Single incision laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: 111 cases

Comparison of outcomes of single incision robotic cholecystectomy and single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Backgrounds/Aims

Multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the standard surgical procedure for symptomatic gallbladder diseases. However, as a result of the ongoing trend toward minimally invasive laparoscopy, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has evolved. Single-incision robotic cholecystectomy (SIRC) can overcome several limitations of manual SILC. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the safety and feasibility of SIRC and SILC.

Methods

This study retrospectively reviewed data for all patients who underwent SIRC or SILC from March 2018 to July 2019 in a single institution. The following variables were analyzed: age, sex, body mass index, pain scale, length of stay, and complications. The data were analyzed using the Independent two sample t-test or the Fisher’s exact test.

Results

A total of 343 patients underwent SIRC or SILC during the study period. After excluding patients with acute cholecystitis, 197 SIRC and 103 SILC patients were analyzed in this study. The surgery time and postoperative hospital stay did not differ between SIRC and SILC. However, the SIRC patients experienced less bile spillage during the surgery than did the SILC patients (SIRC vs. SILC: 24 (23.3%) vs. 11 (5.6%) cases, respectively; p<0.001). Although there was no difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between procedures, additional pain control was administered more frequently in SILC patients (SILC 1.08±0.893, SIRC 0.58±0.795; p<0.001).

Conclusions

While both SILC and SIRC are effective for single-incision cholecystectomy, SIRC was superior to SILC in terms of technical stability. Moreover, it has the advantage of postoperative pain control.

Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Bariatric Surgery: A Review of Single-Port Laparoscopic and Endoscopic Bariatric Treatments

Bariatric surgery is an established and effective treatment, not only to combat morbid obesity, but also to address associated metabolic comorbidities. At this time, the cutoff for bariatric or metabolic surgery in terms of body mass index (BMI) is decreasing, making it more feasible for certain individuals to consider minimally invasive surgical options. Innovations in the technique have led to the application of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) in the field of bariatrics, which uses a single or no incision in the performance of weight-reducing surgery. To date, there is no consensus regarding patient selection though most candidates for single-port bariatric surgery are female. Some doctors suggest that single-port bariatric surgery may not be recommended in patients with BMI of more than 50 kg/m², height of more than 180 cm, and xiphoid–umbilicus distance of more than 20 cm. Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is now the most widely performed bariatric surgery worldwide and single-port SG (SPSG) is already established as a routine procedure in various institutions. Current evidence shows that SPSG is less painful and demonstrates higher rates of patient satisfaction regarding the wound. SPSG is feasible and is recommendable in patients who meet certain criteria. Furthermore, endoscopic treatment modalities such as intragastric balloons and endoluminal malabsorptive devices are being developed to bridge the gap between medical and surgical treatments. Nevertheless, there is still insufficient evidence to prove the superiority of LESS bariatric surgery over conventional laparoscopic surgery. Large, well-designed prospective analyses are needed to determine the criteria for selecting patients suitable to undergo LESS bariatric surgery and to predict the procedure’s role in the growth of bariatric surgery.

Single-incision or conventional laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) in gastric banding (SI-LAGB) has been reported to be a safe and technically feasible procedure among various operating methods. However, there is little evidence with regard to the question whether SI-LAGB has more advantages and should be recommended compared with conventional LAGB (CLAGB). Thus, this study was performed to assess the safety and efficacy of SI-LAGB.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A computerized search of the electronic databases PubMed and EMBASE was performed. Data regarding operative parameters, postoperative recovery parameters, follow-up time, percentage of excess weight loss, and postoperative complication were pooled and analyzed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations.

RESULTS

Ten comparative studies including 2,073 patients (1,038 patients who received SI-LAGB and 1,035 patients who received CLAGB) were included and analyzed. Compared with CLAGB, a similar weight loss could be obtained using SI-LAGB. The postoperative complications of SI-LAGB were within the acceptable range, but one study reported one perioperative death. SI-LAGB required a longer operative time. Other outcome variables, such as blood loss, days of hospitalization, pain score, and hospitalization costs, were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SI-LAGB might be a safe and effective alternative to C-LAGB when performed by experienced surgeons, but available data do not allow to give a definitive answer and randomized controlled trials are needed.

Laparoscopic bariatric surgery can be performed through a single incision: a comparative study

BACKGROUND

The application of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) in bariatric patients has been limited to less complex procedures. We evaluated the short-term outcomes of SILS sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), compared to a group of well-established minimally invasive techniques.

METHODS

Twenty-eight morbidly obese patients who underwent SILS SG (n = 14) and RYGB (n = 14) were compared to a matched control group composed of 28 cases of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). A single vertical 2.5-3-cm intra-umbilical incision, three-ports placed trans-fascially, and a liver suspension technique were used to perform SILS.

RESULTS

Both groups were comparable in terms of age (p = 0.96), gender (p = 1.0), type of procedure (p = 1.0), and number of comorbidities (p = 0.63). Two (7%) SILS patients required placement of one additional port, and no conversions to CLS or open surgery were needed. The estimated blood loss (p = 0.48), operative time (p = 0.33), length of hospital stay (p = 0.79), overall 90-day perioperative complication rate (p = 1.0), and short-term weight loss (p = 0.53) were comparable between the two groups. In terms of pain control, the frequency of patient-controlled analgesia use in both groups was similar. However, the pain score (assessed by visual analog scale) was significantly less for SILS patients on postoperative days 1 (5.0 ± 2.1 vs. 6.5 ± 1.8; p = 0.007) and 2 (4.0 ± 2.0 vs. 5.1 ± 2.4; p = 0.49). Cosmetic satisfaction with the scar was high in the SILS group. No patients required reoperation or readmission during the 90 days after surgery.

CONCLUSION

SILS is feasible in carefully selected bariatric patients and results in short-term outcomes comparable to those observed after CLS. Improved pain and cosmesis are potential benefits of SILS.

Single and multiple incision laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: a matched comparison

BACKGROUND

Single incision laparoscopic bariatric surgery has developed over the last few years, with single incision laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (SILS-AGB) being performed most commonly. However, there are no randomised controlled trials and few matched studies comparing SILS-AGB to conventional laparoscopic multi-port multiport adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Our aim was to study any differences in outcome and analgesic requirements between two matched groups of gastric band patients (SILS-AGB and LAGB).

METHODS

Between June 2009 and September 2010, 111 patients underwent SILS-AGB and 99 patients underwent LAGB performed by a single surgeon (AGP). Patients were matched for age, sex, weight, BMI and co-morbidities. Forty six SILS-AGB and LAGB patients were included for analysis. Their outcomes were compared for operating times, conversions, analgesia requirements, morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Patients characteristics between the SILS-AGB and LAGB groups were similar with no differences in their median age (44 vs 47 years), sex (m:f; 7:39 vs 4:42), body mass index (43.1 vs 44.4 kg/m(2)) or co morbidities respectively. In the SILS-AGB group the median operating time (70 min) was not significantly longer than in LAGB group (61.5 min, p = 0.07). However, SILS-AGB patients used less opiates (p < 0.01) than the LAGB patients. There was no difference in morbidity, mortality or readmission rates.

CONCLUSION

SILS-AGB is a safe and feasible option and is comparable with LAGB. Post operative demand for analgesia was significantly less in the SILS-AGB group. Further comparisons of post operative pain and long term outcomes are required; however preliminary results are promising.

Single incision laparoscopic adjustable gastric band: technique, feasibility, safety and learning curve

INTRODUCTION

Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is established in many procedures but not in bariatric surgery. One explanation may be that SILS is technically demanding in morbidly obese patients. This report describes our technique and experience with single incision laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (SILAGB).

METHODS

Prospective data collection was performed on consecutive obese patients who underwent SILAGB between November 2009 and February 2011. A single 3 cm transverse incision in the right upper quadrant was used for a Covidien SILS™ multichannel access port. The technique is described with a standard pars flaccida approach and the 'tips and tricks' needed for a wide range of candidates using standard laparoscopic equipment.

RESULTS

A total of 29 patients (27 female) with a median body mass index of 41 kg/m(2) (range: 35-52 kg/m(2)) and median age of 44 years (range: 22-57 years) underwent SILAGB. There were no 'conversions' to a standard laparoscopic technique. Two cases required the addition of one single 5 mm port. The only complications were two postoperative wound infections (one with a port site infection requiring replacement of the port) and one faulty band requiring replacement. There were therefore two returns to theatre and no 30-day deaths. All patients were discharged on the first postoperative day. In this series, operative times reduced significantly to be comparable with the conventional laparoscopic approach.

CONCLUSIONS

SILAGB is safe and feasible in the morbidly obese. Proficiency in this technique using conventional laparoscopic equipment can be achieved with a short learning curve.

Single-access laparoscopic adjustable gastric band removal: technique and initial experience

BACKGROUND

Single-access laparoscopy (SAL) has gained significant interest in recent years. Potential benefits, beyond cosmetic outcomes, could be reduction of abdominal trauma, decreased risk of incisional hernia and diminished postoperative pain. Technique and initial experience in patients submitted to laparoscopic adjustable gastric band removal (LAGBR) through SAL is reported here.

METHODS

Between December 2009 and March 2012, 14 patients (9 females, 5 males) underwent LAGBR through SAL. Indications for operation were band intolerance (11), pouch dilatation (2) and insufficient weight loss (1). The mean age was 40.3 ± 9.1 years (range 26-57), and the mean interval time between LAGB placement and removal was 94.7 ± 41.9 months (range 37-157). The mean weight and the mean body mass index at the time of LAGBR were 89.3 ± 17.6 kg (range 65-119) and 30.6 ± 4.5 kg/m(2) (range 25.3-36.7), respectively. Technically, the previous port site scar was used as the single-access site to the abdominal cavity. An 11-mm reusable trocar was adopted for a 10-mm regular scope, besides curved reusable instruments.

RESULTS

No patients required conversion to open surgery and none necessitated additional trocars. The mean laparoscopic time was 24.6 ± 7.9 min (range 13-37), and the mean final scar length was 3.6 ± 0.3 cm (range 3-4). Two patients experienced early postoperative complications. The mean hospital stay was 1.3 ± 1.1 days (range 1-5). The mean follow-up time was of 18 ± 9.8 months (range 3-30), and there were no late complications.

CONCLUSIONS

LAGBR can be safely performed through SAL. Thanks to this technique, the laparoscopic working triangulation is established as well as the ergonomic positions of the surgeon. Due the use of only reusable material, the cost of this SAL remains similar to multiport laparoscopy.