Single-Port Laparoscopic Surgery Can Be Performed Safely and Appropriately for Colon Cancer: Short-Term Results of a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Statistical Fragility in Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery Studies: A Review of Randomized Trials

Purpose: The P value has been used as a statistical tool in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to establish significance but does not provide information on the robustness of a study when used alone. The fragility index (FI) provides a supplemental approach for demonstrating robustness in RCTs that report dichotomous outcomes. This study aims to determine the statistical fragility of RCTs that compare minimally invasive techniques with open techniques in managing benign and malignant colorectal diseases. Methods: Dichotomous outcomes of minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery in RCTs from 2000 to 2023 were assessed. The overall FI and fragility quotient (FQ) of each study were calculated. Results: Of the 1377 screened studies, 50 met the inclusion criteria. In total, 820 outcomes were recorded with 747 outcomes reported as not significant (P ≥ .05) and 73 as significant (P < .05). The overall FI for all studies including all outcomes was 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 4-7) with a FQ of 0.031 (IQR 0.014-0.062). Of the 50 RCTs, 6 (12%) reported a loss to follow-up that was greater than the overall FI of 5. Conclusions: As RCTs are judged increasingly beyond just the P value, practicing colorectal surgeons will benefit from using and interpreting the FI, FQ, and the P value of studies both in analyzing future RCTs and in determining whether or not to make a change in their clinical practice if there is an efficiently true discovery.

Long-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectosigmoid cancer: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Though our previous study has demonstrated that the single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1) is safe and feasible for sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer and has better short-term outcomes compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS), the long-term outcomes of SILS + 1 remains uncertain and are needed to evaluated by an RCT.

METHODS

Patients with clinical stage T1-4aN0-2M0 rectosigmoid cancer were enrolled. The participants were randomly assigned to either SILS + 1 (n = 99) or CLS (n = 99). The 3-year DFS, 5-year OS, and recurrence patterns were analyzed.

RESULTS

Between April 2014 and July 2016, 198 patients were randomly assigned to either the SILS + 1 group (n = 99) or CLS group (n = 99). The median follow-up in the SILS + 1 group was 64.0 months and in CLS group was 65.0 months. The 3-year DFS was 87.8% (95% CI, 81.6-94.8%) in SILS + 1 group and 86.9% (95% CI, 81.3-94.5%) in CLS group (hazard ratio: 1.09 (95% CI, 0.48-2.47; P = 0.84)). The 5-year OS was 86.7% (95% CI,79.6-93.8%) in the SILS + 1 group and 80.5% (95% CI,72.5-88.5%) in the CLS group (hazard ratio: 1.53 (95% CI, 0.74-3.18; P = 0.25)). There were no significant differences in the recurrence patterns between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no significant difference in 3-year DFS and 5-year OS of patients with sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer treated with SILS + 1 vs. CLS. SILS + 1 is noninferior to CLS when performed by expert surgeons.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02117557 (registered on 21/04/2014).

Short-term and long-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a propensity-matched cohort study with conventional laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1) has been demonstrated to be minimally invasive while possessing better cosmesis and less pain compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). However, SILS + 1 as an alternative to CLS for colorectal cancer is still controversial.

METHODS

A total of 1071 patients who underwent curative laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer between 2015 and 2018 were included. Of these patients, 258 SILS + 1 cases and 516 CLS cases were analyzed using propensity score matching. The baseline characteristics, surgical outcomes, pathologic findings and recovery course, morbidity and mortality within postoperative 30 days and 3-year disease-free and overall survival were compared.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were balanced between the groups. The mean operating time was significantly shorter in SILS + 1 group, with less estimated blood loss. Tumor size, tumor differentiation, number of harvested lymph nodes, resection margin and pathologic T, N, TNM stage was similar between the groups. There was no significant difference in overall perioperative complications. Uni- and multivariate analyses revealed that SILS + 1 was not a risk factor for complications. Postoperatively, SILS + 1 group showed faster recovery than CLS group in terms of ambulation, bowel function, oral intake and discharge. The 3-year disease-free survival rates of SILS + 1 and CLS groups were 90.1% and 87.3%(p = 0.59), respectively and the 3-year overall survival rates were 93.3% vs. 89.8%(p = 0.172).

DISCUSSION

Our study revealed that SILS + 1 is safe, feasible, oncologically efficient, and may be considered as a surgical option for selected patients with colorectal cancer.

Single incision laparoscopy versus conventional multiport laparoscopy for colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There has been an increase in colorectal cancer resections worldwide and in the UK. Initially conducted as an open procedure, this was replaced with the conventional multiport technique. Laparoscopic colectomy became the standard surgical technique in 1991. With innovation in surgical technology, single incision laparoscopy (SIL) has attracted more attention as the possible next step in colorectal resection. The aim of this review was to compare outcomes between SIL and conventional laparoscopy (CL).

METHODS

A literature search was carried out in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The PubMed®, MEDLINE®, Embase®, Google Scholar™ and Cochrane Library databases were used to extract randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2000 and May 2021. Statistical analysis was performed with RevMan software.

RESULTS

A total of 11 RCTs were extracted with 1,370 patients (686 SIL, 684 CL). There was no significant difference between SIL and CL for operative time (standardised mean difference [SMD]: 0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.19 to 0.22, z=0.11, p=0.91), length of hospital stay (SMD: -0.10, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.02, z=1.61, p=0.11) or overall complications (odds ratio [OR]: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.75 to 1.30, z=0.09, p=0.93). SIL had a shorter mean incision (SMD: -0.99, 95% CI: -1.35 to -0.62, z=5.25, p<0.00001). Patients undergoing SIL had a higher conversion rate to CL or an open approach (OR: 3.10, 95% CI: 0.95 to 10.14, z=1.87, p=0.06) but this just missed statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

SIL can be considered a safe alternative to CL if performed by experienced surgeons.

A propensity score matching investigation of short-term results of single-incision laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection via ileostomy site

Aims

The study was performed to verify the results of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) through the ileostomy site for low rectal cancer compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

Materials and Methods

From January 2019 to November 2021, 133 patients with low rectal cancer underwent single-incision (n = 27) or conventional (n = 106) methods of low anterior rectal resection surgery with ileostomy. All patients were balanced by propensity score matching for basic information in a ratio of 1:2, resulting in 27 and 54 in SILS and CLS groups, respectively.

Results

Relative to the CLS group, the SILS group exhibited fewer leucocyte changes, shorter time to first exhaust and first bowel sounds, shorter length of hospital stay and lower Visual Analogue Score on post-operative days (POD2) and POD3. Intraoperative or post-operative complications or readmissions were comparable between the two groups. The oncologic results remained consistent between the two groups other than the number of lymph nodes dissected in group no. 253.

Conclusions

Single-incision laparoscopic low rectal resection surgery through the ileostomy site has advantages in terms of reduced post-operative pain, shorter post-operative exhaust time and length of hospital stay while also achieving oncologic outcomes similar to those of conventional laparoscopy. It can be an alternative procedure for patients with low rectal cancer who require ileostomy.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer (CSILS): study protocol for a multicentre, prospective, open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial

Background

In most previous studies, single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) was feasible and safe in the short term. However, long-term oncologic outcomes remain uncertain, as only a few studies contained long-term survival data. SILS for CRC is still in the early stages of research. Further studies, particularly large-scale, prospective randomized controlled trials, are necessary to assess the value of SILS for CRC.

Methods

This study is a prospective, multicentre, open-label, noninferiority, parallel-group randomized controlled trial that investigates the long-term oncologic outcomes of SILS compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for CRC. A total of 710 eligible patients will be randomly assigned to the SILS group or the CLS group at a 1:1 ratio using a central, dynamic, and stratified block randomization method. Patients with ages ranging from 18 to 85 years old, of both sexes, with CRC above the peritoneal reflection diagnosed as cT1-4aN0-2M0 and a tumour size no larger than 5 cm will be considered for the study. The primary endpoint is 3-year disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary endpoints include: intraoperative outcomes, postoperative recovery, postoperative pain assessment, pathological outcomes, early morbidity and mortality rate, cosmetic effects, quality of life, 3-year overall survival (OS), incidence of incisional hernia, 5-year DFS and 5-year OS. The first two follow-up visits will be scheduled at one month and three months postoperatively, then every three months for the first two years and every six months for the next three years.

Discussion

Currently, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been designed to investigate the long-term oncologic outcomes of SILS for CRC. This study is expected to provide clinical evidence of the oncologic outcomes of SILS compared to CLS for CRC to promote its widespread use.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT 04527861 (registered on August 27, 2020).

Short- and long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for right colon cancer: A multicenter propensity score-matched analysis

INTRODUCTION

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colon cancer is a recent innovation in minimally invasive surgery that can improve short-term outcome. However, several biases exist in current favorable comparisons of SILS with conventional laparoscopic (CL) surgery. Moreover, the oncological outcomes in SILS remain unclear. The aim of this study was to identify outcomes following SILS and CL for right colectomy using a propensity score-matched analysis.

METHODS

A total of 553 patients underwent curative resection for right colon cancer (58 SILS and 495 CL). After propensity score matching, 58 patients in each group were matched.

RESULTS

Before matching, median age was younger (p = 0.037) and clinical stage was lower (p < 0.001) in the SILS group. After matching, operation time was shorter (172 versus 193 min, p = 0.007) and blood loss was less (12 versus 20 mL, p = 0.037) in the SILS group. Most of the SILS cases were performed (43.1%) or supervised (51.7%) by an expert surgeon. Median follow-up duration was 30 and 37 mo in the SILS and CL groups, respectively. Three-year relapse-free survival was 92.5% and 92.4% (p = 0.781); and overall survival was 100% versus 98.1% (p = 0.177).

CONCLUSIONS

Under the control of expert surgeons, SILS appeared to be a safe and feasible approach and had similar oncological outcomes compared with CL in a propensity score-matched cohort of patients with right-sided colon cancer.

Effect of single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery assisted with enhanced recovery after surgery on colorectal cancer: study protocol for a single-arm trial

Background

Studies have proved that the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol can significantly improve the recovery course of patients during the perioperative period. The application of minimally invasive surgery is a critical component of ERAS protocol. Single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery (SILS plus one) could achieve further minimally invasive surgical results than conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). The objective of this trial is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of SILS plus one with ERAS protocol in colorectal cancer.

Methods

This is a prospective, single-center, open-label, single-arm trial. A total of 120 eligible patients with colorectal cancer will receive SILS plus one followed by the ERAS management during the perioperative period. The primary endpoint is postoperative hospital stay. The secondary endpoints include rehabilitative rate of the fourth postoperative day, postoperative medical cost, postoperative pain score, postoperative recovery indexes, inflammatory immune response indexes, compliance with ERAS measures, 6 min postoperative walking test (6MWT), hospital readmissions, and early postoperative complications.

Discussion

This trial will be the first to evaluate the short-term outcomes of SILS plus one assisted with ERAS protocol for patients with colorectal cancer and will provide valuable clinical evidence on the benefit of the combination of these two techniques, hopefully, to provide patients with more safe, economic, feasible, and rapid surgery and perioperative strategies.

Trial Registration

Clinical Trial Registry, NCT0426829. Registered February 15, 2020 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04268290).

Comparative Effectiveness of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Program Combined With Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery in Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been widely used in the perioperative management of colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of ERAS combined with single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) in CRC surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of patients with CRC who underwent surgery between April 2018 and April 2020 in Ruijin Hospital(North), Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine. The patients were divided into three groups: group A (n=138), patients who underwent traditional multiport laparoscopic colectomy with conventional perioperative management; group B (n=63), patients who underwent SILS; and group C (n=51), patients who underwent SILS with ERAS.

RESULTS

Overall, 252 participants were included in the retrospective study. The median operation time (min) in group B and group C was shorter than that in group A (group A 134.0 ± 42.5; group B 117 ± 38.9; group C 111.7 ± 35.4, p=0.004). The estimated surgical blood loss (ml) was lower in groups B and C than in group A (group A 165.1 ± 142.2; group B 122.0 ± 79.4; group C 105.2 ± 55.8, p=0.011). The length of surgical incision (cm) was shorter in groups B and C than in group A (group A 7.34 ± 1.05; group B 5.60 ± 0.80; group C 5.28 ± 0.52, p<0.001). The time before first flatus (hours) in group C was shorter than in groups A and B (group A 61.85 ± 21.14; group B 58.30 ± 20.08; group C 42.06 ± 23.72; p<0.001). The days prior to the administration of free oral fluids in group C was shorter than in groups A and B (group A 4.79 ± 1.28; group B 4.67 ± 1.11; group C 2.62 ± 0.64; p<0.001). The days of prior solid diet was less in group C than in groups A and B (group A 7.22 ± 3.87; group B 7.08 ± 3.18; group C 5.75 ± 1.70; p=0.027). The postoperative length of stay (LOS) was less in group C compared with that in groups A and B (group A 9.46 ± 4.84 days; group B 9.52 ± 7.45 days; group C 7.20 ± 2.37 days; p=0.023). The visual analog scale (VAS) scores on day 0, 1, and 2 in groups B and C were lower than those in group A (day 0, p<0.001; day 1, p<0.001; day 2, p=0.002), while the VAS score on day 3 showed no differences in the three groups (group A 1.29 ± 1.38; group B 0.98 ± 1.24; group C 0.75 ± 0.64, p=0.018).

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that SILS combined with ERAS may be a feasible and safe procedure for CRC surgery because it provides favorable cosmetic results, early dietary resumption, shorter hospital stays, and appropriate control of postoperative pain without increases in complications or readmission rates compared to conventional perioperative care with SILS or conventional laparoscopic surgery(CLS) of CRC. Further prospective randomized controlled studies are needed to enhance evidence-based medical evidence.

Short-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Single-Center, Open-Label, Non-Inferiority, Randomized Clinical Trial

Objective

To date, well-designed randomized controlled trials examining the safety, efficacy, and long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colorectal cancer are scarce. The aim of the current study was to compare short-term outcomes of SILS for colorectal cancer with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

Methods

Between June 28, 2017, and June 29, 2019, a single-center, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Department of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital (North), Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine in Shanghai, China. In total, 200 patients diagnosed or suspected of colorectal cancer (cT_1-4aN_0-2M₀) were randomly assigned to either the SILS or CLS group in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was early morbidity rate. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative outcomes, pain intensity, postoperative recovery, pathologic outcomes, and long-term outcomes.

Results

In total, 193 participants (SILS, 97; CLS, 96) were analyzed in the modified intention-to-treat (MITT) population. Among them, 48 underwent right hemicolectomy (SILS n = 23, 23.7% and MLS n = 25, 26%), 15 underwent left hemicolectomy (SILS n = 6, 6.2% and MLS n = 9, 9.4%), 1 underwent transverse colectomy (MLS n = 1, 1%), 57 underwent sigmoidectomy (SILS n = 32, 33% and MLS n = 25, 26%), and 72 underwent anterior resection (SILS n = 36, 37.1% and MLS n = 36, 37.5%). No significant differences were observed in the baseline characteristics. The intraoperative complication was comparable between the two groups [5 (5.2%) vs. 4 (4.2%); difference, 1%; 95% CI, -5.8% to 7.8%; p > 0.999) and so was postoperative complication rates [10 (10.3%) vs. 14 (14.6%); difference, -4.3%; 95% CI, -13.9% to 5.3%; p = 0.392]. The SILS group showed shorter incision length [median (IQR), 4 (3.5-5) vs. 6.6 (6-7.5), p < 0.001] and lower VAS scores on the first [median (IQR), 4 (3-5) vs. 4 (4-5), p = 0.002] and the second day [median (IQR), 2 (1.5-3) vs. 3 (2-4), p < 0.001] after surgery. No statistically significant difference was found in other measured outcomes.

Conclusions

Compared with CLS, SILS performed by experienced surgeons for selected colorectal cancer patients is non-inferior with good short-term safety and has the advantage of reducing postoperative pain.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03151733.

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

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

Oncologic long-term outcome of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has been introduced as a less invasive alternative to multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MLS). MLS is widely accepted for the treatment of colorectal cancer, but there remains minimal evidence for the use of SILS. Thus, we compared both short- and long-term outcomes of SILS and open surgery (OS) in matched cohorts of colorectal cancer patients.

METHODS

Some 910 patients had colorectal resections for cancer between 2006 and 2013, and 134 of them were operated on using SILS. Eighty of these SILS patients were compared to a cohort of patients who had open surgery that were matching in tumour stage and location, type of resection, sex, age and ASA Score. Disease-free survival at 5 years (5y-DFS) was the primary endpoint; morbidity and hospitalization were secondary parameters. The role of surgical training in SILS was also investigated.

RESULTS

Clavien Dindo ≥ IIIb complications occurred in 13.8% in both groups. 5y-DSF were 82% after SILS and 70% after OS (p = 0.11). Local recurrence after rectal cancer tended to be lower after SILS (0/43 (SILS) vs. 4/35 (OS), p = 0.117). Length of stay was significantly shorter after SILS (10 vs. 14 days, p = 0.0004). The rate of operations performed by surgical residents was equivalent in both groups (44/80 (SILS) vs. 46/80 (OS), p = 0.75).

CONCLUSION

The data demonstrates that SILS results in similar long-term oncological outcomes when compared to open surgery as well as morbidity rates. The hospital stay in the SILS group was shorter. SILS can also be incorporated in surgical training programmes.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Quality of life and patient satisfaction after single- and multiport laparoscopic surgery in colon cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial (SIMPLE Trial)

BACKGROUND

The clinical benefits of single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) in patients with colon cancer patients are unclear because only a few studies have reported on the quality of life (QoL) of such patients. This study aimed to compare the QoL and patient satisfaction between SPLS and multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) in colon cancer.

METHODS

The multicentre randomised controlled SIngle-port versus MultiPort Laparoscopic surgEry (SIMPLE) trial included patients with colon cancer who underwent radical surgery at seven hospitals in South Korea. We performed a pre-planned secondary analysis of the QoL data of 359 patients from that trial. The QoL was surveyed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Patient satisfaction was measured with a 5-point questionnaire at these postoperative time points.

RESULTS

Overall, 145 and 147 patients were included in the SPLS and MPLS groups, respectively. Most QoL domains were similar between the groups. In the subgroup analysis of patients without adjuvant chemotherapy, patients in the SPLS group presented with significantly better global health status (p = 0.017), fatigue (p = 0.047), and pain (p = 0.005) scores and tended to have improved physical (p = 0.055), emotional (p = 0.064), and social (p = 0.081) functioning, with marginal significance at 1 month postoperatively, compared to those in the MPLS group. Patient satisfaction regarding surgery (p = 0.002) and appearance of the abdominal scar (p = 0.002) was significantly higher with SPLS than with MPLS at 12 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent SPLS without adjuvant chemotherapy had better global health status, fatigue status, and pain at 1 month postoperatively; however, these improvements were minimal and temporary. In the near future, the effect of SPLS on postoperative QoL should be confirmed through a randomised controlled trial targeting the QoL in colon cancer patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01480128.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Single-Incision Versus Multiport Laparoscopic Complete Mesocolic Excision Colectomy for Colon Cancer

Background. Our aim was to compare the emerging technique of single-incision laparoscopic surgery complete mesocolic excision (SILS CME) colectomy with the standard multiport laparoscopic CME (MPL CME) colectomy. Methods. MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, EMBASE, Ovid, and the Cochrane library were searched. Studies comparing the SILS CME with MPL CME in adults with colon adenocarcinoma were included. The Jadad and Newcastle Ottawa Scales were used to critically appraise the studies. The presence of statistical heterogeneity or publication bias was examined. Results. Seven studies (3 randomized) with a total number of 1344 patients were included (546 SILS CME and 798 MPL CME). No difference was found in anastomotic leakage (odds ratio [OR] = 0.79 [0.31 to 2.03]; P = .63), number of lymph nodes (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 0.85 [-0.97 to 2.66]; P = .36), hospital stay (WMD = 0.01 [-0.19 to 0.20]; P = .96), overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.19 [0.29 to 4.80]; P = .81), and disease-free survival (HR = 1.30 [0.30 to 5.61]; P = .72). Skin incision was shorter in SILS CME group (WMD = -3.02 [-3.25 to -2.80]; P < .00001) but with no difference in pain reported in postoperative day 1 (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.21 [-0.50 to 0.09]; P = .17) or day 2 (SMD = 0.16 [-0.52 to 0.84]; P = .64). Conclusions. SILS CME, although technically more demanding, has equivalent short- and long-term outcomes when compared with MPL CME. Potential benefits in cosmesis or postoperative pain need to be further explored by high-quality randomized controlled trials.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Short-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectosigmoid cancer: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to evaluate the short-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port surgery (SILS + 1) compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colonic cancer.

BACKGROUND

At present, single-incision laparoscopic colectomy remains technically challenging. The use of SILS + 1 as an alternative has gained increasing attention; however, its safety and efficacy remain controversial.

METHODS AND PATIENTS

Between April 2014 and July 2016, 198 patients with clinical stage T1-4aN0-2 M0 rectosigmoid cancer were enrolled. The participants were randomly assigned to either SILS + 1 (n = 99) or CLS (n = 99). The morbidity and mortality within 30 days, operative and pathologic outcomes, postoperative recovery course, inflammation and immune responses, and pain intensity were compared.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in overall complications between the two groups (17.2 vs. 16.3%, P = 1.000). The total operating time for the SILS + 1 group was significantly shorter (100.8 ± 30.4 vs. 116.6 ± 36.6, P = 0.002). Blood loss was significantly greater in the CLS group (20 vs. 50, P < 0.001). Thirteen patients (14%) in the CLS group required additional postoperative analgesics, which was significantly more than four patients in the SILS + 1 group. Notably, on postoperative day three, the visual analogue scale score of the CLS group was greater than that of the SILS + 1 group (1.3 ± 1.1 vs. 1.7 ± 1.3, P = 0.023). Tumor diameter, pathologic stage, length of the proximal and distal margins, and number of lymph nodes harvested were similar, other values were also similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that SILS + 1 might be safe and feasible for rectosigmoid cancer when performed by experienced surgeons. It offers minimal invasiveness without compromising oncologic treatment principles. Trial Registration This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02117557).

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.