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

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: Benchmarking Uptake for a Regional Improvement Programme

BACKGROUND

The uptake of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for patients with colorectal cancer has progressed at differing rates, both across countries, and within countries. This study aimed to investigate uptake for a regional colorectal cancer improvement programme in England.

METHOD

We calculated the proportion of patients receiving elective laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery amongst those diagnosed with colorectal cancer over 3 time periods (2007-2011, 2012-2016 and 2017-2021) in hospitals participating in the Yorkshire Cancer Research Bowel Cancer Improvement Programme (YCR BCIP). These were benchmarked against national rates. Regression analysis and funnel plots were used to develop a data driven approach for analysing trends in the use of MIS at hospitals in the programme.

RESULTS

In England, resections performed by MIS increased from 34.9% to 72.9% for colon cancer and from 28.8% to 72.5% for rectal cancer. Robot-assisted surgery increased from 0.1% to 2.7% for colon cancer and from 0.2% to 7.9% for rectal cancer. Wide variation in the uptake of MIS was observed at a hospital level. Detailed analysis of the YCR BCIP region identified a decreasing number of surgical departments, since the start of the programme, as potential outliers for MIS when compared to the English national average.

CONCLUSION

Wide variation in use of MIS for colorectal cancer exists within the English National Health Service and a data-driven approach can help identify outlying hospitals. Addressing some of the challenges behind the uptake of MIS, such as ensuring adequate provision of surgical training and equipment, could help increase its use.

Parathyroidectomy for solitary parathyroid adenoma via trans-areola single site endoscopic approach: Results of a case-match study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to establish the standardized procedure of trans-areola single site endoscopic parathyroidectomy (TASSEP), and to compare the performance of TASSEP with that of conventional open parathyroidectomy (COP).

METHODS

This study enrolled 40 patients with primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) who underwent TASSEP, and included 40 of 176 PHPT patients who underwent COP based on propensity score matching. The retrospective analysis was conducted based on prospectively collected data. Perioperative outcomes, including surgical profile, surgical burden and cosmetic results and follow-up were reported. The learning curve was described using a cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis.

RESULTS

40 TASSEPs were completed successfully without conversions or severe complications. There was no statistically significant difference in operation time between TASSEP and COP groups (80.83 ± 11.95 vs. 76.95 ± 7.30 min, p = 0.084). Experience of 17 cases was necessitated to reach the learning curve of TASSEP. Postoperative pain score and traumatic index (C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate) in TASSEP were apparently lower than those in COP group (p < 0.05). During the proliferation and stabilization phases, TASSEP was associated with significantly better incision recovery and cosmetic scores. Postoperative serum calcium and PTH levels throughout the follow-up period indicated satisfactory surgical qualities in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Based on precise preoperative localization and intraoperative planning facilitated by three-dimensional (3D) virtual modeling, TASSEP can be feasibly performed on selected patients with satisfactory success rates and low complication rates, providing preferable cosmetic results and alleviating the surgical burden to a certain extent.

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.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of single-port versus multi-port robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

It is unknown whether the da Vinci single-port system performs similarly to the previous multi-port system during complicated procedures, such as rectal cancer surgery. Therefore, we compared the short-term clinical outcomes of single-port and multi-port robotic total mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study reviewed 128 patients who underwent robotic total mesorectal excision between July 2020 and June 2022, of whom 84 (42 each: single-port versus multi-port) were included in the propensity score-matched cohort. Perioperative and pathologic outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Median tumor height was similar between groups (single-port versus multi-port, 5.9 ± 2.1 vs 5.6 ± 1.8 cm, P = .719). Preoperative chemoradiotherapy was performed equally. The total operative time was less (160.0 ± 42.2 minutes vs 199.6 ± 78.6 minutes, P = .005), the total length of incision was shorter (4.0 ±0.3 vs 5.4 ± 0.7 cm, P = .003), postoperative hospital stay was shorter (6.2 ±1.7 vs 7.2 ±2.8 days, P = .050), and C-reactive protein levels on postoperative day 3 trended to be lower (7.3 ± 4.7 vs 8.9 ± 5.6 mg/L, P = .096) in the single-port group, compared with the multi-port group. Postoperative complications did not differ between groups (single-port versus multi-port, 11.9% vs 16.6%, P = .864). Anastomotic leakage occurred in 1 and 2 patients in the single-port and multi-port groups, respectively. The circumferential resection margins were positive in 1 patient in the multi-port group.

CONCLUSION

The perioperative outcomes of single-port robotic total mesorectal excision were comparable to those of multi-port robotic TME. The single-port robot can be considered a surgical option for treating rectal cancer.

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.

Initial experience of abdominal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer using the da Vinci single port system

From November 2021 to February 2022, 15 patients underwent total abdominal mesorectal excision for rectal cancer using the da Vinci single port system. The clinical and pathological results were analyzed retrospectively. All surgeries were performed without conversion. The mean distance from the tumor to the anal verge was 10 cm (range, 2-15 cm). The mean operative time was 191 minutes, the median docking time was 4 minutes (range, 2-10 minutes), and the estimated blood loss was 20 mL (range, 20-50 mL). The mean number of lymph nodes harvested was 16.5, the mean distal resection margin was 3.52 cm, and all patients had circumferential and distal tumor-free resection margins. One patient had minor anastomotic leakage. The mean length of hospital stay was 5.8 ± 2.5 days. Abdominal total mesorectal excision using the da Vinci single port system for rectal cancer is technically feasible and safe, with acceptable pathological and short-term clinical outcomes.

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).

Clinical status and future prospects of single-incision robotic-assisted surgery: a review

Since the advent of conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery, the prosperity of minimally invasive surgery has been thriving on the advancement of endoscopic techniques. Cosmetic superiority, recovery benefits, and noninferior surgical outcomes weigh single-incision laparoscopic surgery as a promising modality. Although there are surgical challenges posed by steep learning curve and technological difficulties, such as instruments collision, triangulation loss and limited retraction, the establishment of robotic surgical platform as a solution to all is inspiring. Furthermore, with enhanced instrument maneuverability and stability, robotic ergonomic innovations adopt the advantages of single-incision laparoscopic surgery and surmount its recognized barriers by introducing a novel combination, single-incision robotic-assisted surgery. As was gradually diffused in general surgery and other specialties, single-incision robotic-assisted surgery manifests privileges in noninferior clinical outcomes an satisfactory cosmetic effect among strictly selected patients, and has the potential of a preferable surgical option for minimally invasive surgery.

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.

Short-term outcomes of single-incision robotic colectomy versus conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer

Since the da Vinci SP (dVSP) surgical system was introduced, single-incision robotic surgery (SIRS) for colorectal diseases has gained increasing acceptance. Comparison of the short-term outcomes between SIRS using dVSP and those of conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery (CMLS) was performed to verify its efficacy and safety in colon cancer. The medical records of 237 patients who underwent curative resection for colon cancer by a single surgeon were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups according to surgical modality: SIRS (RS group) and CMLS (LS group). Intra- and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Of the 237 patients, 140 were included in the analysis. Patients in the RS group (n = 43) were predominantly female, younger, and had better general performance than those in the LS group (n = 97). The total operation time was longer in the RS group than in the LS group (232.8 ± 46.0 vs. 204.1 ± 41.7 min, P < 0.001). The RS group showed faster first flatus passing (2.5 ± 0.9 vs. 3.1 ± 1.2 days, P = 0.003) and less opioid analgesic requirement (analgesic withdrawal within 3 postoperative days: 37.2% vs. 18.6%, P = 0.018) than the LS group. The RS group showed a higher immediate postoperative albumin level (3.9 ± 0.3 vs. 3.6 ± 0.4 g/dL, P < 0.001) and lower C-reactive protein level (6.6 ± 5.2 vs. 9.3 ± 5.5 mg/dL, P = 0.007) than the LS group during the postoperative period. On multivariate analysis after adjusting for deviated patient characteristics, no significant difference was observed in short-term outcomes, except for operation time. SIRS with dVSP showed short-term outcomes comparable with those of CMLS for colon cancer.

Early perioperative outcomes of single-port compared to multi-port robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy

Single-port (SP) robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is a promising new technique. The aim of this study was to compare surgical and oncological outcomes of SP-RAPN to the multi-port (MP) surgical platform. This is a retrospective, cohort-based study involving patients undergoing SP-RAPN between 2019 and 2020 at a single institution. Demographic, preoperative, surgical, and postoperative outcomes data were gathered and compared to a 1-to-1 matched MP cohort. A total of 50 SP and 50 matched MP cases were included. Length of surgery and ischemia time were not statistically significant between the two cohorts; however, estimated blood loss (EBL) was significantly lower in the SP group than in the MP (IQR 25-50 vs. IQR 50-100 mL, p = 0.002). No differences were seen in regard to the 30-day readmission rate, surgical margin status, pain scores, and complications between the two approaches. We found no statistically significant differences in positive margins, pain score, length of stay, or readmission rate between matched SP and MP patients. These data support the viability of the SP technique as an alternative to MP-RAPN when in the hands of experienced surgeons.

Learning curve of trans-areola single-site endoscopic thyroidectomy in a high-volume center: A CUSUM-based assessment

BACKGROUND

Limited attempts have been made in trans-areola single-site endoscopic thyroidectomy (TASSET) due to technical challenges and the lengthy time for proficiency. This study aimed to define the learning curve of TASSET and to describe improvements in operative performance over time.

METHODS

Based on 222 consecutive TASSET procedures, the learning curve was established according to the operation time by using cumulative sum analysis (CUSUM). The end-point of learning curve was defined as the number of cases necessitated to reach the initial surgical proficiency stage. The demographic information, surgical and oncological outcomes, surgical stress, and postoperative complications were also analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 70 cases of simple lobectomy for benign nodules and 152 cases of lobectomy with central neck dissection (CND) for malignancy. The mean operative time was 106.54 ± 38.07 min (range: 46-274 min). The learning curve identified two phases: the skill acquisition phase (Case 1-Case 41) and the proficiency phase (Case 42-Case 222). There were no significant differences in demographic information, drainage amount and duration, oncological outcomes, and postoperative complications between the two phases (p > 0.05). Both operation time and postoperative hospitalization decreased significantly in Phase 2 (154.63 ± 52.21 vs. 95.64 ± 22.96 min, p < 0.001; 4.12 ± 0.93 vs. 3.65 ± 0.63 days, p < 0.001). Additionally, the mean variations of surgical stress factors (C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate) decreased significantly as the phase progress. The case number required for proficiency phase in benign and malignant tumor were 18 and 33, respectively, and lymph node resection posed a significant impact on the endpoint of the learning curve (p < 0.001). Meanwhile, the size of nodule showed no significant impact (p = 0.622). For right-handed surgeons, 16 cases and 25 cases were required for technical competence in left-sided and right-sided lesions, respectively, and no significant difference reached (p = 0.266).

CONCLUSIONS

TASSET has demonstrated safe and technically feasible with comparable oncological outcomes. Experience of 41 cases was required for surgical competence and proficiency. The initial learning stage could be more quickly adopted by high-volume thyroid surgeons with standardized procedures.

Single-port versus multiport robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: initial experiences by case-matched analysis of short-term outcomes

Purpose

The da Vinci single-port (SP) system has been used in various surgical fields, including colorectal surgery. However, limited experience has been reported on its safety and feasibility. This study aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes of SP robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer compared with multiport (MP) robotic surgery.

Methods

Rectal cancer patients who underwent curative resection in 2020 were reviewed. A total of 43 patients underwent robotic total mesorectal excision (TME), of which 26 (13 in each group, SPTME vs. MPTME) were included in the case-matched cohort for analysis. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes and pathological results were compared between the 2 groups.

Results

Median tumor height was similar between the 2 groups (SPTME vs. MPTME: 5.9 cm [range, 2.2-9.6 cm] vs. 6.7 cm [range, 3.4-10.0 cm], P = 0.578). Preoperative chemoradiotherapy was equally performed (38.5%). The median estimated blood loss was less (20.0 mL [range, 5.0-20.0 mL] vs. 30.0 mL [range, 20.0-30.0 mL], P = 0.020) and the median hospital stay was shorter (7 days [range, 6-8 days] vs. 8 days [range, 7-9 days], P = 0.055) in the SPTME group. Postoperative complications did not differ (SPTME vs. MPTME: 7.7% vs. 23.1%, P = 0.587). One patient in the SPTME group and 3 in the MPTME group experienced anastomotic leakage.

Conclusion

SP robotic TME showed perioperative outcomes similar to MP robotic TME. The SP robotic system can be considered a surgical option for the treatment of rectal cancer. Further prospective randomized trials with larger cohorts are required.

A prospective randomized controlled study comparing patient-reported scar evaluation of single-port versus multiport laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis

Purpose

This study aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes and patient-surveyed scar assessments of single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SPLA) with the outcomes of multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (MPLA).

Methods

Between August 2014 and November 2017, the prospective randomized study comprised 98 patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis and indicated for surgery. Fifty-one patients had MPLA and 47 patients received SPLA. The primary endpoint was the total score of Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire (PSAQ) administered to patients 6 weeks after surgery.

Results

SPLA involved a shorter median operative time than MPLA (47.5 minutes vs. 60.0 minutes, p = 0.02). There were no apparent differences in the time before diet tolerance, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complication. SPLA patients had shorter total incision length (2.0 cm vs. 2.5 cm, p < 0.01) and required fewer analgesics on the day of surgery than MPLA patients (p = 0.011). The PSAQ favored the SPLA approach, revealing significant differences in total score (48 vs. 55, p = 0.026), appearance (15 vs. 18, p = 0.002), and consciousness (8 vs. 10, p = 0.005), while satisfaction with appearance and symptoms scale did not (p = 0.162 and p = 0.690, respectively).

Conclusion

The postoperative scar evaluated by the patient was better with SPLA than with MPLA, and patient satisfaction with the scar was comparable between the two techniques.

Single-Port Robotic Intersphincteric Resection for the Treatment of Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci Single-port (SP) system is designed to facilitate single-incision robotic surgery in a narrow space. We developed a new procedure of intersphincteric resection (ISR) using the SP platform and evaluated the technical safety and feasibility of this procedure for the treatment of very low rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eleven rectal cancer patients who underwent SP robotic ISR between August 2020 and July 2021 were included. Patients' clinical characteristics, operative and pathologic findings of the patients were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

The median tumor height was 3 cm (range, 2-4 cm). A single docking was performed, and the median docking time was 3 min 10 sec (range, 2 min 50 sec-3 min 30 sec). The median total operation time was 210 min (range, 150-280 min), and the median time of pelvic dissection was 57 min (range, 45-68 min). All patients presented with negative distal resection margins [median 1 cm (range, 0.5-2.0 cm)], and only one patient had less than 1mm of circumferential resection margin (0.9 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

Our initial experience suggests that SP robotic ISR is safe and feasible.

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.

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.

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.

Da Vinci SP robotic approach to colorectal surgery: two specific indications and short-term results

BACKGROUND

Da Vinci® Single Port (dvSP) was recently developed. Its application in colorectal surgery is under investigation. The aim of this study was to explore the safety and feasibility of dvSP for intersphincteric (dvSP-ISR), right colectomy (dvSP-RC), and transverse colectomy (dvSP-TC). Surgical indication and short-term results were analyzed.

METHODS

All consecutive patients from a prospective database of patients who underwent dvSP-ISR, dvSP-RC, and dvSP-TC at Korea University Anam Hospital from November 2020 to December 2021, were analyzed. Perioperative, pathological, and oncological short-term outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 7 dvSP-ISR, 5 dvSP-RC, and 1 dvSP-TC were performed. Median age was 56.0 (55.0-61.0) years for the dvSP-ISR and 54.0 (44.7-63.5) years for the dvSP-RC/TC. Median body mass index was 22.8 (17.1-24.8) kg/m² for the dvSP-ISR and 23.6 (20.8-26.9) kg/m² for the dvSP-RC/TC. All dvSP-ISR patients received neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiotherapy, including one patient with squamocellular carcinoma who was treated with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/mitomycin. All other patients, excluding one dvSP-RC patient with Crohn's disease, had an adenocarcinoma. Median operation time was 280 (240-370) minutes for the dvSP-ISR and 220 (201-270) minutes for the dvSP-RC/TC. Estimated blood loss was insignificant. No intraoperative complications or conversions to multiport/open surgery was reported. Median post-operative stay was 7.0 (6.0-10.0) days for the dvSP-ISR and 5.0 (4.0-6.7) days for the dvSP-RC/TC. Quality of mesorectum was complete for six patients, and nearly complete for one. Median number of retrieved lymph nodes were 21 (17-25) for the dvSP-ISR and 28 (24-49) for the dvSP-RC/TC. Proximal and distal resection margins were tumor free. Four patients experienced post-operative complications not related to the platform which were: ileus, voiding dysfunction, infected pelvic hematoma, and wound infection. Median follow-up was 9 (6-11) months and 11 (7-17) months for the dvSP-ISR and dvSP-RC/TC, respectively. Two patients had systemic recurrence; all others were tumor free.

CONCLUSIONS

The dvSP platform is safe and feasible for intersphincteric resection with right lower quadrant access, and right/transverse colectomy with suprapubic access. Further studies are needed to evaluate benefit differences compared to multiport robotic platform.

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.

Analogies between medusa and single port surgery in gastroenterology and hepatology: A review

Single port surgery (SPS) was introduced as an attractive, minimally invasive surgical technique that ensures esthetic results for many types of visceral surgery. Initially, surgeons immediately set about performing SPS without preliminary knowledge or training, which resulted in higher complication rates. Today, current studies conclusively show that SPS is scientifically rehabilitated and indicated for simple and complex laparoscopic procedures. We here describe the astonishing analogies between Greek mythology and modern surgery.

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.

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.

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.

An initial experience with a novel technique of single-port robotic resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci single-port (SP) system is designed to facilitate single-incision robotic surgery in a narrow space. We developed a new procedure of rectal resection using this system. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the technical feasibility and safety of SP robotic rectal resection for rectal cancer patients based on our initial experience.

METHODS

A study was conducted on consecutive patients with mid or low rectal cancer who had SP robotic resection at our institution between July and September 2020. The demographic characteristics, perioperative data, and pathology results of the patients were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 5 patients (3 males, 2 females, median age 57 years (range 36-73 years). The median tumor height from the anal verge was 4 cm (range 3-5 cm). Two patients received preoperative chemoradiotherapy for advanced rectal cancer. A single docking was conducted, and the median docking time was 4 min 20 s (range 3 min 30 s to 5 min). The median total operation time was 195 min (range 155-240 min), and the median time of pelvic dissection was 45 min (range 36-62 min). All patients had circumferential and distal tumor-free resection margins. One patient experienced an anastomosis-related complication. The median duration of hospital stay was 7 days (range 7-8 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Our initial experience suggests that SP robotic rectal resection is safe and feasible. Further clinical trials comparing SP and multiport robotic rectal resection should be conducted to verify the superior aspects of this new system.

Single/reduced port surgery vs. conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim is to compare single port surgery (SPS)/reduced port surgery (RPS) versus conventional laparoscopy (CL) for gastrectomy for gastric cancer in terms of intra- and postoperative outcomes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

After a search in Pubmed and Embase, six articles were included. Pooled analysis was used to evaluate the statistically significance for each variable.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-three and 230 patients underwent SPS/RPS and CL, respectively. One hundred and eighty-eight patients and 45 patients underwent subtotal and total gastrectomy, respectively, using the SPS/RPS approach. One hundred and eighty-five patients and 45 patients underwent subtotal and total gastrectomy, respectively, by CL. In 85 patients, an extra trocar was systematically placed at the end of surgery. Statistically significant differences were not observed about preoperative staging. The pooled analysis regarding operative time, blood loss, postoperative complications, number of harvested lymph nodes and postoperative hospital stay showed that the only statistically significant difference between the two approaches is the shorter hospital stay in case of SPS/RPS.

CONCLUSIONS

SPS/RPS total or subtotal gastrectomy shows a lower postoperative hospital stay, with comparable operative time, blood loss, early postoperative complication rate and number of harvested lymph nodes in comparison to CL, provided extensive experience in minimally invasive gastrectomy is present. Abbreviations: AGC: advanced gastric cancer; BMI: body mass index; CI: confidence interval; CL: conventional laparoscopy; LESS: laparoendoscopic single site; MD: mean difference; NOS: Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; OR: odds ratio; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis; ROBIN-I: Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions; RPS: reduced port surgery; RR: risk ratio; SILS: single incision laparoscopic surgery; SPS: single port surgery; WMD: weighted mean differences.

Natural orifice versus conventional mini-laparotomy for specimen extraction after reduced-port laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: propensity score-matched comparative study

BACKGROUND

Although reduced port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS), defined as laparoscopic surgery performed with the minimum possible number of ports and/or small-sized ports, is less invasive than conventional laparoscopic surgery by reducing the number of surgical wounds, an extension of the incision is still needed for specimen extraction, which can undermine the merits of RPLS.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) in patients undergoing RPLS for colorectal cancer. The endpoints were perioperative outcome and oncologic safety at 3 years.

SETTING

Single-center experience (2013-2019).

PATIENTS

We retrospectively analyzed our prospectively collected patient records (American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage I-III sigmoid or upper rectal cancer (tumor diameter ≤ 5 cm) who underwent curative anterior resection via RPLS. We excluded patients who did not undergo intestinal anastomosis.

INTERVENTIONS

Perioperative and oncologic outcomes were compared between patients undergoing natural orifice (RPLS-NOSE) or conventional (mini-laparotomy) specimen extraction (RPLS-CSE). Patients were matched by propensity scores 1:1 for tumor diameter, AJCC stage, American Society of Anesthesiologists score and tumor location.

RESULTS

Of 119 eligible patients, 104 were matched (52 RPLS-NOSE; 52 RPLS-CSE) by propensity scores. Compared with RPLS-CSE, RPLS-NOSE was associated with longer operative time (223.9 vs. 188.7 min; p = 0.003), decreased use of analgesics (morphine dose 33.9 vs. 43.4 mg; p = 0.011) and duration of hospital stay (4.2 vs. 5.1 days; p = 0.001). No statistically significant difference was found in morbidity or wound-related complication rates between the two groups. After a median follow-up of 34.3 months, no local recurrence was observed in RPLS-NOSE. The 3-year disease-free survival did not differ statistically significantly between groups (90.9 vs. 90.5%; p = 0.610).

CONCLUSION

NOSE enhances the advantages of RPLS by avoiding the need for abdominal wall specimen extraction in patients with tumor diameter ≤ 5 cm. Surgical and oncologic safety are comparable to RPLS with CSE.

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.