Noncosmetic benefits of single-incision laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease: a case-matched comparison with multiport laparoscopic technique

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.

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.

Toward a Model of Human Information Processing for Decision-Making and Skill Acquisition in Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To create a human information-processing model for laparoscopic surgery based on already established literature and primary research to enhance laparoscopic surgical education in this context.

DESIGN

We reviewed the literature for information-processing models most relevant to laparoscopic surgery. Our review highlighted the necessity for a model that accounts for dynamic environments, perception, allocation of attention resources between the actions of both hands of an operator, and skill acquisition and retention. The results of the literature review were augmented through intraoperative observations of 7 colorectal surgical procedures, supported by laparoscopic video analysis of 12 colorectal procedures.

RESULTS

The Wickens human information-processing model was selected as the most relevant theoretical model to which we make adaptions for this specific application. We expanded the perception subsystem of the model to involve all aspects of perception during laparoscopic surgery. We extended the decision-making system to include dynamic decision-making to account for case/patient-specific and surgeon-specific deviations. The response subsystem now includes dual-task performance and nontechnical skills, such as intraoperative communication. The memory subsystem is expanded to include skill acquisition and retention.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical decision-making during laparoscopic surgery is the result of a highly complex series of processes influenced not only by the operator's knowledge, but also patient anatomy and interaction with the surgical team. Newer developments in simulation-based education must focus on the theoretically supported elements and events that underpin skill acquisition and affect the cognitive abilities of novice surgeons. The proposed human information-processing model builds on established literature regarding information processing, accounting for a dynamic environment of laparoscopic surgery. This revised model may be used as a foundation for a model describing robotic surgery.

The single-incision laparoscopic surgery technique has questionable advantages in colorectal surgery

Background

Laparoscopic procedures have increasingly been accepted as standard in surgical treatment of benign and malignant entities, resulting in a continuous evolution of operative techniques. Since one of the aims in laparoscopic colorectal surgery is to reduce access trauma, one possible way is to further reduce the surgical site by the single-incision laparoscopic surgery technique (SLS). One of the main criticisms concerning the use of SLS is its questionable benefit combined with its technical demands for the surgeon. These questions were addressed by comparing SLS versus conventional laparoscopic multitrocar surgery (LMS) in benign and malignant conditions with respect to technical operative parameters and early postoperative outcome of the patients.

Methods

Between 2010 and 2013, we performed SLS for colorectal disease. Of the 111 patients who underwent colorectal resection, 47 patients were operated by SLS and 31 using the LMS technique. The collected data for our patients were compared according to operating time, postoperative morbidity and mortality, pain score numeric rating scale on day 1 and day 5 postoperatively and postoperative hospital stay. To complement the pain scores, the required pain medication for adequate pain relief on these days was given.

Results

There was no significant difference in age, BMI or sex ratio between the two groups. The intraoperative and early postoperative course was comparable as well. Postoperative hospital stay was the only parameter with a significant difference, showing an advantage for SLS.

Conclusion

SLS is a feasible surgical method and a technical option in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. However, we were not able to identify substantial advantages of SLS that would favor this technique.

Laparoscopy for Benign Diseases of the Colon

Laparoscopic surgery has revolutionized the delivery of care to the surgical patient undergoing colorectal resection. Since the first laparoscopic-assisted colectomy in 1991, significant advances have been made in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. For many benign conditions, laparoscopic colectomy has been proven to be safe and effective, and in some instances superior when compared with open surgery. Complex laparoscopic resections such as those for diverticulitis and inflammatory bowel disease have also been shown to have equivalent outcomes when compared with open surgery. Short-term benefits of a minimally invasive approach include less pain, decreased rates of wound infection and postoperative morbidity, faster return of bowel function, and shorter length of stay. Improvements in long-term complications have also been noted with lower incidence of incisional hernias and small bowel obstructions secondary to adhesions. As surgeons become more facile with laparoscopic resection, more complex cases such as those for complicated diverticulitis and reoperative surgery for inflammatory bowel disease can be completed with shorter operative times and decreased cost.

Single-incision laparoscopic ileocecal resection using an organ retractor

INTRODUCTION

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery has been reported to be a safe and feasible technique for colorectal cancer. However, the technique needs skill due to the limitations of the device. An organ retractor is a new grasp device that has the potential to overcome these limitations.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

A 63-year-old woman with a tumor palpated in the right lower quadrant of the abdomen presented to hospital. Colonoscopy showed a type 2 mass with nearly complete stenosis, and a biopsy specimen showed well-differentiated adenocarcinoma. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery ileocecal resection was performed using an organ retractor. A 3-cm incision was placed in the umbilicus, and three conventional ports were inserted. An organ retractor was used for hepatocolic ligament resection, resection of the ileocolic vessels, and resection of the insertion of the mesentery proper. For each resection, the trailer line's tension was adjusted to provide a good operative view. The patient's postoperative course was good, and she was discharged 7days after surgery.

DISCUSSION

An organ retractor was effective for single-incision laparoscopic surgery technique not only to maintain a good operative view, but also to change trailer line tension, which enabled safe dissection.

CONCLUSION

An organ retractor could facilitate single-incision laparoscopic surgery.

Comparison of single incision and multi incision diagnostic laparoscopy on evaluation of diaphragmatic status after left thoracoabdominal penetrating stab wounds

AIM:

Single incision diagnostic laparoscopy (SIDL) may be an alternative procedure to multi-incision diagnostic laparoscopy (MDL) for penetrating thoracoabdominal stab wounds. The purpose of this study is sharing our experience and comparing two techniques for diaphragmatic status.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Medical records of 102 patients with left thoracoabdominal penetrating stab injuries who admitted to Istanbul School of Medicine, Trauma and Emergency Surgery Clinic between February 2012 and April 2016 were examined. The patients were grouped according to operation technique. Patient records were retrospectively reviewed for data including, age, sex, length of hospital stay, diaphragm injury rate, surgical procedure, operation time and operation time with wound repair, post-operative complications and accompanying injuries.

RESULTS:

The most common injury location was the left anterior thoracoabdomen. SIDL was performed on 26 patients. Nine (34.6%) of the 26 patients had a diaphragm injury. Seventy-six patients underwent MDL. Diaphragmatic injury was detected in 20 (26.3%) of 76 patients. The average operation time and post-operative complications were similar; there was no statistically significant difference between MDL and SIDL groups.

CONCLUSION:

SIDL can be used as a safe and feasible procedure in the repair of a diaphragm wounds. SIDL may be an alternative method in the diagnosis and treatment of these patients.

ECSPECT prospective multicentre registry for single-port laparoscopic colorectal procedures

BACKGROUND

The international multicentre registry ECSPECT (European Consensus of Single Port Expertise in Colorectal Treatment) was established to evaluate the general feasibility and safety of single-port colorectal surgery with regard to preoperative risk assessment.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing single-port colorectal surgery were enrolled from 11 European centres between March 2010 and March 2014. Data were analysed to assess patient-, technique- and procedure-dependent parameters. A validated sex-adjusted risk chart was developed for prediction of single-port colorectal surgery-related conversion and complications.

RESULTS

Some 1769 patients were enrolled, 937 with benign and 832 with malignant conditions. Procedures were completed without additional trocars in 1628 patients (92·0 per cent). Conversion to open surgery was required in 75 patients (4·2 per cent) and was related to male sex and ASA fitness grade exceeding I. Conversions were more frequent in pelvic procedures involving the rectum compared with abdominal procedures (8·1 versus 3·2 per cent; odds ratio 2·69, P < 0·001). Postoperative complications were observed in a total of 224 patients (12·7 per cent). Independent predictors of complications included male sex (P < 0·001), higher ASA grade (P = 0·006) and rectal procedures (P = 0·002). The overall 30-day mortality rate was 0·5 per cent (8 of 1769 patients); three deaths (0·2 per cent; 1 blood loss, 2 leaks) were attributable to surgical causes.

CONCLUSION

The feasibility and safety, conversion and complication profile demonstrated here provides guidance for patient selection.

Single-incision versus standard multi-incision laparoscopic colectomy in patients with malignant or benign colonic disease: a systematic review, meta-analysis and assessment of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) requires only one umbilical port site and (depending on technique) a specimen extraction site. The aim of this study was the assessment of the available evidence for the comparison of SILC to conventional multi-port laparoscopic colectomy (MLC) in adult patients, in whom elective colectomy is indicated because of malignant or benign disease. First, previous meta-analyses on this topic were assessed. Secondly, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, was performed.

METHODS

Electronic literature searches (CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE; up to March 2016) were performed. Additionally, we searched clinical trials registries and abstracts from surgical society meetings. For meta-analysis, risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95 % confidence intervals were calculated and pooled. The quality of previous meta-analyses was evaluated against established criteria (AMSTAR) and their reported results were investigated for consistency.

RESULTS

We identified 6 previous meta-analyses of mostly low methodological quality (AMSTAR total score: 2 - 5 out of 11 items). To fill the evidence gaps, all these meta-analyses had included non-randomised studies, but usually without assessing their risk of bias. In our systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials exclusively, we included two randomised controlled trials with a total of 82 colorectal cancer patients. There was insufficient evidence to clarify whether SILC leads to less local complications (RR = 0.52, 95 % CI 0.14 - 1.94) or lower mortality (1 death per treatment group). Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the SILC group (MD = -1.20 days, 95 % CI -1.95 to -0.44). One of the two studies found postoperative pain intensity to be lower at the first day. We also identified 7 ongoing trials with a total sample size of over 1000 patients.

CONCLUSION

The currently available study results are too sparse to detect (or rule out) relevant differences between SILC and MLC. The quality of the current evidence is low, and the additional analysis of non-randomised data attempts, but does not solve this problem. SILC should still be considered as an experimental procedure, since the evidence of well-designed randomised controlled trials is too sparse to allow any recommendation.

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.

Review of 500 single incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery cases - Lessons learned

Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a minimally invasive platform with specific benefits over traditional multiport laparoscopic surgery. The safety and feasibility of SILS has been proven, and the applications continue to grow with experience. After 500 cases at a high-volume, single-institution, we were able to standardize instrumentation and operative steps, as well as develop adaptations in technique to help overcome technical and ergonomic challenges. These technical adaptations have allowed the successful application of SILS to technically difficult patient populations, such as pelvic cases, inflammatory bowel disease cases, and high body mass index patients. This review is a frame of reference for the application and wider integration of the single incision laparoscopic platform in colorectal surgery.

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Colon and Rectal Surgery

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) was introduced to further the enhanced outcomes of multiport laparoscopy. Multiple studies have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of SILS for both benign and malignant colorectal disease. SILS provides the potential for improved cosmesis, postoperative outcomes, and patient quality of life. However, widespread use has been limited by technical demands and lack of an evidence and competency-based curriculum.

SILS v SILS+1: a Case-Matched Comparison for Colorectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is safe and feasible for benign and malignant colorectal diseases. SILS has comparable or improved outcomes compared to multiport laparoscopy but technical limitations when operating in the pelvis. To address these limitations, we developed an innovative SILS+1 approach using a single Pfannenstiel incision for pelvis access with one additional umbilical port. Our goal was to compare outcomes for SILS and SILS+1 in lower abdominal and pelvic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Review of a prospectively maintained database identified patients who underwent an elective reduced port laparoscopic lower abdominal/pelvic colorectal procedure from 2009 to 2014. Cases were stratified by approach: SILS versus SILS+1 then matched 1:2 on age, gender, body mass index (BMI), comorbidity, and procedure. Demographic, perioperative, and postoperative outcome variables were evaluated. The main outcome measures were operative time, conversion rate, length of stay, complication, morbidity, and mortality rates.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-two reduced port AR/LAR patients were evaluated-44 SILS and 88 SILS+1. The groups were similar in age, gender, BMI, and ASA class. The primary diagnosis in both cohorts was diverticulitis (90.9 % SILS, 87.5 % SILS+1), and main procedure performed an anterior rectosigmoidectomy (86.4 % SILS, 88.2 % SILS+1). Significantly more SILS+1 patients had previous abdominal surgery (p = 0.01). The operative time was significantly shorter in SILS+1 (mean 166.6 [SD 48.4] vs. 178.0 [SD 70.0], p = 0.03). The conversion rate to multiport or open surgery was also significantly lower with SILS+1 compared to SILS (1.1 vs. 11.4 %, p = 0.02). Postoperatively, the length of stay across the groups was similar. SILS trended towards higher complication and readmission rates (NS). There were no unplanned reoperations or mortality in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

SILS+1 facilitates pelvic and lower abdominal colorectal surgery, with shorter operative times and lower conversion rates. The additional port improved visualization and outcomes without any impact on length of stay, readmission, or complication rates.

Single-incision robotic colectomy (SIRC): Current status and future directions

By combining laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) techniques with the da Vinci robotic platform, single-incision robotic colectomy (SIRC) aims to further minimize incision-related complications and improve cosmetic outcomes from the current standard of care, laparoscopic colectomy. While there is limited literature on SIRC, all available reports suggest SIRC to be a safe and feasible procedure in terms of perioperative outcomes. Future research should focus on further clarification of proposed benefits of SIRC such as cosmetics, ergonomics, incidence of incision-related complications, and long-term oncologic outcomes.

Outcomes for single-incision laparoscopic colectomy surgery in obese patients: a case-matched study

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is safe and feasible for benign and malignant colorectal diseases. SILS offers several patient-related benefits over multiport laparoscopy. However, its use in obese patients has been limited from concerns of technical difficulty, oncologic compromise, and higher complication and conversion rates. Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of SILS for colectomy in obese patients.

METHODS

Review of a prospective database identified patients undergoing elective colectomy using SILS from 2009 to 2014. They were stratified into obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2)) and non-obese cohorts (BMI < 30 kg/m(2)) and then matched on patient characteristics, diagnosis, and operative procedure. Demographic and perioperative outcome data were evaluated. The primary outcome measures were operative time, length of stay (LOS), and conversion, complication, and readmission rates for each cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 160 patients were evaluated-80 in each cohort. Patients were well matched in demographics, diagnosis, and procedure variables. The obese cohort had significantly higher BMI (p < 0.001) and ASA scores (p = 0.035). Operative time (176.9 ± 64.0 vs. 144.4 ± 47.2 min, p < 0.001) and estimated blood loss (89.0 ± 139.5 vs. 51.6 ± 38.0 ml, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the obese. There were no significant differences in conversion rates (p = 0.682), final incision length (p = 0.088), LOS (p = 0.332), postoperative complications (p = 0.430), or readmissions (p = 1.000) in the obese versus non-obese. Further, in malignant cases, lymph nodes harvested (p = 0.757) and negative distal margins (p = 1.000) were comparable across cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy in obese patients had significantly longer operative times, but comparable conversion rates, oncologic outcomes, lengths of stay, complication, and readmission rates as the non-obese cohorts. In the obese, where higher morbidity rates are typically associated with surgical outcomes, SILS may be the ideal platform to optimize outcomes in colorectal surgery. With additional operative time, the obese can realize the same clinical and quality benefits of minimally invasive surgery as the non-obese.

New trends in colorectal surgery: Single port and natural orifice techniques

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) have rapidly gained pace worldwide, potentially replacing conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) as the preferred colorectal surgery technique. Currently available data mainly consist of retrospective series analyzed in four meta-analyses. Despite conflicting results and lack of an objective comparison, SILS appears to offer cosmetic advantages over CLS. However, due to conflicting results and marked heterogeneity, present data fail to show significant differences in terms of operative time, postoperative morbidity profiles, port-site complications rates, oncological appropriateness, duration of hospitalization or cost when comparing SILS with conventional laparoscopy for colorectal procedures. The application of “pure” NOTES in humans remains limited to case reports because of unresolved issues concerning the ideal access site, distant organ reach, spatial orientation and viscera closure. Alternatively, minilaparoscopy-assisted natural orifice surgery techniques are being developed. The transanal “down-to-up” total mesorectum excision has been derived for transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and represents the most encouraging NOTES-derived technique. Preliminary experiences demonstrate good oncological and functional short-term outcomes. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are now mandatory to confirm the long-term SILS results and validate transanal TEM for the application of NOTES in humans.

Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic colorectal surgery-systematic review and pooled analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this pooled analysis is to determine the effect of single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery (SILC) on short-term clinical and oncological outcomes compared with conventional multiport laparoscopic colorectal surgery (CLC).

METHODS

An electronic search of Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases was performed. Weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated for the effect size of SILC on continuous variables and pooled odds ratios (POR) were calculated for discrete variables.

RESULTS

No significant differences between the groups were noted for mortality or morbidity including anastomotic leak, reoperation, pneumonia, wound infection, port-site hernia, and operative time. The benefits of a SILC approach included reduction in time to return of bowel function (WMD = -1.11 days; 95 % C.I. -2.11 to -0.13; P = 0.03), and length of hospital stay (WMD = -1.9 days; 95 % C.I. -2.73 to -1.07; P < 0.0001). Oncological surgical quality was also shown for SILC for the treatment of colorectal cancer with a similar average lymph node harvest, proximal and distal resection margin length compared to CLC.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC can be performed safely by experienced laparoscopic surgeons with similar short-term clinical and oncological outcomes to CLC. SILC may further enhance some of the benefits of minimally invasive surgery with a reduction in blood loss and length of hospital stay.

Single port laparoscopy in gastroenterology and hepatology: A fine step forward

Single incision laparoscopy (SIL) has become an emerging technology aiming at a further reduction of abdominal wall trauma in minimally invasive surgery. Available data is encouraging for the safe application of standardized SIL in a wide range of procedures in gastroenterology and hepatology. Compared to technically simple SIL procedures, the merit of SIL in advanced surgeries, such as liver or colorectal interventions, compared to conventional laparsocopy is self-evident without any doubt. SIL has already passed the learning curve and is routinely utilized in expert centers. This minimized approach has allowed to enter a new era of surgical management that can not be acceded without a fruitful combination of prudent training, consistent day-to-day work and enthusiastic motivation for technical innovations. Both, basic and novel technical specifics as well as particular procedures are described herein. The focus is on the most important surgical interventions in gastroenterology and aims at reviewing the current literature and shares our experience in a high volume center.

Single incision laparoscopic colectomy for colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional laparoscopic colectomy

Purpose

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the feasibility of single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), and to compare the short-term surgical outcomes with those of conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.

Methods

Forty-four patients who underwent SILS were compared with 263 patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal adenocarcinoma between November 2011 and September 2012.

Results

In the SILS group, eleven cases (25.0%) of right hemicolectomy, 15 (34.1%) anterior resections, and 18 (40.9%) low anterior resections were performed. Additional ports were required in 10 rectal patients during SILS operation. In the 32 patients with rectosigmoid and rectal cancer in the SILS group, patients with mid and lower rectal cancers had a tendency to require a longer operation time (168.2 minutes vs. 223.8 minutes, P = 0.002), additional ports or multiport conversion (P = 0.007), than those with rectosigmoid and upper rectal cancer. Both SILS and conventional groups had similar perioperative outcomes. Operation time was longer in the SILS group than in the conventional laparoscopic surgery group (185.0 minutes vs. 139.2 minutes, P < 0.001). More diverting stoma were performed in the SILS group (64.7% vs. 24.2%, P = 0.011). Multivariate analysis showed that tumor location in the rectum (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.858-10.560; P = 0.001), SILS (95% CI, 3.450-20.233; P < 0.001), diverting stoma (95% CI, 1.606-9.288; P = 0.003), and transfusion (95% CI, 1.092-7.854; P = 0.033) were independent risk factors for long operation time (>180 minutes).

Conclusion

SILS is a feasible, not inferior treatment option for colorectal cancer, and appears to have similar results as standard conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy, despite the longer operative time.

Single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer: State of art

A number of clinical trials have demonstrated that the laparoscopic approach for colorectal cancer resection provides the same oncologic results as open surgery along with all clinical benefits of minimally invasive surgery. During the last years, a great effort has been made to research for minimizing parietal trauma, yet for cosmetic reasons and in order to further reduce surgery-related pain and morbidity. New techniques, such as natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and single-incision laparoscopy (SIL) have been developed in order to reach the goal of “scarless” surgery. Although NOTES may seem not fully suitable or safe for advanced procedures, such as colectomies, SIL is currently regarded as the next major advance in the progress of minimally invasive surgical approaches to colorectal disease that is more feasible in generalized use. The small incision through the umbilicus allows surgeons to use familiar standard laparoscopic instruments and thus, perform even complex procedures which require extraction of large surgical specimens or intestinal anastomosis. The cosmetic result from SIL is also better because the only incision is made through the umbilicus which can hide the wound effectively after operation. However, SIL raises a number of specific new challenges compared with the laparoscopic conventional approach. A reduced capacity for triangulation, the repeated conflicts between the shafts of the instruments and the difficulties to achieve a correct exposure of the operative field are the most claimed issues. The use therefore of this new approach for complex colorectal procedures might understandingly be viewed as difficult to implement, especially for oncologic cases.

Single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery provides similar lengths of hospital stay and similar costs compared with standard laparoscopy: results of a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The present study sought to compare the length of stay (LOS) and hospital costs for elective single-site (SSL) and standard laparoscopic (SDL) colorectal resections performed at a tertiary referral center.

METHODS

An IRB-approved, retrospective cohort study of all elective SDL and SSL colorectal resections performed from 2008 to 2012 was undertaken. Patient charges and inflation adjusted hospital costs (US dollars) were compared with costs subcategorized by operating room expense, room and board, and pharmacy and radiology utilization.

RESULTS

A total of 149 SDL and 111 SSL cases were identified. Compared with SSL, SDL surgeries were associated with longer median operative times (SSL: 153 min vs. SDL: 189 min, p = 0.001); however, median operating room costs were similar (p > 0.05). Median postoperative LOS was similar for both groups (SSL: 3 days; SDL: 4 days; p > 0.05). There was no difference between SSL and SDL with respect to either total patient charges (SSL: $34,847 vs. SDL: $38,306; p > 0.05) or hospital costs (SSL: $13,051 vs. SDL: $12,703; p > 0.05). Median costs during readmission were lower for SSL patients (SSL: $3,625 vs. SDL: $6,203, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

SSL provides similar LOS as well as similar costs to both patients and hospitals compared with SDL, making it a cost-feasible alternative.

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy versus conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy: a meta-analysis of comparative studies

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) to conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MLC).

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a minimally invasive technique being recently applied to colorectal surgery. A number of studies comparing SILC to conventional MLC have recently been published.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed and MEDLINE databases for studies comparing SILC to conventional MLC was conducted. The primary outcome measures for meta-analysis were postoperative complications, length of stay, and operative time. Secondary outcome measures were incision length, estimated blood loss, and number of lymph nodes harvested.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies comparing 467 patients undergoing SILC to 539 patients undergoing conventional MLC were reviewed and the data pooled for analysis. Patients undergoing SILC had a shorter length of stay (pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.68; 95 % CI = -1.20 to -0.16; p = 0.0099), shorter incision length (pooled WMD = -1.37; 95 % CI = -2.74 to 0.000199; p = 0.05), less estimated blood loss (pooled WMD = -20.25; 95 % CI = -39.25 to -1.24; p = 0.037), and more lymph nodes harvested (pooled WMD = 1.75; 95 % CI = 0.12 to 3.38; p = 0.035), while there was no significant difference in the number of postoperative complications (pooled odds ratio = 0.83; 95 % CI = 0.57 to 1.20; p = 0.33) or operative time (pooled WMD = 5.06; 95 % CI = -2.91 to 13.03; p = 0.21).

CONCLUSION

SILC appears to have comparable results to conventional MLC in the hands of experienced surgeons. Prospective randomized trials are necessary to define the relative benefits of one procedure over the other.

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy versus conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy: a meta-analysis of comparative studies

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) to conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MLC).

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a minimally invasive technique being recently applied to colorectal surgery. A number of studies comparing SILC to conventional MLC have recently been published.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed and MEDLINE databases for studies comparing SILC to conventional MLC was conducted. The primary outcome measures for meta-analysis were postoperative complications, length of stay, and operative time. Secondary outcome measures were incision length, estimated blood loss, and number of lymph nodes harvested.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies comparing 467 patients undergoing SILC to 539 patients undergoing conventional MLC were reviewed and the data pooled for analysis. Patients undergoing SILC had a shorter length of stay (pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.68; 95 % CI = -1.20 to -0.16; p = 0.0099), shorter incision length (pooled WMD = -1.37; 95 % CI = -2.74 to 0.000199; p = 0.05), less estimated blood loss (pooled WMD = -20.25; 95 % CI = -39.25 to -1.24; p = 0.037), and more lymph nodes harvested (pooled WMD = 1.75; 95 % CI = 0.12 to 3.38; p = 0.035), while there was no significant difference in the number of postoperative complications (pooled odds ratio = 0.83; 95 % CI = 0.57 to 1.20; p = 0.33) or operative time (pooled WMD = 5.06; 95 % CI = -2.91 to 13.03; p = 0.21).

CONCLUSION

SILC appears to have comparable results to conventional MLC in the hands of experienced surgeons. Prospective randomized trials are necessary to define the relative benefits of one procedure over the other.