agreed that basic analgesics [paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)] should be administered perioperatively for open and laparoscopic appendicectomies. A laparoscopic approach is preferred because of lower pain scores. Additional recommendations for laparoscopic appendicectomies include a three-port laparoscopic approach and the instillation of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic. For open appendicectomy, a preoperative unilateral transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block is recommended. If not possible, preincisional infiltration with local anaesthetics is an alternative. Opioids should only be used as rescue analgesia. Limited evidence exists for TAP block in laparoscopic appendicectomy, analgesic adjuvants for TAP block, continuous wound infiltration after open appendicectomy and preoperative ketamine and dexamethasone. Recommendations apply to children and adults.

CONCLUSION

This review identified an optimal analgesic regimen for open and laparoscopic appendicectomy. Further randomised controlled trials should evaluate the use of regional analgesia and wound infiltrations with adequate baseline analgesia, especially during the recommended conventional three-port approach.

REGISTRATION

The protocol for this study was registered with the PROSPERO database (Registration No. CRD42023387994).

Single port surgery in pediatric age: report of first 300 cases

BACKGROUND

In recent years, evolution of surgery has led to laparoscopy and then to single port surgery. In pediatric age, few papers have been published about single port procedures; in particular, no one has described the use of the Octoport device (Frankenman International Ltd., Suzhou, China). We present our experience using a new device.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of first 300 cases was performed collecting the data of all patients treated with Octoport device from October 2017 to September 2021. Epidemiological data, diagnosis, operative times, and complications were analyzed. Postoperative pain was compared with standard laparoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 300 procedures were performed during the study period. The age range was 1-17 years. The conversion rate was 3.6% (11 patients) including both conversion to traditional laparoscopy and to laparotomy. Pain management was comparable to traditional laparoscopy. The complication rate was 3.6%, in one case leading to re-do surgery. All the cases in our Unit were successfully completed, with complications mainly related to the original pathology rather than to the technique itself.

CONCLUSIONS

The learning curve for Octoport use proved to be functional as for standard laparoscopy. In this study, surgical indications for the use of single port laparoscopy were defined, discerning favorable and unfavorable procedures. A proven superiority of this technique over traditional laparoscopy is yet to be defined, but Octoport has proved to be a safe and easy tool to reduce invasiveness of procedures in pediatric surgery with better cosmetic results.

Postoperative narcotic utilization in single incision laparoscopic-assisted extracorporeal appendectomy (SILEA): a single-institution retrospective review

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic appendectomy for pediatric acute appendicitis is commonly performed by pediatric surgeons. A single incision approach has been investigated, but the lack of technical uniformity has resulted in conflicting data. We hypothesized that an initial single incision laparoscopic-assisted extracorporeal appendectomy (SILEA) approach is associated with similar complication rates as compared to the standard three-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (TILA).

METHODS

Approximately 1300 laparoscopic appendectomies were retrospectively reviewed for acute appendicitis over a 5 year period. Patients were split into TILA or SILEA cohorts. Propensity score matching identified 102 matched cases in both cohorts. Case and control cohort comparisons were then analyzed.

RESULTS

Successful SILEA was associated with no difference in post-operative complication rate. SILEA was associated with decreased postoperative narcotic dosage and shorter operative time than TILA.

CONCLUSIONS

An initial SILEA approach is safe and associated with similar complication rates as TILA. Based on this data, the authors advocate adoption of the an initial SILEA approach for uncomplicated, freely mobile, acute appendicitis with seamless conversion to TILA if the appendix is not amendable to SILEA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Intra-/Extracorporeal Single-Incision Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: There are two approaches to single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA): intracorporeal (Intra) and extracorporeal (Extra). However, the differences in the efficacy between these procedures remain unclear. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and usefulness of these techniques with those of conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) in children. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using the PubMed, CENTRAL, and Scopus databases. Studies comparing outcomes of "Intra-SILA and CLA" or "Extra-SILA and CLA" in children aged <18 years were included. Operative time, hospitalization duration, wound infection, intra-abdominal infection, conversion to open, additional ports, and narcotic doses were evaluated. Results: Overall, 20 studies (six randomized controlled trials [RCTs], one prospective non-RCT, and 13 retrospective cohort studies) (Intra-SILA: 322, CLA: 791 cases; Extra-SILA: 1318, CLA: 1313 cases) were included. Compared with CLA, Extra-SILA was associated with a shorter operative time (mean difference, -9.79 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], -18.34 to -1.24) and lower incidence of intra-abdominal infection (3.3% versus 4.6%, odds ratio [OR], 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82) and a higher rate of additional port (13.6% versus 0%, OR, 43.93; 95% CI, 14.79 to 130.50). Meanwhile, the outcomes of Intra-SILA were comparable with those of CLA. However, the participants in the Intra-SILA group received significantly lower doses of narcotics than those in the CLA group. Conclusion: Although the evidence was insufficient, both Intra- and Extra-SILA were comparable to CLA with respect to safety. Extra-SILA seems to have an advantage of a shorter operative time, but additional ports may be required.

Single site versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: some pain for no gain?

INTRODUCTION

The optimal laparoscopic appendectomy approach is not clear, comparing single site laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) to conventional 3-port appendectomy (CLA). We investigated outcomes in pediatric patients comparing SILA to CLA: length of operation, length of stay, time to resumption of regular diet, follow up, rehospitalization, and cost.

METHODS

Data was collected from children 1 to 18 years with appendectomy at Loma Linda University from 2018 to 2020, operated by two surgeons. Analysis utilized two-sample T, chi-squared, and Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

Of 173 patients, 77 underwent SILA and 96 had CLA. There was no gender, age, or race difference between groups. Mean WBC was 17.5 × 10³/mL in SILA group, compared to 15.3 × 10³/mL in CLA group (P = 0.004). Operative time was 47.0 SILA compared to 49.5 minutes CLA (P = 0.269). Of SILA cases, 55.8% were simple appendicitis, while 53.3% of the CLA cases were simple (P = 0.857). Regular diet was resumed after 1.7 days in the SILA group, 1.1 days in CLA (P = 0.018). Length of stay was 2.9 days for SILA, 2.4 days for CLA (P = 0.144). Seven children required hospital readmission, 5 SILA and 2 CLA (P = 0.244). Five of the children who returned had intra-abdominal abscesses, of whom 4 had SILA. There was no difference in cost.

CONCLUSIONS

The operative techniques had similar outcomes and operative times. There was a trend toward more intra-abdominal abscesses in the SILA group. Further study and longer follow up is needed to determine if there is an advantage to one laparoscopic approach over another.