Single-incision Laparoscopy Versus Multiport Laparoscopy for Colonic Surgery: A Multicenter, Double-blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial

Single-incision Laparoscopic Colonic Surgery: A Systemic Review, Meta-analysis, and Future Prospect

Although single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has gained some attention as a feasible alternative to conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) in colonic surgery, it became less prevalent than expected. Hence, we conducted this systematic review to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and oncological outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) with meta-analysis and discussion of the future prospect of SILS. The search was conducted from September to October 2023 using PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Articles on colorectal cancer comparing SILC with multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MPLC) from all randomized controlled trials and comparative studies with 50 patients or more per arm were examined. The primary outcomes were the intra- and postoperative complication rates, and the secondary outcomes were the perioperative and oncological outcomes. The trends of the SILS number in Japan and the trends of the number of articles on SILS in PubMed were also reviewed. There were no significant differences in perioperative complication rates, operative factors, and oncological outcomes between SILC and MPLC, although heterogeneity was observed mainly in operative factors and the total length of the skin incision was significantly shorter in SILC. Therefore, SILC is technically and oncologically feasible and safe when performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons. The case number of SILS was gradually increasing but the rate of SILS was decreasing in Japan. The number of articles on SILS was also decreasing. SILS has gained foothold to some extent but has plateaued. The emerging new robotic platform may reappraise the concept of SILS.

PROcedure-SPECific postoperative pain management guideline for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: A systematic review with recommendations for postoperative pain management

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer diagnosed in women and third most common in men. Laparoscopic resection has become the standard surgical technique worldwide given its notable benefits, mainly the shorter length of stay and less postoperative pain. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current literature on postoperative pain management following laparoscopic colorectal surgery and update previous procedure-specific pain management recommendations. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain scores and opioid requirements. We also considered study quality, clinical relevance of trial design, and a comprehensive risk-benefit assessment of the analgesic intervention. We performed a literature search to identify randomised controlled studies (RCTs) published before January 2022. Seventy-two studies were included in the present analysis. Through the established PROSPECT process, we recommend basic analgesia (paracetamol for rectal surgery, and paracetamol with either a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific inhibitor for colonic surgery) and wound infiltration as first-line interventions. No consensus could be achieved either for the use of intrathecal morphine or intravenous lidocaine; no recommendation can be made for these interventions. However, intravenous lidocaine may be considered when basic analgesia cannot be provided.

Long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy for right-sided colon cancer utilising a craniocaudal approach

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) for right-sided colon cancer (CC) using a craniocaudal approach.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The data of patients who underwent SILC for right-sided CC at our hospital between January 2013 and December 2022 were retrospectively collected. Surgery was performed using a craniocaudal approach. Short- and long-term operative outcomes were analysed.

RESULTS

In total, 269 patients (127 men, 142 women; median age 74 years) underwent SILC for right-sided CC. The cases included ileocaecal resection (n = 138) and right hemicolectomy (n = 131). The median operative time was 154 min, and the median operative blood loss was 0 ml. Twenty-seven cases (10.0%) required an additional laparoscopic trocar, and 9 (3.3%) were converted to open surgery. The Clavien-Dindo classification Grade III post-operative complications were detected in 7 (2.6%) cases. SILC was performed by 25 surgeons, including inexperienced surgeons, with a median age of 34 years. The 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) was 96.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 91.3%-98.2%), and CSS per pathological disease stage was 100% for Stages 0-I and II and 86.2% (95% CI 71.3%-93.7%) for Stage III. The 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 90.6% (95% CI 85.7%-93.9%), and RFS per pathological disease stage was 100% for Stage 0-I, 91.7% (95% CI 80.5%-96.6%) for Stage II and 76.1% (95% CI 63.0%-85.1%) for Stage III.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC for right-sided CC can be safely performed with a craniocaudal approach, with reasonable short- and long-term outcomes.

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.

Single-incision versus multi-port laparoscopic ileocolic resections for Crohn's disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) versus multi-port laparoscopy for ileocolic resection in patients with Crohn's disease (CD).

Patients and Methods

A systematic search of multiple electronic databases was conducted. The peri- and post-operative outcomes were evaluated between Crohn's patients undergoing SILS versus multi-port laparoscopy for ileocolic resection. The primary outcomes included operative time, anastomotic leak rate, post-operative wound infections and length of hospital stay. Analysed secondary outcomes were conversion rates, ileus occurrence, intra-abdominal abscess formation, return to theatre and re-admissions. Revman 5.3 was used to perform the statistical analysis.

Results

Five observational studies with 521 patients (SILS: 211; multi-port: 310) were included in the data synthesis. Patients undergoing SILS had a reduced total operative time compared to multi-port laparoscopy (mean difference [MD]: -16.14, 95% confidence interval: [CI] -27.23 - 5.05, P = 0.004). Post-operative hospital stay was also found to be significantly less in the SILS group (MD: -0.57, 95% CI: -0.73--0.42, P < 0.0001). No significant difference was seen in the anastomotic leak rate (MD: -16.14, 95% CI: 0.18-1.71, P = 0.004) or post-operative wound infections (odds ratio: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.24 - 2.47, P = 0.67) between the two groups. Moreover, all the measured secondary outcomes were comparable.

Conclusion

SILS seems to be a feasible alternative to multi-port laparoscopic surgery for ileocolic resection in patients with CD. Improved outcomes in terms of total operative time and length of hospital stay were observed in patients undergoing SILS surgery. Adopting this procedure into routine clinical practice constitutes the next step in the development of minimally invasive surgery.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of single-incision versus multi-port laparoscopic surgery for descending colon cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

The clinical impact of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for descending colon cancer (DCC) is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of SILS for DCC compared with multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MPLS).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 137 consecutive patients with stage I-III DCC who underwent SILS or MPLS at two high-volume multidisciplinary tertiary hospitals between April 2008 and December 2018, using propensity score-matched analysis.

RESULTS

After propensity score-matching, we enrolled 88 patients (n = 44 in each group). SILS was successful in 97.7% of the matched cohort. Compared with the MPLS group, the SILS group showed significantly less blood loss and a greater number of harvested lymph nodes. Morbidity rates were similar between groups. Recurrence pattern did not differ between groups. No significant differences were found between groups in terms of 3-year disease-free and overall survivals.

CONCLUSION

SILS appears safe and feasible and can provide satisfactory oncological outcomes for patients with DCC.

Laparoscopic gastric dissociation using a two-port approach in minimally invasive esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

A new approach for laparoscopic gastric dissociation in minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) was attempted. This study aimed to evaluate the short-term outcomes, safety, and efficacy of two-port laparoscopy using the McKeown procedure.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 206 consecutive patients with esophageal cancer who underwent a modified two-port laparoscopic or the traditional five-port McKeown procedure at our institution from August 2019 to August 2021. Surgical outcomes of the two methods were compared.

RESULTS

Of the 206 patients, 106 (51.46%) underwent the modified two-port procedure, whereas 100 (48.54%) underwent the traditional five-port procedure. Subsequently, 182 propensity score-matched patients were compared. No significant differences were observed in laparoscopic operative time, blood loss during laparoscopic surgery, number of dissected lymph nodes, and pain score on postoperative day 1 between the two groups. The rate of complication and postoperative length of hospital stay did not differ significantly between the two groups. The total hospitalization cost also did not differ significantly between the two groups (p = 0.325). No postoperative deaths occurred in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate that laparoscopic gastric dissociation using the two-port approach in MIE is a safe and effective procedure, with short-term outcomes comparable to those of the traditional five-port procedure in patients with esophageal cancer. Larger studies with longer follow-up duration are warranted.

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.

Comparison of clinical safety and feasibility between reduced-port laparoscopic radical gastrectomy and conventional laparoscopic radical gastrectomy: A retrospective study

Background

Traditional open gastric cancer surgery has evolved from porous to reduced-hole, single-hole, or even natural cavity surgery to laparoscopic surgery, due to the continuous development of minimally invasive concepts and medical technologies, as well as awareness for the concept of rapid recovery. Conventional laparoscopic radical gastrectomy is quite mature in age at the moment, but how to progress to minimally invasive surgery without increasing the difficulty of surgery while ensuring clinical safety and feasibility is worth further investigation. Therefore, the clinical safety and feasibility of reduced port laparoscopic radical gastrectomy were assessed in this study.

Methods

Information on the clinical data of patients undergoing laparoscopic radical gastric cancer surgery in a single centre between May 2020 and May 2022 was collected, and a total of 232 patients were included in this study according to the study protocol design. The clinical data of 232 patients with gastric cancer treated by two different surgical methods, namely, reduced port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) or conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS), were retrospectively analysed. The intraoperative indices, postoperative pathological indices, and short-term postoperative complications (within 30 days) of the two different surgical methods were evaluated, as well as the surgical methods’ feasibility and short-term postoperative recovery effect.

Results

There was no significant difference between the general data of patients with RPLS and CLS (P &gt; 0.05). Compared with CLSG, the operation time, digestive tract reconstruction time and lymph node dissection time of RPLSG are shorter. The intraoperative blood loss was less, and the incision was minimally invasive (P &lt; 0.05). In the short-term postoperative effect, the level of white blood cell count on the first day, the time of getting out of bed, the time of removing drainage tube, the time of hospitalization and the VAS of pain on the first, third and fifth days after operation, RPLSG was obviously superior to CLSG (P &lt; 0.05). There was no significant difference between RPLSG and CLSG in terms of pathological indices (P &gt; 0.05).

Conclusions

The treatment of gastric cancer with RPLS has good safety, feasibility and short-term postoperative effects, which is in line with the implementation of the modern concept of rapid rehabilitation surgery.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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).

Comparison of clinical outcomes of single-incision versus multi-port laparoscopic surgery for rectosigmoid or upper rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for rectal cancer is technically challenging, and its clinical impact is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes of SILS for rectal cancer compared with multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MPLS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 357 consecutive patients with stage I-III rectal cancer located in the rectosigmoid or upper rectum who underwent SILS or MPLS between January 2012 and December 2016, using propensity score-matched analysis.

RESULTS

After propensity score-matching, we enrolled 204 patients (n = 102 per group). Before matching, significant group-dependent differences were observed in tumor location (p < 0.001). After matching, preoperative clinical factors were similar between groups. SILS was successful in 73.5% of cases, an additional port was required in 23.5%, and 2.9% were converted to open surgery. Compared to the MPLS group, the SILS group showed shorter operative time (192 vs. 211 min, p = 0.015) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (9 vs. 11 days, p = 0.038). Other operative factors and morbidity rates did not differ significantly between groups. The number of harvested lymph nodes was smaller in the SILS group (24) than in the MPLS group (27, p = 0.008). Postoperative recurrence did not differ between groups, either before or after matching. No significant differences in 3-year disease-free, 3-year local recurrence-free, or 5-year overall survival were found between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SILS is safe, is feasible, and offers satisfactory oncological outcomes in selected patients with rectosigmoid or upper rectal cancer.

Is laparoscopy a reliable alternative to laparotomy in Hartmann's reversal? An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature on and updated meta-analysis of surgical postoperative complications after laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal (LHR) and open Hartmann's reversal (OHR).

METHODS

Studies comparing LHR versus OHR published from inception until June 2020 were selected and submitted to a systematic review and meta-analysis. Articles were searched in the MEDLINE and Cochrane Trials Register databases. Meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.0.

RESULTS

Twenty-three retrospective comparative studies (including 5 case-controlled studies) with a total of 3139 patients with LHR and a total of 10,325 patients with OHR were included. Meta-analysis showed that LHR was significantly associated with a decreased rate of revision surgery (OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.60-0.89, p < 0.001), anastomotic leakage (OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.49-0.75, p < 0.00001), postoperative morbidity (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.47-0.58, p < 0.00001), intra-abdominal abscess (OR = 0.67 [0.52-0.87], 95% CI = , p = 0.003), wound abscess (OR = 0.53 [0.46-0.61], 95% CI = , p < 0.00001), and postoperative ileus (OR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.29-0.72, p = 0.0008), respectively. Conversely, mortality was comparable between LHR and OHR.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that LHR significantly improved surgical postoperative outcomes. However, considering the low level of evidence, further randomized trials are required to validate these findings.

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.

Surgery versus Medical Therapy in Luminal Ileocecal Crohn's Disease

The deeper understanding of the inflammatory process which gradually evolves into irreversible fibrosis and tissue damage has provided a precise picture of the disease course of luminal ileocecal Crohn's disease. According to the model of progressive structural damage, ideal time windows for medical and surgical treatment have been identified. While complicated disease clearly profits from surgical treatment, uncomplicated disease has become, in the last years, the most debatable setting in terms of different approaches including early surgery. On one hand, the rationale of traditional escalating medical therapy (step-up approach) has been undermined by the top-down medical approach. Indeed, the step-up approach has the possible drawback of delaying, up to a later disease stage, the use of more effective agents such as anti-tumor necrosis factors. Conversely, the top-down approach might expose patients to an overtreatment along with side effects including hypersensitivity to biologic agents. More recently, it has been shown how early surgery could be a valid option in this subset of patients being more cost-effective than medical therapy. Involving the surgeon at an early stage is considered now a good clinical practice and, in this scenario full of possibilities, the surgeon should be included into the decision-making process from the very beginning of patient management.

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.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Studies find similar perioperative outcomes between single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colon cancer. However, few have reported long-term outcomes of SILS versus CLS. We aimed to compare long-term postoperative and oncologic outcomes as well as perioperative outcomes between SILS and CLS for colon cancer.

METHODS

A total of 641 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer from July 2009 to September 2014 were eligible for the study. Data from 300 of these patients were used for analysis after propensity score-matching (n = 150 per group). Variables associated with short- and long-term outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

The SILS group had a shorter mean total incision length, less postoperative pain, and a similar mean rate of incisional hernia (2.7% versus 3.3%) compared with the CLS group. The 7-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 92.7% versus 94% (p = 0.673) and 85.3% versus 84.7% (p = 0.688) in the SILS and CLS groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CLS, SILS for colon cancer appeared to be safe in terms of perioperative and long-term postoperative and oncologic outcomes. The results suggested that SILS is a reasonable treatment option for colon cancer for a selected group of patients.

Long-term Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Single-incision Versus Multi-port Laparoscopic Colectomy for Colon Cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes that were the secondary endpoints of a RCT of multi-port laparoscopic colectomy (MPC) versus SILC in colon cancer surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The actual long-term outcomes, such as the 5-year RFS, OS, and recurrence patterns after surgery, have not been evaluated by a RCT.

METHODS

Patients with histologically proven colon carcinoma located in the cecum, ascending, sigmoid or rectosigmoid colon clinically diagnosed as stage 0-III were eligible for this study. Patients were preoperatively randomized and underwent complete mesocolic excision. The 5-year RFS, OS, and recurrence patterns were analyzed (UMIN-CTR 000007220).

RESULTS

Between March 1, 2012, and March 31, 2015, a total of 200 patients were randomly assigned to either the MPC arm (n = 100) or SILC arm (n = 100). The median follow-up for all patients was 61.0 months. An intention-to-treat analysis showed that the 5-year RFS was 91.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 85.1%-96.9%] in the MPC arm and 88.0% (95% CI 82.1%-93.9%) in the SILC arm (hazard ratio: 1.37; 95% CI 0.58-3.24; P = 0.479). The 5-year OS was 95.0% (95% CI 91.1%-98.9%) in the MPC arm and 93.0% (87.1%-98.9%) in the SILC arm (hazard ratio: 1.39; 95% CI 0.44-4.39; P = 0.568). There were no significant differences in the recurrence patterns between the 2 arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though the results of the 5-year OS and RFS in this trial were exploratory and underpowered, there were no statistically significant differences between the SILC and MPC arms. SILC may be an acceptable treatment option for select patients with colon cancer.

Initial experience with a suprapubic single-port robotic right hemicolectomy in patients with colon cancer

BACKGROUND

We developed a novel suprapubic single-port robotic right hemicolectomy (spRHC) procedure for patients with right colon cancer using a da Vinci SP Surgical System. The aim of this study was to determine the safety and feasibility of this technique.

METHODS

We performed the spRHC procedure on five patients with right colon cancers between July and September 2020. All procedures including colon mobilization, D3 lymphadenectomy, and intracorporeal anastomosis were completed using the single-port robotic platform through a mini-transverse suprapubic incision and an additional assistant port. Data regarding patient characteristics, perioperative outcomes and pathologic results were analyzed.

RESULTS

Four of the five patients were males. The median age was 69 years (range, 58-77 years).Two patients received preoperative chemotherapy for advanced colon cancer. The median total operative time was 160 min (range, 150-240 min). The median docking time was 4 min 40 s (range, 2 min 10 s-5 min 10 s). The median console time was 105 min (range, 100-120 min). There were no conversions to multiport or open surgeries. The median hospital stay was 7 days (range, 5-12 days). One patient experienced a wound infection. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 41 (range, 39-50 lymph nodes).

CONCLUSIONS

SpRHC is safe and feasible. However, further comparative studies are needed to assess whether this procedure can provide patients with significant benefits compared with multiport robotic surgery.

Comparison of Survival between Single-Access and Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery in Rectal Cancer

Introduction

Innovative laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer can be classified into 2 types: firstly, new instruments such as robotic surgery and secondly, new technique such as single-access laparoscopic surgery (SALS) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). Most reports of SALS for rectal cancer have shown pathologic outcomes comparable to those of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS); however, SALS is considered to be superior to CLS in terms of lower levels of discomfort and faster recovery rates. This study aimed to compare the survival outcomes of the two approaches.

Methods

From 2011 to 2014, 84 cases of adenocarcinoma of the rectum and anal canal were enrolled. The operations were anterior, low anterior, intersphincteric, and abdominoperineal resections. Data collected included postoperative outcomes. The oncological outcomes recorded included 3-year and 5-year survival, local recurrence, and metastasis.

Results

SALS was performed on 41 patients, and CLS was utilized in 43 cases. The demographic data of the two groups were similar. Intraoperative volumes of blood loss and conversion rates were similar, but operative time was longer in the SALS group. There were no significant differences in postoperative complications or pathological outcomes. The oncologic results were similar in terms of 3-year survival (100% and 97.7%; p = 1.00), 5-year survival (78.0% and 86.0%; p = 0.401), local recurrence rates (19.5% vs 11.6%, p = 0.376), and metastasis rates (19.5% vs 11.6%; p = 0.376) for SALS and CLS, respectively.

Conclusion

SALS and CLS for rectal and anal cancer had comparable pathological and survival results, but SALS showed some superior benefits in the early postoperative period.

Long-term outcomes of single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer: results of a propensity score-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) for colon cancer (CC), as practiced in real-world settings, especially in relation to disease stage, have not been established. We examined, retrospectively, both short- and long-term outcomes of SILC versus those of multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MPLC) performed for CC in a propensity-score-matched cohort.

METHODS

The study involved 263 patient pairs matched 1:1 from among 691 patients who, between January 2008 and May 2014, underwent either SILC or MPLC for a primary solitary CC at our hospital. Short-term and long-term operative outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Operation time was the only surgical outcome that varied significantly between the two groups (p = 0.0004). Overall 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) in the SILC group was 93.7 (95% CI 89.6-96.2)%, and CSS per pathological stage (I, II and III) was 98.5 (90.0-99.8)%, 96.0 (88.2-98.7)%, and 88.3 (79.6-93.6)%, respectively, whereas overall 5-year CSS in the MPLC group was 93.3 (89.4-95.9)%, and CSS per pathological stage was 100%, 95.4 (88.3-98.3)%, and 84.1 (74.1-90.8)% (p = 0.5278, 0.2679, 0.7666, and 0.9073), respectively. Overall 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) in the SILC group was 94.0 (90.2-96.4)%, and 3-year DFS per pathological stage was 98.6 (90.4-99.8)%, 90.1 (81.4-95.0)%, and 79.0 (69.4-86.2)%, respectively, whereas overall 3-year DFS in the MPLC group was 93.2 (89.4-95.7)%, and 3-year DFS per pathological disease stage was 100%, 94.5 (87.4-97.7)% and 75.5 (64.7-83.8)% (p = 0.2829, 0.7401, 0.4335 and 0.8518), respectively. Thus, oncological outcomes did not differ significantly between groups. Incisional hernia occurred in 21 (8.0%) SILC group patients and 17 (6.5%) MPLC group patients, without a significant between-group difference (p = 0.6139).

CONCLUSION

Our data indicate that perioperative and oncological outcomes of SILC performed for CC are comparable to those of MPLC performed for CC.

Short-term Outcomes of Single-port Versus Multiport Laparoscopic Surgery for Colon Cancer: The SIMPLE Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare short-term perioperative outcomes of single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) and multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) for colon cancer.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Although many studies reported short- and long-term outcomes of SPLS for colon cancer compared with MPLS, few have reported results of randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial with a noninferiority design. It was conducted between August 2011 and June 2017 at 7 sites in Korea. A total of 388 adults (aged 19-85 yrs) with clinical stage I, II, or III adenocarcinoma of the ascending or sigmoid colon were enrolled and randomized. The primary endpoint was 30-day postoperative complication rates. Secondary endpoints were the number of harvested lymph nodes, length of the resection margin, postoperative pain, and time to functional recovery (bowel movement and diet). Patients were followed for 30 days after surgery.

RESULTS

Among 388 patients, 359 (92.5%) completed the study (SPLS, n = 179; MPLS, n = 180). The 30-day postoperative complication rate was 10.6% in the SPLS group and 13.9% in the MPLS group (95% confidence interval, -10.05 to 3.05 percentage points; P < 0.0001). Total incision length was shorter in the SPLS group than in the MPLS group (4.6 cm vs 7.2 cm, P < 0.001), whereas the length of the specimen extraction site did not differ (4.4 cm vs 4.6 cm, P = 0.249). There were no significant differences between groups for all secondary endpoints and all other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though there was no obvious benefit to SPLS over MPLS when performing colectomy for cancer, our data suggest that SPLS is noninferior to MPLS and can be considered an option in selected patients, when performed by experienced surgeons.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01480128.

[Minimally invasive and robot-assisted surgery for chronic inflammatory bowel disease : Current status and evidence situation]

The majority of cases of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) can be treated by minimally invasive surgery. The advantages of standard laparoscopic approaches compared to open surgery with respect to short-term and long-term outcome parameters have been adequately proven with evidence level 1 for ileocecal resection in Crohn's disease. For many other indications there are at least several larger registry or case-control studies that have shown advantages for laparoscopy. For robot-assisted surgery the feasibility has principally been demonstrated for IBD, whereby at least for ulcerative colitis limited data suggest comparable results to the standard laparoscopic approach. Single port approaches have so far not been able to demonstrate any relevant advantages in IBD surgery. Major advantages for transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) for performing restorative proctocolectomy could not be demonstrated in two larger case-controlled studies but it was at least shown to be a comparable alternative to standard laparoscopy. Overall, it seems unlikely that the recently described new laparoscopic approaches will result in measurable advantages for the patient in comparison to standard laparoscopy as the access trauma is not significantly changed. In general, the indications to perform minimally invasive surgery must always be based on the basic principles of IBD surgery and contraindications have to be considered in individual cases as the advantages of laparoscopic approaches are levelled out in the long run.

Single-incision robotic colectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic colectomy: A matched case control study

BACKGROUND

Single incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) and single incision robotic colectomy (SIRC) are both advanced minimally invasive operative techniques. However, studies comparing these two surgical methods have not been published. The purpose of this study is to compare and evaluate the short-term outcomes of SIRC with those of SILC.

METHODS

A total of 21 consecutive patients underwent SIRC and 136 consecutive patients underwent SILC in separate institutes between January 2013 and December 2019. We used retrospective cohort matching to analyze these patients.

RESULTS

Prior to matching, patients who underwent SIRC had a lower percentage of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grades III-IV (5% vs. 19%, P = 0.11) compared with patients who underwent SILC. The SIRC group revealed a higher proportion of sigmoid colon lesions and anterior resections than the SILC group (61% vs. 45%, P = 0.16). After 1:4 cohort matching, 21 patients were enrolled in the SIRC group and 84 patients were enrolled in the SILC group. No statistically significant difference in terms of operative time (SIRC: 185 ± 46 min, SILC: 208 ± 53 min; P = 0.51), estimated blood loss (SIRC: 12 ± 22 ml, SILC: 85 ± 234 ml; P = 0.12), and complications (SIRC: 4.7%, SIRC: 7.1%; P = 0.31) was observed between these groups. Length of postoperative hospital stay (SIRC: 8.3 ± 1.7 days, SILC: 9.3 ± 6.5; P = 0.10) and number of harvested lymph nodes (SIRC: 21.3 ± 10.3, SILC: 21.3 ± 9.5; P = 0.77) were also similar between the two groups. In subgroup analysis, numbers of harvested lymph node is less in SIRC than SILC (SIRC: 18.1 ± 4.7 vs. SILC: 18.9 ± 8.1, P = 0.04) in anterior resection.

CONCLUSION

SIRC and SILC are safe and feasible procedures with similar surgical and pathological outcomes for right- and left-side colectomy.

Robotic Surgery in Gastrointestinal Surgery

Robotic surgery is expanding in the minimally invasive treatment of gastrointestinal cancer. In the field of gastrointestinal cancer, robotic surgery is performed using a robot-assisted surgery system. In this system, the robot does not operate automatically but is controlled by the surgeon. The surgery assistant robot currently used in clinical practice worldwide is the leader-follower type, including the da Vinci® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical). This review describes the current state of robotic surgery in the treatment of gastrointestinal cancer and discusses the future development of robotic systems in gastrointestinal surgery.

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.

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Reduced-port laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis in pregnancy

Current guidelines indicate that laparoscopic appendectomies are safe for pregnant patients with acute appendicitis. Recently, single- and reduced-port laparoscopic surgeries have gained popularity for nonpregnant patients, because they minimize abdominal wall trauma. Here, we describe a reduced-port laparoscopic appendectomy (RPLA) in a 31-year-old pregnant female performed at 27 weeks gestational age. Preoperative abdominal ultrasonography and computed tomography imaging showed an inflamed, swollen appendix and blood test results showed elevations in the white blood cell count and the C-reactive protein level. Accordingly, acute appendicitis was diagnosed. A surgical incision was performed at the umbilicus with an EZ-access device; an additional 5-mm trocar was placed at the right lower quadrant. Recovery was uneventful. The patient was discharged 8 days postoperatively. A vaginal delivery was achieved at term. The RPLA was a good surgical option for minimizing surgical invasiveness, without increasing the technical difficulty, in conditions where the uterus and fetus are growing.

rSILS: initial clinical experience with single-port robotic (SPr) right colectomy

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci Single-Port (SP) robot is a novel platform designed to facilitate single-incision robotic surgery (rSILS). The objective of this study was to describe our initial experience using this platform for SP robotic (SPr) right colectomy.

METHODS

Under a Food and Drug Administration-regulated feasibility study and Institutional Review Board approval, a patient with cecal adenocarcinoma underwent an SPr right colectomy. The primary endpoint was the safety and feasibility of the first SPr right colectomy performed in the USA. Secondary endpoints included perioperative metrics, morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

An SPr Standard right colectomy was performed through a 4-cm single incision without the need for conversion or additional port placement. Estimated blood loss was 100 mL and there were no intraoperative complications. The robot was docked once with a docking time of 19 min. Total console time was 116 min and operative time was 219 min. The patient tolerated clear liquids on postoperative day (POD) 0 and a low-residue diet on POD 1. The patient had flatus and a bowel movement on POD 1. She was discharged home on POD 3. Final pathology showed pT3N0 cecal adenocarcinoma with negative margins and 0/24 lymph nodes positive for disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Our initial experience demonstrates that an SPr right colectomy is feasible and can be safely completed. We completed an oncologic resection of a cecal adenocarcinoma without complications. The SP robot facilitates the utilization of robotic technology in a single-incision platform to perform colorectal procedures and offers promising benefits in the advancement of robotic surgery.

Hernia incidence following a randomized clinical trial of single-incision versus multi-port laparoscopic colectomy

BACKGROUND

The short-term results of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) showed the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness when performed by skilled laparoscopic surgeons. However, the long-term complications, such as SILC-associated incisional hernia, have not been evaluated. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of incisional hernia after SILC compared with multi-port laparoscopic colectomy (MPC) for colon cancer.

METHODS

From March 2012, to March 2015, a total of 200 patients were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomized to the MPC arm and SILC arm. A total of 200 patients (MPC arm; 100 patients, SILC arm; 100 patients) were therefore analyzed. In all cases the specimen was extracted through the umbilical port, which was extended according to the size of the specimen. A diagnosis of incisional hernia was made either based on a physical examination or computed tomography.

RESULTS

The baseline factors were well balanced between the arms. The median follow-up period was 42.4 (range 9.4-70.0) months. Twenty-one patients were diagnosed with incisional hernia, giving an incidence rate of 12.1% in the MPC arm and 9.0% in the SILC arm at 36 months (P = 0.451). In the multivariate analysis, the body mass index (≥ 25 kg/m²) (hazard ratio [HR] 3.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-8.92; P = 0.044), umbilical incision (≥ 5.0 cm) (HR 3.22; 95% CI 1.16-8.93; P = 0.025), and history of umbilical hernia (HR 3.16; 95% CI 1.02-9.77; P = 0.045) were shown to be correlated with incisional hernia.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no significant difference in the incidence of incisional hernia after SILC arm versus MPC arm with a long-term follow-up. However, this result may be biased because all specimens were harvested through the umbilical port. The study was registered with the Japanese Clinical Trials Registry as UMIN000007220.

Lending a hand for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: the optimal approach?

BACKGROUND

Both minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open approaches for distal pancreatectomy are acceptable. MIS options include total laparoscopic/robotic (TLR) and hand-assist laparoscopy (HAL). When considering safety profile and specimen quality, the optimal approach is unknown.

METHODS

Patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy from 2010-2018 at two major academic institutions were included. Converted procedures were categorized into final approach. Ninety-day perioperative/pathologic outcomes of MIS and open were compared. Subset analyses between TLR vs HAL and HAL vs open were performed. Intent-to-treat analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Among 1006 patients, resection was performed by MIS in 35% (n = 352), open in 65% (n = 654). MIS had similar patient comorbidity profile as open but had increased operative time (183 vs 162 min; p < 0.01), lower estimated-blood-loss (EBL; 131 vs 341 mL; p < 0.01), fewer intraoperative blood transfusions (1.4 vs 5%; p < 0.01), shorter LOS (5.2 vs 7.2 days; p < 0.01). Tumor size was smaller (3.2 vs 4.4 cm; p < 0.01) with lower lymph node (LN) yield (14 vs 16; p < 0.01). When comparing HAL (n = 109) to TLR (n = 243), despite increased prior abdominal operations (60 vs 43%; p = 0.008), HAL had shorter operative time (167 vs 191 min; p < 0.01), similar length-of-stay (LOS; 5.4 vs 5.1 days; p = 0.27), and readmission rate (15 vs 13%; p = 0.47). When comparing HAL to open, the advantages of TLR approach persisted including lower EBL (171 vs 342 mL; p < 0.01), and shorter LOS (5.4 vs 7.2 days; p < 0.01). Although HAL had smaller tumors, it had a similar LN yield (16 vs 16; p = 0.80), and higher R0-rate (97 vs 83%; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Hand-assist laparoscopy is safe and feasible for distal pancreatectomy as operative time, complication profile, lymph node yield, and R0-rates are similar to open procedures, while maintaining the associated the advantages of a total laparoscopic/robotic approach with reduced blood loss and shorter length-of-stay.

Combination of Polypropylene Mesh and in Situ Injectable Mussel-Inspired Hydrogel in Laparoscopic Hernia Repair for Preventing Post-Surgical Adhesions in the Piglet Model

Polypropylene (PP) mesh has been used successfully for a long time in clinical practice as an impressive prosthesis for ventral hernia repair. To utilize a physical barrier for separating mesh from viscera is a general approach for preventing adhesions in clinical practice. However, a serious abdominal adhesion between the mesh and viscera can possibly occur post-hernia, especially with the small intestine; this can lead to a series of complications, such as chronic pain, intestinal obstruction, and fistula. Thus, determining how to prevent abdominal adhesions between the mesh and viscera is still an urgent clinical problem. In this study, a dopamine-functionalized polysaccharide derivative (oxidized-carboxymethylcellulose-g-dopamine, OCMC-DA) was synthesized; this was blended with carboxymethylchitosan (CMCS) to form a hydrogel (OCMC-DA/CMCS) in situ at the appropriate time. The physical and chemical properties of the hydrogel were characterized successfully, and its excellent biocompatibility was presented by the in vitro cell test. The combination of this hydrogel and PP mesh was used in laparoscopic surgery for repairing the abdominal wall defect, where the hydrogel could become fixed in situ on the PP mesh to form an anti-adhesion gel-mesh. The results showed that the gel-mesh could prevent abdominal adhesions effectively in the piglet model. Moreover, the histology and immunohistochemical staining proved that the gel-mesh could effectively alleviate the inflammation reaction and deposition of collagen around the mesh, and it did not disturb the integration between mesh and abdominal wall. Thus, the gel-mesh has superior tissue compatibility.

Postoperative Morbidity After Iterative Ileocolonic Resection for Crohn's Disease: Should we be Worried? A Prospective Multicentric Cohort Study of the GETAID Chirurgie

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To compare perioperative characteristics and outcomes between primary ileocolonic resection [PICR] and iterative ileocolic resection [IICR] for Crohn's disease [CD].

METHODS

From 2013 to 2015, 567 patients undergoing ileocolonic resection were prospectively included in 19 centres of the GETAID chirurgie group. Perioperative characteristics and postoperative results of both groups [431 PICR, 136 IICR] were compared. Uni- and multivariate analyses of the risk factors of overall 30-day postoperative morbidity was carried out in the IICR group.

RESULTS

IICR patients were less likely to be malnourished [27.2% vs 39.9%, p = 0.007], and had more stricturing forms [69.1% vs 54.3%, p = 0.002] and less perforating disease [19.9% vs 39.2%, p < 0.001]. Laparoscopy was less commonly used in IICR [45.6% vs 84.5%, p < 0.01] and was associated with increased conversion rates [27.4% vs 14.6%, p = 0.012]. Overall postoperative morbidity was 36.8% in the IICR group and 26.7% in the PICR group [p = 0.024]. There was no significant difference between IICR and PICR regarding septic intra-abdominal complications, anastomotic leakage [8.8% vs 8.4%] or temporary stoma requirement. IICR patients were more likely to present with non-infectious complications and ileus [11.8% vs 3.7%, p < 0.001]. Uni- and multivariate analyses did not identify specific risk factors of overall postoperative morbidity in the IICR group.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery for recurrent CD is associated with a slight increase of non-infectious morbidity [postoperative ileus] that mainly reflects the technical difficulties of these procedures. However, IICR remains a safe therapeutic option in patients with recurrent CD because severe morbidity including anastomotic complications is similar to patients undergoing primary resection.

PODCAST

This article has an associated podcast which can be accessed at https://academic.oup.com/ecco-jcc/pages/podcast.

Impact of single-incision laparoscopic surgery on postoperative analgesia requirements after total colectomy for ulcerative colitis: a propensity-matched comparison with multiport laparoscopy

AIM

To compare the requirements for postoperative analgesia in patients with ulcerative colitis after single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic total colectomy.

METHOD

All patients undergoing single-incision or multiport laparoscopic total colectomy as a first stage in the surgical treatment of ulcerative colitis between 2010 and 2016 at the University Hospital of Leuven were included. The cumulative dose of postoperative patient-controlled analgesia was used as the primary end-point. A Z-transformation was performed combining values for patient-controlled epidural analgesia and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia, resulting in one hybrid outcome variable. The two groups were matched using propensity scores. Subgroup analysis was performed to analyse the impact of extraction site on postoperative pain.

RESULTS

A total of 81 patients underwent total colectomy for ulcerative colitis (median age 35 years). Thirty patients underwent single-incision laparoscopy, while 51 patients had a multiport approach. The mean normalized patient-controlled analgesia dose was significantly lower in patients undergoing single-incision laparoscopy (-0.33 vs 0.46, P < 0.001). This difference was no longer significant in subgroup analysis for patients with stoma site specimen extraction (P = 0.131). The odds of receiving tramadol postoperatively was 3.66 times lower after single-incision laparoscopy (P = 0.008). The overall morbidity rate was 32.1% (26/81). The mean Comprehensive Complication Index in single-incision and multiport laparoscopy group was 18.33 and 21.39, respectively (P = 0.506). Hospital stay was significantly shorter after single-incision laparoscopic surgery (6.3 days vs 7.6 days, P = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

Single-incision total colectomy was associated with lower postoperative analgesia requirements and shorter hospital stay, with comparable morbidity. However, the specimen extraction site played a significant role in postoperative pain control.