Single-port versus multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized clinical trial

Identification and categorisation of relevant outcomes for symptomatic uncomplicated gallstone disease: in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set

BACKGROUND

Many completed trials of interventions for uncomplicated gallstone disease are not as helpful as they could be due to lack of standardisation across studies, outcome definition, collection and reporting. This heterogeneity of outcomes across studies hampers useful synthesis of primary studies and ultimately negatively impacts on decision making by all stakeholders. Core outcome sets offer a potential solution to this problem of heterogeneity and concerns over whether the 'right' outcomes are being measured. One of the first steps in core outcome set generation is to identify the range of outcomes reported (in the literature or by patients directly) that are considered important.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a systematic map that examines the variation in outcome reporting of interventions for uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease, and to identify other outcomes of importance to patients with gallstones not previously measured or reported in interventional studies.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 794 potentially relevant titles and abstracts of which 137 were deemed eligible for inclusion. A total of 129 randomised controlled trials, 4 gallstone disease specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and 8 qualitative studies were included. This was supplemented with data from 6 individual interviews, 1 focus group (n=5 participants) and analysis of 20 consultations. A total of 386 individual recorded outcomes were identified across the combined evidence: 330 outcomes (which were reported 1147 times) from trials evaluating interventions, 22 outcomes from PROMs, 17 outcomes from existing qualitative studies and 17 outcomes from primary qualitative research. Areas of overlap between the evidence sources existed but also the primary research contributed new, unreported in this context, outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study took a rigorous approach to catalogue and map the outcomes of importance in gallstone disease to enhance the development of the COS 'long' list. A COS for uncomplicated gallstone disease that considers the views of all relevant stakeholders is needed.

Comparative outcomes of needlescopic, single-incision laparoscopic, standard laparoscopic, mini-laparotomy, and open cholecystectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of 96 randomized controlled trials with 11,083 patients

BACKGROUND

Most randomized trials on minimally invasive cholecystectomy have been conducted with standard (3/4-port) laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy serving as the control group. However, there exists a dearth of head-to-head trials that directly compare different minimally invasive techniques for cholecystectomy (eg, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus needlescopic cholecystectomy). Hence, it remains largely unknown how the different minimally invasive cholecystectomy techniques fare up against one another.

METHODS

To minimize selection and confounding biases, only randomized controlled trials were considered for inclusion. Perioperative outcomes were compared using frequentist network meta-analyses. The interpretation of the results was driven by treatment effects and surface under the cumulative ranking curve values. A sensitivity analysis was also undertaken focusing on a subgroup of randomized controlled trials, which recruited patients with only uncomplicated cholecystitis.

RESULTS

Ninety-six eligible randomized controlled trials comprising 11,083 patients were identified. Risk of intra-abdominal infection or abscess, bile duct injury, bile leak, and open conversion did not differ significantly between minimally invasive techniques. Needlescopic cholecystectomy was associated with the lowest rates of wound infection (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.977) with an odds ratio of 0.095 (95% confidence interval: 0.023-0.39), 0.32 (95% confidence interval: 0.11-0.98), 0.33 (95% confidence interval: 0.11-0.99), 0.36 (95% confidence interval: 0.14-0.98) compared to open cholecystectomy, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, mini-laparotomy, and standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy, respectively. Mini-laparotomy was associated with the shortest operative time (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.981) by a mean difference of 22.20 (95% confidence interval: 13.79-30.62), 12.17 (95% confidence interval: 1.80-22.54), 9.07 (95% confidence interval: 1.59-16.54), and 8.36 (95% confidence interval: -1.79 to 18.52) minutes when compared to single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, needlescopic cholecystectomy, standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and open cholecystectomy, respectively. Needlescopic cholecystectomy appeared to be associated with the shortest hospitalization (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.717) and lowest postoperative pain (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.928).

CONCLUSION

Perioperative outcomes differed across minimally invasive techniques and, in some instances, afforded superior outcomes compared to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. These findings suggest that there may be equipoise for exploring further the utility of novel minimally invasive techniques and potentially incorporating them into the general surgery training curriculum.

Does near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography with indocyanine green reduce bile duct injuries and conversions to open surgery during laparoscopic or robotic cholecystectomy? - A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Bile duct injury and conversion-to-open-surgery rates remain unacceptably high during laparoscopic and robotic cholecystectomy. In a recently published randomized clinical trial, using near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography with indocyanine green intraoperatively markedly enhanced biliary-structure visualization. Our systematic literature review compares bile duct injury and conversion-to-open-surgery rates in patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic cholecystectomy with versus without near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography.

METHODS

A thorough PubMed search was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials and nonrandomized clinical trials with ≥100 patients. Because all near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography studies were published since 2013, only studies without near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography published since 2013 were included for comparison. Incidence estimates, weighted and unweighted for study size, were adjusted for acute versus chronic cholecystitis, and for robotic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy and are reported as events/10,000 patients. All studies were assessed for bias risk and high-risk studies excluded.

RESULTS

In total, 4,990 abstracts were reviewed, identifying 5 near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography studies (3 laparoscopic cholecystectomy/2 robotic cholecystectomy; n = 1,603) and 11 not near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography studies (5 laparoscopic cholecystectomy/4 robotic cholecystectomy/2 both; n = 5,070) for analysis. Overall weighted rates for bile duct injury and conversion were 6 and 16/10,000 in near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography patients versus 25 and 271/10,000 in patients without near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography. Among patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, bile duct injuries, and conversion rates among near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography versus patients without near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography were 0 and 23/10,000 versus 32 and 255/10,000, respectively. Bile duct injury rates were low with robotic cholecystectomy with and without near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography (12 and 8/10,000), but there was a marked reduction in conversions with near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography (12 vs 322/10,000).

CONCLUSION

Although large comparative trials remain necessary, preliminary analysis suggests that using near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography with indocyanine green intraoperatively sizably decreases bile duct injury and conversion-to-open-surgery rates relative to cholecystectomy under white light alone.

Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a current meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

We performed this study to compare the safety and feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) with conventional multiple-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MPLC).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials comparing SILC versus MPLC. We evaluated the pooled outcomes for complications, pain scores, and surgery-related events. This study was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 48 randomized controlled trials involving 2838 patients in the SILC group and 2956 patients in the MPLC group were included in this study. Our results showed that SILC was associated with a higher incidence of incisional hernia (relative risk = 2.51; 95% confidence interval = 1.23-5.12; p = 0.01) and longer operation time (mean difference = 15.27 min; 95% confidence interval = 9.67-20.87; p < 0.00001). There were no significant differences between SILC and MPLC regarding bile duct injury, bile leakage, wound infection, conversion to open surgery, retained common bile duct stones, total complication rate, and estimated blood loss. No difference was observed in postoperative pain assessed by a visual analogue scale between the two groups at four time points (6 h, 8 h, 12 h, and 24 h postprocedure).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current evidence, SILC did not result in better outcomes compared with MPLC and both were equivalent regarding complications. Considering the additional surgical technology and longer operation time, SILC should be chosen with careful consideration.

Needlescopic surgery for large umbilical hernia in a patient with morbid obesity using intraperitoneal onlay mesh with fascial defect closure: a case report

Background

The European and American guidelines recommend that symptomatic umbilical hernias (UHs) are repaired using an open approach with a preperitoneal flat mesh. However, the standard treatment procedure for large UH in patients with extreme obesity is yet to be established. Here, we present the first case of a patient with morbid obesity undergoing laparoscopic UH repair using needlescopic instruments and an intraperitoneal onlay mesh plus repair (IPOM plus).

Case presentation

A 29-year-old man, who was classified as morbidly obese (body mass index, 36.7 kg/m²) noticed a reducible nontender mass in the umbilical region and was subsequently diagnosed with an UH, with a diameter of 4 cm. Laparoscopic IPOM plus repair was planned using a needlescopic method for a large UH in the patient with morbid obesity. A 3-mm rigid laparoscope was mainly used in the procedure. After a 12-mm trocar and two 3-mm trocars were inserted, fascial defect closure was performed using intracorporeal suturing with 0 monofilament polypropylene threads. Then, IPOM was performed laparoscopically using an 11.4-cm round mesh coated with collagen to prevent adhesions. The operative time and blood loss were 57 min and 1 g, respectively. The postoperative course was uneventful.

Conclusions

Reduced-port laparoscopic surgery using needlescopic instruments and an IPOM plus technique is a minimally invasive and convenient combination option for large UH in a patient with morbid obesity.

A Comparative Study of Needlescopic Grasper Assisted Single Incision versus Three-Port versus Pure Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Purpose

Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is a surgical method to treat gallbladder disease designed to reduce postoperative pain and improve cosmetic results. However, pure SILC (pSILC) has several inherent limitations. In this study, we report the surgical outcomes of SILC with needlescopic grasper (nSILC) compared with those of pSILC and conventional three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TPLC).

Methods

This retrospective study enrolled 103 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease in our hospital between January 2013 and January 2015. Among them, 33 patients underwent pSILC, 35 underwent nSILC, and 35 underwent TPLC. We collected demographic characteristics and operative data to analyze outcomes between groups.

Results

All procedures were done by laparoscopy and the gallbladder of each patient was completely removed. Women and younger patients were more to undergo SILC than TPLC. Analysis showed that the operation time of the nSILC group was longer than that of the TPLC group, but shorter than that of the pSILC group (skin to skin operation time [pSILC: 65.2±19.1 min, nSILC: 49.7±12.9 min, and TPLC: 43.4±14.7 min, p<0.001], and major procedure time [pSILC: 42.2±18.7 min, nSILC: 25.9±8.9 min, and TPLC: 23.4±12.7 min, p<0.001]). There were no significant differences between the groups for patient visual analogue scale score, length of hospital stay, or intraoperative blood loss.

Conclusion

nSILC is feasible surgical method in patients with benign gallbladder disease compared to TPLC, and that is an effective procedure to overcome the disadvantage of pSILC.

Simultaneous transabdominal preperitoneal hernia repair and laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A report of 17 cases

INTRODUCTION

Inguinal hernia repair and cholecystectomy are frequently performed in the field of gastrointestinal surgery. However, reports describing surgical procedures that involve simultaneous transabdominal preperitoneal hernia repair (TAPP) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), as well as the safety and usefulness of this combination, are limited. Herein, we report a surgical procedure involving simultaneous TAPP and LC (TAPP + LC) and present the outcomes of patients who have undergone this combined surgical procedure, with a particular focus on its safety and usefulness.

METHODS

We simultaneously performed TAPP + LC in 17 patients (mean age, 66.5 ± 8.1 years) with concomitant inguinal hernia and gallbladder stones. We assessed surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 157 ± 39 min, and mean postoperative hospital stay was 3.2 ± 0.6 days. The median cost was $7673 for TAPP + LC. The mean postoperative length of hospital stay was 1.1 ± 0.6 day for TAPP alone and 3.4 ± 1.4 days for LC alone. The median costs of TAPP alone and LC alone were $4932 and $5453, respectively. Regarding intraoperative complications, the inferior epigastric vessels were damaged in two patients, and seroma was detected as a postoperative complication in one; these complications were spontaneously resolved. No mesh- or infection-related complications were noted.

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous TAPP + LC is safe and can be regarded as a standard surgical procedure for patients with concomitant inguinal hernia and gallbladder stones. The TAPP + LC combination appears to help prevent the need for two hospitalizations and, thereby, reduces hospital stay and economic burden.

Risk factors for an additional port in single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with cholecystitis

Although single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is now widely performed in patients with cholecystitis, some cases require an additional port to complete the procedure. In this study, we focused on risk factor of additional port in this surgery. We performed single-incision cholecystectomy in 75 patients with acute cholecystitis or after cholecystitis between 2010 and 2014 at Gunma University Hospital. Surgical indications followed the TG13 guidelines. Our standard procedure for single-incision cholecystectomy routinely uses two needlescopic devices. We used logistic regression analysis to identify the risk factors associated with use of an additional full-size port (5 or 10 mm). Surgical outcome was acceptable without biliary injury. Nine patients (12.0%) required an additional port, and one patient (1.3%) required conversion to open cholecystectomy because of severe adhesions around the cystic duct and common bile duct. In multivariate analysis, high C-reactive protein (CRP) values (>7.0 mg/dl) during cholecystitis attacks were significantly correlated with the need for an additional port (P = 0.009), with a sensitivity of 55.6%, specificity of 98.5%, and accuracy of 93.3%. This study indicated that the severe inflammation indicated by high CRP values during cholecystitis attacks predicts the need for an additional port. J. Med. Invest. 64: 245-249, August, 2017.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is responsible for increased adverse events: results of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) has gained popularity, although it is not evident if benefits of this procedure overcome the potential increased risk. Aim of the study is to compare the outcome of SLC with conventional multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) in a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials only.

METHODS

A systematic Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials literature search of articles on SLC and MLC for any indication was performed in June 2017. The main outcomes measured were overall adverse events, pain score (VAS), cosmetic results, quality of life, and incisional hernias. Linear regression was used to model the effect of each procedure on the different outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-six trials were included and data from 5141 participants were analysed; 2444 underwent SLC and 2697 MLC, respectively. Mortality reported was nil in both treatment groups. Overall adverse events were higher in the SLC group (RR 1.41; p < 0.001) compared to MLC group, as well severe adverse events (RR 2.06; p < 0.001) and even mild adverse events (RR 1.23; p = 0.041). This was confirmed also when only trials including 4-port techniques (RR 1.37, p = 0.004) or 3-port techniques were considered (RR 1.89, p = 0.020). The pain score showed a standardized mean difference (SMD) of - 0.36 (p < 0.001) in favour of SLC. Cosmetic outcome by time point scored a SMD of 1.49 (p < 0.001) in favour of SLC. Incisional hernias occurred more frequently (RR 2.97, p = 0.005) in the SLC group.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite SLC offers a better cosmetic outcome and reduction of pain, the consistent higher rate of adverse events, both severe and mild, together with the higher rate of incisional hernias, should suggest to reconsider the application of single incision techniques when performing cholecystectomy with the existing technology.

Comparison of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy versus Needlescopic Cholecystectomy: A Single Institutional Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Both single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and needlescopic cholecystectomy (NSC) are superior to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in terms of cosmetic outcome and incisional pain. We conducted a prospective, randomized clinical trial to evaluate the surgical outcome, postoperative pain, and cosmetic outcome for SILC and NSC procedures.

METHODS

In this trial, 105 patients were enrolled (52 in the SILC group; 53 in the NSC group). A visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the cosmetic outcome and incisional pain for patients. Logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the operative difficulty that was present for both procedures.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in patient characteristics or surgical outcomes, including operative time and blood loss. The mean VAS scores for cosmetic satisfaction were similar in both groups. There were significant differences in the mean VAS scores for incisional pain on postoperative day 1 (p = 0.009), and analgesics were required within 12 h of surgery (p = 0.007). Obesity (body mass index ≥25 kg/m2) was the only significant influential factor for operating time over 100 min (p = 0.031).

CONCLUSION

NSC is superior to SILC in terms of short-term incisional pain. Experienced laparoscopic surgeons can perform both SILC and NSC without an increase in operative time.

Meta-analysis of single-port versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy comparing body image and cosmesis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate improvements in cosmetic results and postoperative morbidity for single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) in comparison with multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC).

METHODS

A literature search was undertaken for RCTs comparing SILC with MLC in adult patients with benign gallbladder disease. Primary outcomes were body image and cosmesis scores at different time points. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative and postoperative complications, postoperative pain and frequency of port-site hernia.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven RCTs were included, with a total of 3051 patients. The body image score favoured SILC at all time points (short term: mean difference (MD) -2·09, P < 0·001; mid term: MD -1·33, P < 0·001), as did the cosmesis score (short term: MD 3·20, P < 0·001; mid term: MD 4·03, P < 0·001; long-term: MD 4·87, P = 0·05) and the wound satisfaction score (short term: MD 1·19, P = 0·03; mid term: MD 1·38, P < 0·001; long-term: MD 1·19, P = 0·02). Duration of operation was longer for SILC (MD 13·56 min; P < 0·001) and SILC required more additional ports (odds ratio (OR) 6·78; P < 0·001). Postoperative pain assessed by a visual analogue scale (VAS) was lower for SILC at 12 h after operation (MD in VAS score -0·80; P = 0·007). The incisional hernia rate was higher after SILC (OR 2·50, P = 0·03). All other outcomes were similar for both groups.

CONCLUSION

SILC is associated with better outcomes in terms of cosmesis, body image and postoperative pain. The risk of incisional hernia is four times higher after SILC than after MLC.

The use of expanding ports in laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery may cause more pain: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses on the clinical outcome after laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) have not revealed any major differences in postoperative pain between the two procedures. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the difference in postoperative pain between the two procedures, focusing on whether LESS was conducted with a non-expanding port (LESSnonex) or a port expanding (LESSex) within the incision.

METHOD

EMBASE, Medline, PubMed, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on LESS versus CLS for general abdominal procedures. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 29 RCTs with 2999 procedures were included. Pain (VAS 0-10) 6 h after surgery was significantly lower in the group where LESS was conducted with LESSnonex compared to CLS, WMD=-0.72 (- 1.10 to - 0.33). Pain 18-24 h was significantly higher in the group where LESS was conducted with LESSex compared to CLS, WMD = 0.38 (0.01-0.75). Wound-related complications were significantly more frequent in LESSex procedures compared to CLS, OR = 1.94 (1.03-3.63).

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis indirectly indicates that the type of access device that is used for an abdominal LESS procedure may contribute to the development of early postoperative pain as the use of a non-expanding model was associated with a more advantageous outcome. Direct randomized comparison of LESSnonex and LESSex is warranted to confirm if the use of expanding access devices generates more pain and wound complications.

Is There a Cosmetic Advantage to Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgical Techniques Over Standard Laparoscopic Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery represents an evolution of minimally invasive techniques, but has been a controversial development. A cosmetic advantage is stated by many authors, but has not been found to be universally present or even of considerable importance by patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that there is a cosmetic advantage of the technique regardless of the operation type. The treatment effect in terms of cosmetic improvement is of the order of 0.63.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF IMMUNOLOGICAL PROFILES IN WOMEN UNDERGOING CONVENTIONAL AND SINGLE-PORT LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY

Background

Surgical trauma triggers an important postoperative stress response characterized by significantly elevated levels of cytokines, an event that can favor the emergence of immune disorders which lead to disturbances in the patient's body defense. The magnitude of postoperative stress is related to the degree of surgical trauma.

Aim

To evaluate the expression of pro-inflammatory (TNF-α, IFN-γ, IL-1β, and IL-17) and anti-inflammatory (IL-4) cytokines in patients submitted to conventional and single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy before and 24 h after surgery.

Methods

Forty women with symptomatic cholelithiasis, ranging in age from 18 to 70 years, participated in the study. The patients were divided into two groups: 21 submitted to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy and 19 to single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Results

Evaluation of the immune response showed no significant difference in IFN-γ and IL-1β levels between the groups or time points analyzed. With respect to TNF-α and IL-4, serum levels below the detection limit (10 pg/ml) were observed in the two groups and at the time points analyzed. Significantly higher postoperative expression of IL-17A was detected in patients submitted to single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy when compared to preoperative levels (p=0.0094).

Conclusions

Significant postoperative expression of IL-17 was observed in the group submitted to single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy when compared to preoperative levels, indicating that surgical stress in this group was higher compared to the conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized clinical trial study

BACKGROUND

Surgical technique using small-diameter instruments and single-incision laparoscopy are two new options for less invasive laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). In this study, we have compared mini-LC (MLC) with single-incision LC (SILC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study is a randomized clinical trial conducted on the patients diagnosed with symptomatic cholelithiasis who underwent LC. Forty patients were randomized to two equal groups of MLC and SILC. They were compared in terms of demographic data, operation time, and surgical complications.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar in two groups. Operation time in MLC was significantly shorter than that in SILC (45.1 ± 69 min vs 63.75 ± 7.57 min, P-value < 0.001). Also, the total length of the wound in SILC group was shorter than that in MLC group (P-value < 0.003). Postoperative pain scores were similar in two groups. Hospital stay was shorter in MLC (1.2 ± 0.6 days vs 1.6 ± 0.8 days, P < 0.021). There was no difference in postoperative complications in two groups.

CONCLUSION

MLC because of less operation time is preferred than SILC. Also, by subjective measures, it was a more comfortable method compared to SILC.

Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Less scar, less pain

CONTEXT AND AIMS:

Our study aims to evaluate the post-operative pain and cosmesis of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) in comparison with the standard, 3-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) with respect to the length of incision, cosmetic scores, post-operative pain scores and duration of hospital stay.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN:

This comparative randomised study was conducted in a tertiary care centre teaching hospital between September 2012 and 2014. One hundred and fifty consecutive patients, who qualified as per inclusion criteria, were included in the study.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS:

Seventy-five patients were included in the SLC arm and 75 in the SILC arm. SILC procedure was carried out as transumbilical multiport technique and SLC as 3-port technique utilizing - 5, 5, 10 mm ports.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED:

The data for the primary observations (post-operative pain scores, cosmetic score and incision length) and secondary observation (post-operative hospital stay) were noted. Weighted mean difference was used for calculation of quantitative variables, and odds ratios were used for pooling qualitative variables.

RESULTS:

Pain scores at 4 and 24 h were significantly better for SILC arm than SLC arm (at 4 h - 4.84 ± 0.95 vs. 6.17 ± 0.98, P < 0.05 and at 24 h - 3.84 ± 0.96 vs. 5.17 ± 0.09, P < 0.05). Length of incision was significantly smaller (SILC - 2.631 ± 0.44 cm vs. SLC - 5.11 ± 0.44 cm), P < 0.05 and cosmetic score was significantly better in SILC arm (6.25 ± 1.24) than SLC arm (4.71 ± 1.04), P < 0.05. Difference between the hospital stay is insignificant for two arms SILC (2.12 ± 0.34) and SLC (2.13 ± 0.35), P > 0.05.

DISCUSSION:

Significant difference was found in duration and intensity of pain between two procedures at 4 and 24 h. Cosmesis was significantly better in SILC than SLC group, the sample size in our study was small to arrive at a definite conclusion. The procedure can be selectively and judiciously performed by surgeons trained in regular laparoscopic surgery. Furthermore, the threshold for conversion should be low in learning phase. Widespread application must await Level 1 evidence from prospective trials.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with curved versus linear instruments assessed by systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery poses significant ergonomic limitations. Curved instruments have been developed in order to address the issue of lack of triangulation. Direct comparison between single-incision laparoscopic surgeries with conventional linear and curved instruments has not been performed to date.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CENTRAL and OpenGrey were searched to identify relevant randomized trials. A network meta-analysis was applied to compare operative risks, conversion, duration of surgery and the need for placement of an adjunct trocar in single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with linear and curved instruments. The random-effects model was applied for two sets of comparisons, with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy as the reference treatment. Odds ratios, mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

Twenty-three randomized trials encompassing 1737 patients were included. The use of curved instruments was associated with increased operative time (mean difference 32.53 min, 95% CI 24.23-40.83) and higher odds for the use of an adjunct trocar (odds ratio 22.81, 95% CI 16.69-28.94) compared to the use of linear instruments. Perioperative risks could not be comparatively assessed due to the low number of events.

CONCLUSION

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with curved instruments may be associated with an increased level of operative difficulty, as reflected by the need for auxiliary measures for exposure and increased operative time as compared to the use of linear instruments. Current instrumentation requires further improvement, tailored to the features of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (CRD42015015721).

Early postoperative pain after keyless abdominal rope-lifting surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Keyless abdominal rope-lifting surgery is a novel, gasless, single-incision laparoscopic surgical technique. In this study we aimed to compare the postoperative pain from keyless abdominal rope-lifting surgery with carbon dioxide laparoscopy performed for benign ovarian cysts.

METHODS

During a 20-month period, 77 women underwent surgery for a benign ovarian cyst. Keyless abdominal rope-lifting surgery and conventional carbon dioxide laparoscopy techniques were used for the operations in 32 women and 45 women, respectively. The 2 operative techniques were compared with regard to demographic characteristics; preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data including early postoperative pain scores; and frequency of shoulder pain and analgesic requirements.

RESULTS

Data regarding demographic characteristics, preoperative findings, cyst diameters and rupture rates, intra-abdominal adhesions, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative hospital stay did not differ between groups (P > .05). However, the mean operative and abdominal access times were significantly longer in the keyless abdominal rope-lifting surgery group (P < .05). Visual analog scale pain scores at initially and at the second, fourth, and 24th hours of the postoperative period were significantly lower in the keyless abdominal rope-lifting surgery group (P < .05). Similarly, keyless abdominal rope-lifting surgery caused significantly less shoulder pain and additional analgesic use (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Keyless abdominal rope-lifting surgery seems to cause less pain in the management of benign ovarian cysts in comparison with conventional carbon dioxide laparoscopy.

Single-port versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies

BACKGROUND

Although current guidelines recommend performing cholecystectomy via laparoscopy, consensus on the application of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for cholecystectomy is still lacking. The aim of the current study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized comparative studies (NRCSs), comparing single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) and conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CMLC) for benign gallbladder diseases.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies published between January 1997 and December 2012 comparing SPLC and CMLC. Operative outcomes, postoperative parameters, complications, cosmetic results, and quality of life were evaluated.

RESULTS

Forty studies were included in the analyses (16 RCTs, 24 NRCSs) that included 3711 patients (1865 SPLCs, 1846 CMLCs). SPLC had higher conversion rates (odds ratio [OR], 4.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.71-6.56; P<.001), longer operating time (mean difference [MD], 16.1; 95% CI, 9.93-22.26 minutes; P<.001), and shorter hospital stay (MD, 0.16; 95% CI, -0.28 to -0.04 day; P=.01) than CMLC. There were no significant differences between the two procedures for early (MD, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.44 to 0.24; P=.57) or late (MD, -0.13; 95% CI, -0.45 to 0.19; P=.42) visual analog scale pain scores and overall complications (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.92-1.61; P=.18). Cosmetic outcomes favored SILC at 2 weeks (MD, -1.39; 95% CI, -2.66 to -0.12; P=.03) and 1 month (MD, -0.13, 95% CI, -2.05 to 0.55; P=.0007) after surgery (index score, 0-10).

CONCLUSIONS

SPLC can be performed safely and effectively with better cosmetic results than with the CMLC technique for benign gallbladder diseases.

Single-port laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery for a gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor: report of a case

We herein report a case of single-port laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) for a gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). A 75-year-old female with an endoluminal GIST located near the esophagogastric junction underwent LECS. Both the mucosal and submucosal layers around the tumor were circumferentially dissected using endoscopic submucosal dissection via intraluminal endoscopy. The endoluminal GIST was exteriorized to the abdominal cavity. The tumor and the edge of the incision line were closed using an endoscopic linear stapler. The LECS was successfully accomplished without the need for any skin incisions or additional ports. The length of the operation was 120 min and blood loss was 5 ml. Oral intake was resumed on the second day and the length of hospital stay was 5 days. No complications were noted and the patient had an excellent cosmetic result. In our experience, single-port LECS is feasible and safe for gastric GIST when performed by a surgeon experienced in laparoscopic and gastric surgery.

The efficacy and safety of different kinds of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a network meta analysis of 43 randomized controlled trials

Background and Objective

We conducted a network meta analysis (NMA) to compare different kinds of laparoscopic cholecystectomy [LC] (single port [SPLC], two ports [2PLC], three ports [3PLC], and four ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy [4PLC], and four ports mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy [mini-4PLC]).

Methods

PubMed, the Cochrane library, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Knowledge were searched to find randomized controlled trials [RCTs]. Direct pair-wise meta analysis (DMA), indirect treatment comparison meta analysis (ITC) and NMA were conducted to compare different kinds of LC.

Results

We included 43 RCTs. The risk of bias of included studies was high. DMA showed that SPLC was associated with more postoperative complications, longer operative time, and higher cosmetic score than 4PLC, longer operative time and higher cosmetic score than 3PLC, more postoperative complications than mini-4PLC. Mini-4PLC was associated with longer operative time than 4PLC. ITC showed that 3PLC was associated with shorter operative time than mini-4PLC, and lower postoperative pain level than 2PLC. 2PLC was associated with fewer postoperative complications and longer hospital stay than SPLC. NMA showed that SPLC was associated with more postoperative complications than mini-4PLC, and longer operative time than 4PLC.

Conclusion

The rank probability plot suggested 4PLC might be the worst due to the highest level of postoperative pain, longest hospital stay, and lowest level of cosmetic score. The best one might be mini-4PLC because of highest level of cosmetic score, and fewest postoperative complications, or SPLC because of lowest level of postoperative pain and shortest hospital stay. But more studies are needed to determine which will be better between mini-4PLC and SPLC.

Fewer-than-four ports versus four ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, laparoscopic cholecystectomy is performed using two 10-mm ports and two 5-mm ports. Recently, a reduction in the number of ports has been suggested as a modification of the standard technique with a view to decreasing pain and improving cosmesis. The safety and effectiveness of using fewer-than-four ports has not yet been established.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits (such as improvement in cosmesis and earlier return to activity) and harms (such as increased complications) of using fewer-than-four ports (fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy) versus four ports in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for any reason (symptomatic gallstones, acalculous cholecystitis, gallbladder polyp, or any other condition).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 8, 2013), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal to September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing fewer-than-four ports versus four ports, that is, with standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy that is performed with two ports of at least 10-mm incision and two ports of at least 5-mm incision.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials and extracted the data. We analysed the data using both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis, whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We found nine trials with 855 participants that randomised participants to fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 427) versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 428). Most trials included low anaesthetic risk participants undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Seven of the nine trials used a single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the remaining two trials used three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy as the experimental intervention. Only one trial including 70 participants had low risk of bias. Fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy could be completed successfully in more than 90% of participants in most trials. The remaining participants were mostly converted to four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy but some participants had to undergo open cholecystectomy.There was no mortality in either group in the seven trials that reported mortality (318 participants in fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy group and 316 participants in four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy group). The proportion of participants with serious adverse events was low in both treatment groups and the estimated RR was compatible with a reduction and substantial increased risk with the fewer-than-four-ports group (6/318 (1.9%)) and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy group (0/316 (0%)) (RR 3.93; 95% CI 0.86 to 18.04; 7 trials; 634 participants; very low quality evidence). The estimated difference in the quality of life (measured between 10 and 30 days) was imprecise (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.18; 95% CI -0.05 to 0.42; 4 trials; 510 participants; very low quality evidence), as was the proportion of participants in whom the laparoscopic cholecystectomy had to be converted to open cholecystectomy between the groups (fewer-than-four ports 3/289 (adjusted proportion 1.2%) versus four port: 5/292 (1.7%); RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.35; 5 trials; 581 participants; very low quality evidence). The fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy took 14 minutes longer to complete (MD 14.44 minutes; 95% CI 5.95 to 22.93; 9 trials; 855 participants; very low quality evidence). There was no clear difference in hospital stay between the groups (MD -0.01 days; 95% CI -0.28 to 0.26; 6 trials; 731 participants) or in the proportion of participants discharged as day surgery (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.22; 1 trial; 50 participants; very low quality evidence) between the two groups. The times taken to return to normal activity and work were shorter by two days in the fewer-than-four-ports group compared with four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (return to normal activity: MD -1.20 days; 95% CI -1.58 to -0.81; 2 trials; 325 participants; very low quality evidence; return to work: MD -2.00 days; 95% CI -3.31 to -0.69; 1 trial; 150 participants; very low quality evidence). There was no significant difference in cosmesis scores at 6 to 12 months between the two groups (SMD 0.37; 95% CI -0.10 to 0.84; 2 trials; 317 participants; very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low quality evidence that is insufficient to determine whether there is any significant clinical benefit in using fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared with four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety profile of using fewer-than-four ports is yet to be established and fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be reserved for well-designed randomised clinical trials.

[Further technical and digital development in minimally invasive and conventional surgery]

Technological innovations have initiated a fundamental change in invasive therapeutic approaches which has led to a welcome reduction of surgical trauma but was also associated with a declining role of conventional surgery. Active utilization of future technological developments is decisive to promote new therapeutic strategies and to avoid a further loss of importance of surgery. This includes individualized preoperative therapy planning as well as intraoperative diagnostic work-up and navigation and the use of new functional intelligent implants. The working environment "surgical operating room" has to be refurbished into an integrated cooperating functional system. The impact of new technological developments is particularly obvious in minimally invasive surgery. There is a clear tendency towards further reduction in trauma in the surgical access. The incision will become smaller and the number of ports will be further reduced, with the aim of ultimately having just one port (monoport surgery) or even via natural access routes (scarless surgery). Among others, improved visualization including, e.g. autostereoscopy, digital image processing and intelligent support systems, which are able to assist in a cooperative way, will enable these goals to be achieved.

Single incision versus standard multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: up-dated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We aimed to compare single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) to the standard multiport technique (MLC) for clinically relevant outcomes in adults.

METHODS

Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of randomized trials.

RESULTS

We identified 30 trials (SILC N = 1209, MLC N = 1202) mostly of moderate to low quality. Operating time (30 trials): longer with SILC (WMD = 12.4 min, 95% CI 9.3, 15.5; p < 0.001), but difference reduced with experience - in 10 large trials (1321 patients) WMD = 5.9 (-1.3, 13.1; p = 0.105). Intra-operative blood loss (12 trials, 1201 patients): greater with SILC, but difference practically irrelevant (WMD = 1.29 mL, 0.24-2.35; p = 0.017). Procedure failure (27 trials, 2277 patients): more common with SILC (OR = 13.9, 4.34-44.7; p < 0.001), but overall infrequent (SILC pooled incidence 4.39%) and almost exclusively addition of a trocar. Post-operative pain (29 trials) and hospital stay (22 trials): no difference. Complications (30 trials): infrequent (SILC pooled incidence 5.35%) with no overall SILC vs. MLC difference. Incisional hernia (19 trials, 1676 patients): very rare (15 vs. 4 cases), but odds significantly higher with SILC (OR = 4.94, 1.26-19.4; p = 0.025). Cosmetic satisfaction (16 trials, 11 with data at 1-3 months): in 5 trials with non-blinded patients (N = 513) in favour of SILC (SMD = 1.83, 0.13, 3.52; p = 0.037), but in 6 trials with blinded patients (N = 719) difference small and insignificant (SMD = 0.42, -1.12, 1.96; p = 0.548).

DISCUSSION

SILC outcomes largely depend on surgeon's skill, but regardless of it, when compared to MLC, SILC requires somewhat longer operating time, risk of incisional hernia is higher (but overall very low) and early cosmetic benefit is modest.

CONCLUSION

From the (in)convenience and safety standpoint, SILC is an acceptable alternative to MLC with a modest cosmetic benefit.

Remains of the day: Biliary complications related to single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy

AIM: To assesse the rate of bile duct injuries (BDI) and overall biliary complications during single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) compared to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC).

METHODS: SPLC has recently been proposed as an innovative surgical approach for gallbladder surgery. So far, its safety with respect to bile duct injuries has not been specifically evaluated. A systematic review of the literature published between January 1990 and November 2012 was performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing SPLC versus CLC reporting BDI rate and overall biliary complications were included. The quality of RCT was assessed using the Jadad score. Analysis was made by performing a meta-analysis, using Review Manager 5.2. This study was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A retrospective study including all retrospective reports on SPLC was also performed alongside.

RESULTS: From 496 publications, 11 RCT including 898 patients were selected for meta-analysis. No studies were rated as high quality (Jadad score ≥ 4). Operative indications included benign gallbladder disease operated in an elective setting in all studies, excluding all emergency cases and acute cholecystitis. The median follow-up was 1 mo (range 0.03-18 mo). The incidence of BDI was 0.4% for SPLC and 0% for CLC; the difference was not statistically different (P = 0.36). The incidence of overall biliary complication was 1.6% for SPLC and 0.5% for CLC, the difference did not reached statistically significance (P = 0.21, 95%CI: 0.66-15). Sixty non-randomized trials including 3599 patients were also analysed. The incidence of BDI reported then was 0.7%.

CONCLUSION: The safety of SPLC cannot be assumed, based on the current evidence. Hence, this new technology cannot be recommended as standard technique for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Patient and parental scar assessment after single incision versus standard 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy: long-term follow-up from a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Single site laparoscopy for appendectomy is a technique with several case series suggesting a cosmetic advantage, but without prospective comparative data. We conducted a prospective, randomized trial comparing single site laparoscopic appendectomy to the standard 3-port approach, including scar assessment at early and long-term follow-up.

METHODS

Enrolled patients over 12years old and parents of patients less than 12years old were asked to complete the validated Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire (PSAQ) at early follow-up around 6weeks and by phone after 18months. The PSAQ consists of 4 scored subscales: Appearance, Consciousness, Appearance Satisfaction, and Symptom Satisfaction. Each subscale has a set of questions with a 4-point categorical response (1=most favorable, 4=least favorable). The sum of the scores quantifies each subscale.

RESULTS

Early questionnaires were obtained from 98 3-port and 100 single-site patients with the single-site approach producing superior overall scar assessment (P=0.003). By telephone follow-up, questionnaires were completed by 49 3-port and 56 single-site patients at a median of 25 (18-32) months. In this longer-term follow-up, overall scar assessment was not significantly different between groups (P=0.06).

CONCLUSION

Patients or parents express superior scar assessment with the single site approach at early follow-up, but this difference disappears in the long-term.

Single incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses that compared the outcome of SILC and CLC have not presented consistent conclusions. This meta-analysis was performed after adding many recent RCTs, to clarify this issue.

METHODS

Relevant articles published in English were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register from January 1997 to February 2013. Reference lists of the retrieved articles were reviewed to identify additional articles. Primary outcomes (postoperative pain scores, cosmetic score, and length of incision) and secondary outcomes (operating time, blood loss, conversion rates, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, time to initial oral intake, and time to resume work) were pooled. Quantitative variables were calculated using the weighted mean difference (WMD), and qualitative variables were pooled using odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

25 appropriate RCTs were identified from 2128 published articles. 1841 patients were treated, 944 with SILC and 897 with CLC. SILC was superior to CLC in cosmetic score (WMD = 1.155, P<0.001), shorter length of incision (WMD = -3.285, P = 0.029), and postoperative pain within 12 h (VAS in 3-4 h, WMD = -0.704, P = 0.026; VAS in 6-8 h, WMD = -0.613, P = 0.010). CLC was superior to SILC in operating time (OT) (WMD = 13.613, P<0.001) and need of additional instruments (OR = 7.448, P<0.001). Other secondary outcomes were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC offered a better cosmetic result and less postoperative pain for patients with uncomplicated cholelithiasis or polypoid lesions of the gallbladder. However, SILC was associated with a longer OT and required additional instruments.

Single incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses that compared the outcome of SILC and CLC have not presented consistent conclusions. This meta-analysis was performed after adding many recent RCTs, to clarify this issue.

METHODS

Relevant articles published in English were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register from January 1997 to February 2013. Reference lists of the retrieved articles were reviewed to identify additional articles. Primary outcomes (postoperative pain scores, cosmetic score, and length of incision) and secondary outcomes (operating time, blood loss, conversion rates, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, time to initial oral intake, and time to resume work) were pooled. Quantitative variables were calculated using the weighted mean difference (WMD), and qualitative variables were pooled using odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

25 appropriate RCTs were identified from 2128 published articles. 1841 patients were treated, 944 with SILC and 897 with CLC. SILC was superior to CLC in cosmetic score (WMD = 1.155, P<0.001), shorter length of incision (WMD = -3.285, P = 0.029), and postoperative pain within 12 h (VAS in 3-4 h, WMD = -0.704, P = 0.026; VAS in 6-8 h, WMD = -0.613, P = 0.010). CLC was superior to SILC in operating time (OT) (WMD = 13.613, P<0.001) and need of additional instruments (OR = 7.448, P<0.001). Other secondary outcomes were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC offered a better cosmetic result and less postoperative pain for patients with uncomplicated cholelithiasis or polypoid lesions of the gallbladder. However, SILC was associated with a longer OT and required additional instruments.

Prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing the use of a single-port device with that of a flexible endoscope with no other device for transumbilical cholecystectomy: LLATZER-FSIS pilot study

BACKGROUND

Natural orifice transumbilical endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is a technique still in experimental development that requires clinical trials to assess its safety and efficacy. We present a pilot prospective, randomized, three-arm clinical trial of 1-year duration that was conducted as a noninferiority trial comparing single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and flexible single-incision surgery (FSIS) with conventional laparoscopy for elective cholecystectomy (NCT01558414).

METHODS

Sixty patients between aged 18 and 65 years who were eligible for elective cholecystectomy were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio (n = 20 per group): group A (SILS), single-incision endoscopic surgery using a transumbilical SILS™ device; group B (FSIS), single-incision transumbilical surgery using a flexible endoscope; and group C (CL), conventional laparoscopy. The main outcome variable of the study was "parietal complications" (wound infection, bleeding, and ventral hernia). The analysis was by intention to treat and attritions were not replaced.

RESULTS

Cholecystectomy was performed in 100 % of the cases; perioperative complications occurred in only 1.6 % of the cases, and umbilical surgical wound infection in 3.33 %, with no differences between groups. After a minimum follow-up of 1 year, no differences were noted in the frequency of parietal complications and no ventral hernias occurred. Postoperative pain, hospital length of stay, and downtime from work were similar in all three groups. Surgical time was longer in cases in which a single-incision transumbilical approach was used (58.95 min for SILS and 54.15 for FSIS vs. 49.21 for laparoscopy).

CONCLUSIONS

Single-incision transumbilical approaches are not inferior for safety or effectiveness compared with conventional laparoscopy. The transumbilical approach using a flexible endoscope is just as effective and safe as the other two procedures and is a promising single-incision approach.