Single-incision laparoscopy for colorectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of more than a thousand procedures

Initial Experience With Single-Port Robotic Right Colectomies: Results of an Investigator-Initiated Investigational Device Exemption Study Using a Novel Single-Port Robotic Platform

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgical techniques have been widely adopted in colorectal surgery. New technological breakthroughs have led to even less invasive alternatives like single-port surgery, but this has been hindered by technical challenges such as the collision of robotic arms within a limited space. The Intuitive da Vinci Single-Port robotic platform is a novel system that overcomes some of these challenges.

IMPACT OF INNOVATION

This study aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of the Intuitive da Vinci Single-Port robotic platform in right segmental colectomies among adult patients. These findings may set the stage for more widespread use of single-port robotic surgery.

TECHNOLOGY, MATERIALS, AND METHODS

The Intuitive da Vinci Single-Port robot is a system designed specifically for single-port robotic surgery. This platform enables flexible port location and efficient internal and external range of motion using a single C-shaped arm. In the present study, right colectomies were performed in adult patients using this platform between May 2022 and November 2022, and they were compared to right colectomies in adult patients performed using the standard multiport platform between January 2019 and December 2022. The main outcome measure was safety and quality event rates.

PRELIMINARY RESULTS

Of 30 patients, 16.7% of patients (n = 5) underwent single-port robotic right colectomy and 83.3% (n = 25) underwent multiport right colectomy. In the single-port group, 40% of patients (n = 2) developed a safety/quality event (postoperative portal vein thrombosis and excessive postoperative pain). In the multiport group, 32% of patients (n = 8) developed 1 safety/quality event and 8% (n = 2) had more than 1 event.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

This preliminary study, one of the first Food and Drug Administration-approved, investigator-initiated uses of this platform in colorectal surgeries, shows that this platform is a safe and feasible option for right colectomies. On preliminary evaluation, it appears comparable in terms of relevant safety/quality events to the multiport platform.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05321134.

A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Single-Port Vs Multiport Laparoscopic Total Abdominal Colectomy With End Ileostomy for Medically Refractory Ulcerative Colitis

BACKGROUND

Medically refractory ulcerative colitis necessitates surgical intervention, with total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy being a definitive treatment. The comparison between single-port and multiport laparoscopic surgery outcomes remains underexplored.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the surgical outcomes of single-port versus multiport laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy for medically refractory ulcerative colitis.

DESIGN

A retrospective analysis comparing single-port to multiport surgery in patients with ulcerative colitis from 2010 to 2020. Patients were propensity score-matched 3:1 (multiport to single-port) on baseline characteristics.

SETTINGS

Single-center academic hospital.

PATIENTS

A total of 756 patients with medically refractory ulcerative colitis who underwent multiport vs single-port total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy from 2010 to 2020 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Binary outcomes were compared using a multivariable logistic regression model, and a subset analysis was conducted for postoperative stump leak based on stump implantation during surgery. These metrics were compared between the single-port and multiport groups to assess the differences in surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

The multiport and single-port groups included 642 and 114 patients, respectively. The matched cohort included 342 multiports and 114 single ports. We observed a statistically significant difference in mean operation time, with the single-port procedure taking 43 minutes less than the multiport laparoscopy. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in postoperative stump leaks, postoperative ileus, stoma site complications, postoperative readmission within 30 days, postoperative reoperation within 30 days, and subsequent IPAA surgery. In the subset analysis, stump implantation was associated with a higher risk of stump leak in the multiport group. The single-port group had a shorter hospital stay.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective nature and being conducted at a single center.

CONCLUSION

Single-incision laparoscopic total abdominal colectomy in the treatment of mucosal ulcerative colitis is a safe, effective, and efficient approach. In our cohort, single-incision laparoscopy has had shorter operation times and better overall length of stay compared with the multiport approach. Taking into account a less invasive approach, decreased abdominal trauma, and faster recovery, single-port surgery is a viable alternative to multiport surgery. See Video Abstract .

UN ANLISIS EMPAREJADO POR PUNTUACIN DE PROPENSIN DE LA COLECTOMA ABDOMINAL TOTAL LAPAROSCPICA CON PUERTO NICO VERSUS PUERTO MLTIPLE CON ILEOSTOMA TERMINAL PARA LA COLITIS ULCEROSA MDICAMENTE REFRACTARIA

ANTECEDENTES:La colitis ulcerosa (CU) médicamente refractaria requiere una intervención quirúrgica, siendo la colectomía abdominal total con ileostomía terminal un tratamiento definitivo. La comparación entre los resultados de la cirugía laparoscópica con puerto único y con puerto múltiple aún no se ha explorado lo suficiente.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados quirúrgicos de la cirugía laparoscópica con puerto único versus con puerto múltiple en pacientes sometidos a colectomía abdominal total con ileostomía terminal para CU médicamente refractaria.DISEÑO:Un análisis retrospectivo que comparó la cirugía de puerto único con la de puerto múltiple en pacientes con CU de 2010 a 2020. Los pacientes fueron emparejados por puntuación de propensión 3:1 (puerto múltiple a puerto único) según las características iniciales.AJUSTES:Hospital académico unicentrico.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultados binarios se compararon utilizando un modelo de regresión logística multivariable y se realizó un análisis de subconjunto para la fuga postoperatoria del muñón basado en la implantación del muñón durante la cirugía. Estas métricas se compararon entre los grupos de puerto único y de puerto múltiple para evaluar las diferencias en los resultados quirúrgicos.RESULTADOS:Los grupos de puerto único y multipuerto incluyeron 642 y 114 pacientes, respectivamente. La cohorte emparejada incluyó 342 puertos múltiples y 114 puertos únicos. Observamos una diferencia estadísticamente significativa en el tiempo medio de operación, ya que el procedimiento de puerto único duró 43 minutos menos que la laparoscopia de puerto múltiple. No hubo diferencias significativas entre los dos grupos en las fugas del muñón posoperatorio, el íleo posoperatorio, las complicaciones del sitio del estoma, el reingreso posoperatorio dentro de los 30 días, la reoperación posoperatoria dentro de los 30 días y la cirugía IPAA posterior. En el análisis de subconjunto, la implantación del muñón se asoció con un mayor riesgo de fuga del muñón en el grupo multipuerto. El grupo de puerto único tuvo una estancia hospitalaria más corta.LIMITACIONES:Carácter retrospectivo, realizándose en un único centro.CONCLUSIÓN:La colectomía abdominal total laparoscópica de incisión única en el tratamiento de la colitis ulcerosa mucosa es un enfoque seguro, eficaz y eficiente. En nuestra cohorte, en comparación con el abordaje multipuerto, la laparoscopia de incisión única ha mostrado tiempos de operación más cortos y una mejor duración total de la estancia hospitalaria. Teniendo en cuenta un enfoque menos invasivo, un menor traumatismo abdominal y una recuperación más rápida, la cirugía con puerto único es una alternativa viable a la cirugía con puertos múltiples. (Traducción-Dr. Mauricio Santamaria ).

Da Vinci single-port robotic system current application and future perspective in general surgery: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci Single-Port Robot System (DVSP) allows three robotic instruments and an articulated scope to be inserted through a single small incision. It received FDA approval in 2014 and was first introduced in 2018. The aim of this new system was to overcome the limitations of single-incision laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Since then, it has been approved for use only for urologic and transoral surgeries in some countries. It has been used as part of experimental protocols in general surgery.

OBJECTIVE

By obtaining the CE mark at the end of January 2024, DVSP will soon enter the European market. This review aims to comprehensively describe the applications of DVSP in general surgery.

DESIGN

A search of PubMed, Embase, and Ebsco databases up to March 2024 was conducted, with registration in PROSPERO (CRD42024536430), following the preferred reporting items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses for scoping review (PRISMA-Scr) guidelines. All the studies about the use of DVSP in general surgery were included.

RESULTS

Fifty-six studies were included. The following surgical areas of use were identified: transabdominal and transanal colorectal, cholecystectomy, abdominal wall repair, upper gastroesophageal tract, liver, pancreas, breast, and thyroid surgery. The reported surgical and short-term outcomes are promising; a wide range of procedures have been performed safely. Some groups have found advantages, such as faster discharge, shorter operative time, and less postoperative pain compared to multiport robotic surgery.

CONCLUSION

Five years after its initial clinical applications, the use of the DVSP in general surgery procedures has demonstrated feasibility and safety. Hernia repair, cholecystectomy, and colorectal surgery emerge as the most frequently conducted interventions with this robotic system. Nevertheless, there is anticipation for further studies with larger sample sizes and extended follow-up periods to provide more comprehensive insights and data on the long-term outcomes, including the incidence of incisional hernia.

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.

A 3 mm Port Reduces Postoperative Pain After Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Surgery: A Case-control Matched Study

BACKGROUND

Recently, smaller-size trocars and instruments have been developed for laparoscopic colon cancer surgery; however, their effectiveness and safety have not been elucidated. This study aimed to investigate whether 3 mm trocars and instruments have benefits compared with conventional trocars and instruments.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with colon cancer who underwent laparoscopic anterior resection or right hemicolectomy were included. Patients who underwent combined resections of other organs and those with conversion to open surgery were excluded. In the 3 mm group, three 5 mm trocars were replaced by 3 mm trocars. The numeric rating scale (NRS) immediately postoperatively at 24, 48, and 72 hours, respectively, after surgery and the use of additional analgesics and perioperative outcomes were analyzed. Case-control matched analysis was used to reduce bias according to the type of surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 207 patients (conventional: n = 158, 3 mm: n = 49) were included. Before matching, NRS 48 hours postoperatively ( P = 0.049), proportion of patients using additional intravenous (IV) analgesics ( P = 0.007), postoperative hospital stay ( P < 0.001), and blood loss ( P < 0.001) were lower in the 3 mm group. In multivariable analysis, trocar type significantly impacted the proportion of patients using additional IV analgesics (odds ratio: 0.330; 95% CI: 0.153-0.712; P = 0.005). After case-control matching, NRS immediately postoperatively ( P = 0.015) and 24 hours postsurgery ( P = 0.043), patients using additional IV analgesics ( P = 0.019), postoperative hospital stay ( P = 0.010), intraoperative blood loss ( P < 0.001), and postoperative complication rate ( P = 0.028) were significantly lower in the 3 mm group compared with the 5 mm group.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of 3 mm trocars and instruments in laparoscopic colon cancer surgery can effectively reduce postoperative pain while maintaining perioperative safety.

Stoma-site approach single-port laparoscopic versus conventional multi-port laparoscopic Miles's procedure for low rectal cancer: A prospective, randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes of patients with low rectal cancer after stoma-site approach single-port laparoscopic Miles procedure or conventional multi-port laparoscopic Miles procedure, as well as to evaluate the safety and efficacy of stoma-site approach single-port laparoscopic surgery in low rectal cancer.

METHODS

Between September 2020 and September 2021, 51 low rectal cancer patients scheduled for Miles procedure at the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery of Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College were randomly assigned to the single-port laparoscopic surgery group (SPLS) and the multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) group. The perioperative outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

In this study, 25 patients underwent SPLS and 26 underwent MPLS. All patients completed the study, and there were no perioperative deaths in either group. Observation indicators such as intraoperative bleeding (39 mL vs. 41 mL), number of lymph nodes (20.12 ± 3.29 vs. 21.84 ± 3.74), average hospital stay (7.15 ± 1.52 vs. 7.64 ± 1.66), and time to flatulence (2.5d vs. 2.5d) showed no significant differences between the SPLS and MPLS groups (p > 0.05). However, the operation duration (180 min vs. 118 min) and perioperative complications showed statistically significant differences between the two groups (p < 0.05). In addition, patients in the SPLS group had significantly higher satisfaction scores than those in the MPLS group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

For patients with low rectal cancer requiring Miles surgery, stoma-site approach single-port laparoscopic surgery has comparable safety and efficacy to multi-port laparoscopic surgery.

Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Approaches to Treat Colorectal Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Literature

Surgery is usually required to treat colorectal cancer (CRC). Medical technology has advanced, providing various approaches to tackle this disease. Different surgeries are available, such as laparoscopic surgery, single-incision laparoscopic surgery, natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, and robotic surgery. Laparoscopic surgery has several benefits including reduced blood loss and shorter recovery time. It can also improve lung function and minimize complications. However, it requires more time to perform and has a higher risk of complications during the procedure. Robotic surgery provides a three-dimensional view of the surgical area allowing for greater precision in rectal surgeries and access to difficult-to-reach pelvic regions. This method utilizes robotics technology which reduces surgical time and speeds up recovery for patients. There are various surgical options available for treating CRC; however, laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery offer unique advantages despite their own drawbacks. As technology continues to evolve, medical techniques will continue improving existing methods while providing new options resulting in better outcomes for patients. Compared to laparoscopy, robotic surgery has a lower rate of operative conversions and a shorter learning curve. However, it also has some drawbacks, such as a longer docking time, lack of tactile sensation, and higher cost. Therefore, the choice of surgical method should depend on patient characteristics, surgeon preference and expertise, and available resources. Currently, specialized centers offer robotic surgeries which are more expensive and take longer compared to open and laparoscopic approaches. Nonetheless, they are considered safe and feasible when compared to traditional surgery. Short-term outcomes for robotic surgeries are better, while long-term postoperative complication rates remain similar. However, there is a need for additional well-defined randomized control trials conducted across multiple centers to validate the use of robotic surgery over open and laparoscopic approaches. Improving patient care and outcomes is the objective of this comprehensive literature overview on surgical approaches for CRC.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery for appendiceal mucocele: a series of 116 patients

BACKGROUND

Although the safety and feasibility of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for appendiceal mucocele (AM) has been reported, studies on single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for AM have not been reported. Here, we aimed to compare the perioperative and short-term outcomes between SILS and CLS for AM and to evaluate the oncological safety of SILS.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients, diagnosed based on computed tomography findings, who underwent laparoscopic surgery for AM between 2010 and 2018 at one institution. We excluded patients strongly suspected of having malignant lesions and those with preoperative appendiceal perforation. Patients were divided into two groups-CLS and SILS. Pathological outcomes and long-term results were investigated. The median follow-up period was 43.7 (range: 12.3-118.5) months.

RESULTS

Ultimately, 116 patients (CLS = 68, SILS = 48) were enrolled. Patient demographic characteristics did not differ between the groups. The preoperative mucocele diameter was greater in the CLS than in the SILS group (3.2 ± 2.9 cm vs. 2.3 ± 1.4 cm, P = 0.029). More extensive surgery (right hemicolectomies and ileocecectomies) was performed in the CLS than in the SILS group (P = 0.014). Intraoperative perforation developed in only one patient per group. For appendectomies and cecectomies, the CLS group exhibited a longer operation time than the SILS group (63.3 ± 24.5 min vs. 52.4 ± 17.3 min, P = 0.014); the same was noted for length of postoperative hospital stay (2.9 ± 1.8 days vs. 1.7 ± 0.6 days, P < 0.001). The most common AM etiology was low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (71/116 [61.2%] patients); none of the patients exhibited mucinous cystadenocarcinoma. Among these 71 patients, there were 8 patients with microscopic appendiceal perforation or positive resection margins. No recurrence was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

SILS for AM is feasible and safe perioperatively and in the short-term and yields favorable oncological outcomes. Despite the retrospective nature of the study, SILS may be suitable after careful selection of AM patients.

Laparoscopic Hartmann's Reversal: Application of a Single-Port Approach Through the Colostomy Site

PURPOSE

Recently, laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's colostomy was performed with favorable outcomes by many surgeons. We partially applied the concepts of single-port laparoscopic procedure through the colostomy site to remove intraperitoneal adhesion during initial step of the laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's colostomy with the application of single-port laparoscopic techniques through the colostomy site.

METHODS

From October 2008 to November 2018, the laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal was attempted in 20 patients. After colostomy take-downs, the single-port device was installed at the colostomy site and the single-port laparoscopic procedure was performed to remove intraperitoneal adhesions to provide space for additional trocars. After additional trocars were inserted, the descending colon and rectal stump were mobilized, and the colorectal anastomosis was completed. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records and analyzed the data to identify the perioperative complication rates as the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Of the 20 patients, 3 patients (15.0%) had open conversions due to severe adhesions. Intraoperative small bowel injuries occurred in 2 patients (10.0%) and these were repaired through the colostomy site. Postoperative complications developed in 4 patients (20.0%) and were managed with medical treatments or wound closures under local anesthesia.

CONCLUSION

The single-port laparoscopic procedure through the colostomy site is sufficiently safe in order to complete the Hartmann's reversal. We recommend that the colostomy site should be used as the access route into the abdominal cavity for the Hartmann's reversal.

Single access laparoscopic total colectomy for severe refractory ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Single port laparoscopic surgery allows total colectomy and end ileostomy for medically uncontrolled ulcerative colitis solely via the stoma site incision. While intuitively appealing, there is sparse evidence for its use beyond feasibility.

AIM

To examine the usefulness of single access laparoscopy (SAL) in a general series experience of patients sick with ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

All patients presenting electively, urgently or emergently over a three-year period under a colorectal specialist team were studied. SAL was performed via the stoma site on a near-consecutive basis by one surgical team using a “surgical glove port” allowing group-comparative and case-control analysis with a contemporary cohort undergoing conventional multiport surgery. Standard, straight rigid laparoscopic instrumentation were used without additional resource.

RESULTS

Of 46 consecutive patients requiring surgery, 39 (85%) had their procedure begun laparoscopically. 27 (69%) of these were commenced by single port access with an 89% completion rate thereafter (three were concluded by multi-trocar laparoscopy). SAL proved effective in comparison to multiport access regardless of disease severity providing significantly reduced operative access costs (> 100€case) and postoperative hospital stay (median 5 d vs 7.5 d, P = 0.045) without increasing operative time. It proved especially efficient in those with preoperative albumin > 30 g/dL (n = 20). Its comparative advantages were further confirmed in ten pairs case-matched for gender, body mass index and preoperative albumin. SAL outcomes proved durable in the intermediate term (median follow-up = 20 mo).

CONCLUSION

Single port total colectomy proved useful in planned and acute settings for patients with medically refractory colitis. Assumptions regarding duration and cost should not be barriers to its implementation.

Initial clinical experience of single-incision robotic colorectal surgery with da Vinci SP platform

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) was introduced to overcome the limitations of single-incision laparoscopic surgery, which is challenging due to its restrictions regarding triangulation and retraction. The purpose of this article is to describe the initial experience with single-incision surgery using the da Vinvci Single-Port Platform (dVSP).

METHODS

The medical records of patients with colorectal disease, who underwent single-incision robotic surgery using the dVSP, were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Five patients with appendiceal and colorectal cancer, and two with diverticulitis were enrolled. All procedures were completed using a pure single-incision approach, with an exception for low anterior resection. There were two minor complications. For patients with colorectal cancer, the number of retrieved lymph nodes and status of the resection margin were acceptable, and cosmetic results were satisfactory.

CONCLUSION

The dVSP is a novel surgical platform that can be used as an alternative surgical modality for colorectal surgery.

Single Port Laparoscopic Total and Subtotal Colectomies for Inflammatory Bowel Disease in a District General Hospital

Background: Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is expanding, enhancing the advantages of multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MLS). Limited literature exists regarding SILS total/subtotal colectomies for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Aim of the study was to present the initial experience with this type of approach in a district general hospital and extrapolate its feasibility and safety in this specific context based on gold standard outcomes reported in literature. Materials and Methods: Preoperative parameters, operative details and surgical outcomes of consecutive patients who underwent colonic SILS for IBD in a 5-year period were reviewed retrospectively. Median length of follow-up was 26 months. Results: Fourteen patients underwent SILS subtotal/total colectomy. Median body mass index was 25 (18.1-35). Two patients had previous abdominal surgeries. Median operating time was 202.5 minutes. Two cases were converted to open. Median length of stay was 5 days. Three patients presented complications. Three patients developed parastomal hernias (21.4%). Five out of 12 patients with ulcerative colitis declined further surgery, 3 are awaiting laparoscopic/SILS pouch formation, 1 underwent SILS pouch formation, 1 SILS ileo-rectal anastomosis and 1 patient had SILS completion proctectomy. One patient was not followed up. Conclusions: Despite literature data heterogeneity, these results provide support to the feasibility and applicability of SILS in the subgroup of patients who undergo subtotal/total colectomies for IBD, offering the option for subsequent SILS completion or restorative procedures. Further studies are required to explore the benefit of SILS over MLS (including cosmesis and quality of life) and non-inferiority of SILS regarding the parastomal hernia issue and the operative duration.

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

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcome of single-port laparoscopy (SPL) and multiport laparoscopy (MPL) laparoscopy for colonic surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Benefits of SPL over MPL are yet to be demonstrated in large randomized trials.

METHODS

In this prospective, double-blinded, superiority trial, patients undergoing laparoscopic colonic resection for benign or malignant disease were randomly assigned to SPL or MPL (NCT01959087). Primary outcome was length of theoretical hospital stay (LHS).

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-eight patients were randomized and 125 analyzed: 62 SPL and 63 MPL, including 91 right (SPL: n = 44, 71%; MPL: n = 47, 75%) and 34 left (SPL: n = 18, 29%; MPL: n = 16, 25%) colectomies, performed for Crohn disease (n = 53, 42%), cancer (n = 36, 29%), diverticulitis (n = 21, 17%), or benign neoplasia (n = 15, 12%). Additional port insertion was required in 5 (8%) SPL patients and conversion to laparotomy occurred in 7 patients (SPL: n = 3, 5%; MPL: n = 4, 7%; P = 1.000). Total length of skin incision was significantly shorter in the SPL group [SPL: 56 ± 41 (range, 30-300) mm; MPL: 87 ± 40 (50-250) mm; P < 0.001]. Procedure duration, intraoperative complication rate, postoperative 30-day morbidity, postoperative pain, and time to first bowel movement were similar between the groups, leading to similar theoretical LHS (SPL: 6 ± 3 days; MPL: 6 ± 2; P = 0.298). At 6 months, quality of life was similar between groups, but patients from the SPL group were significantly more satisfied with their scar aspect than patients from the MPL group (P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

SPL colectomy does not confer any additional benefit other than cosmetic result, as compared to MPL.

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

AIM

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Comparison of single-port and conventional laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection

Background:

Within the last two decades, surgical treatment of colorectal cancer has changed dramatically from large abdominal incisions to minimal access surgery. In the recent years, single port (SP) surgery has spawned from conventional laparoscopic surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare conventional with SP laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (LAPR) for rectal cancer.

Patients and Methods:

This was a single-center non-randomised retrospective comparative study of prospectively collected data on 53 patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer; 41 with conventional laparoscopy and 12 with SP surgery.

Results:

Patients’ characteristics were in general comparable, but patients in the conventional laparoscopy-group had a significantly higher American Society of Anesthesiologists-score. The operative time was slightly shorter in the conventional laparoscopy-group, but no differences were found in oncological margins of the resected specimen, in length of stay or readmission rate.

Conclusions:

SP LAPR appeared to be safe and feasible in selected patients. Adequate oncologic resections can be performed with acceptable morbidity and mortality. Larger randomised controlled trials with longer follow-up are needed to determine the beneficial role of this new procedure.

Transanal Versus Transabdominal Minimally Invasive (Completion) Proctectomy With Ileal Pouch-anal Anastomosis in Ulcerative Colitis: A Comparative Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare surgical outcome of transanal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (ta-IPAA) with transabdominal minimal invasive approach in ulcerative colitis (UC), using the comprehensive complication index (CCI).

BACKGROUND

Recent evolutions in rectal cancer surgery led to transanal dissection of the rectum resulting in a better exposure of the distal rectum and presumed better outcome. The same approach was introduced for patients with UC, resulting in decreased invasiveness.

METHODS

All patients, undergoing minimally invasive restorative proctocolectomy in 1, 2, or 3 stages between January 2011 and September 2016 in 3 referral centers were included. Only patients who underwent either multiport, single port, single port with 1 additional port, hand-assisted, or robotic (R) laparoscopy were included in the analysis. CCI, registered during 90 days after pouch construction, was compared between the transanal and the transabdominal approach.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven patients (male: 52%) with ta-IPAA were compared to 119 (male: 53%) with transabdominal IPAA. Ninety-nine (46%) patients had a defunctioning ileostomy at time of pouch construction. A 2-step model showed that the odds for postoperative morbidity were 0.52 times lower in the ta-IPAA group (95% confidence interval [0.29; 0.92] P = 0.026). In patients with morbidity, mean CCI of the transanal approach was 2.23 points lower than the transabdominal approach (95% confidence interval: [-6.64-3.36] P = 0.13), which was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Ta-IPAA for UC is a safe procedure, resulting in fewer patients with morbidity, but comparable CCI when morbidity is present. Overall, ta-IPAA led to lower CCI scores.

Short-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Diseases: Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Prospective Evidence

BACKGROUND

Conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) has been established as an alternative to open surgery for colorectal diseases (CRDs); simultaneously, single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is gaining popularity.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the short-term efficacy and safety of SILS with CLS for CRDs.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant randomized and prospective studies. Reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, conference proceedings, and ongoing trial databases were also screened. Outcome measures included surgical parameters, postsurgical recovery, pain, and adverse events. Meta-analysis was conducted where appropriate, comparing items using weighted mean differences (WMDs) and risk ratios (RRs) according to data type.

RESULTS

A total of nine prospective (three randomized and six non-randomized) researches published from 2011 to 2015 were identified. The overall pooled results showed compared to CLS, SILS was associated with fewer blood transfusions, shorter incision length, and slighter postoperative pain, but more extra ports. All the other parameters were comparable. Randomized evidence supported SILS was associated with less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay, but longer operative time. For only colectomy cases, SILS was associated with more conversions to open surgery. SILS was associated with longer surgical time for Easterners, but not for Westerners. The detected differences were clinically insignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

The results based on randomized and prospective evidence provide convincing support for the clinical similarity that SILS is basically as applicable, effective, and safe as CLS when dealing with colorectal lesions, but not for superiority.

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision With Single-Incision Laparoscopy for Rectal Cancer

Background and Objectives:

There has been great enthusiasm for the technique of transanal total mesorectal excision. Coupled with this procedure, we performed single-incision laparoscopic surgery for left colon mobilization. This is a description of our initial experience with the combined approach.

Methods:

Patients with distal or mid rectal cancer were included. The operation was performed by 2 teams: one team performed the single-incision mobilization of the left colon via the right lower quadrant ileostomy site, and the other team performed the total mesorectal excision with a transanal platform.

Results:

During the study period, 10 patients (5 men) with cancer of the rectum underwent the surgery. The mean age was 62.2 ± 11.1 years, and the mean body mass index was 23.4 ± 3.2 kg/m². The tumor's mean distance from the anal verge was 5.1 ± 2.5 cm. The median operating time was 247.5 minutes (range, 188–462 minutes). The mean estimated blood loss was 124 ± 126 mL (range, 10–188 mL). Conversion to multiport laparoscopy was needed in one case (10%). Postoperative pain, as reflected by the pain score, was minimal. The mean number of lymph nodes harvested was 15.6 ± 3.8. All specimens had clear distal and circumferential radial margins. The overall complication rate was 10%.

Conclusion:

Our experience showed transanal total mesorectal excision with single-incision laparoscopy to be a feasible option for rectal cancer. Patients reported minimal postoperative pain. Further studies on the long-term outcome are warranted.

Patient Body Image and Satisfaction with Surgical Wound Appearance After Reduced Port Surgery for Colorectal Diseases

BACKGROUND

The use of reduced port surgery (RPS) is increasing in the field of colorectal surgery. It is considered to offer advantages over conventional multiport surgery (MPS) in terms of decreased invasiveness and superior cosmesis. However, to date there has been no study that evaluates patient satisfaction after undergoing RPS for colorectal diseases. Herein, we present a questionnaire-based study to address this issue.

METHODS

Questionnaires were sent by mail to 216 patients who underwent RPS and 145 who underwent MPS. Patient's satisfaction with cosmesis and body image after colorectal surgery was assessed using a validated Body Image Questionnaire (BIQ) and Photo Series Questionnaire (PSQ).

RESULTS

A total of 76.9 % (166/216) of the RPS patients and 70.3 % (102/145) of the MPS patients returned the questionnaires. BIQ scores gradually improved after surgery, and were more positive overall in the RPS group compared to the MPS group. RPS patients marked significantly better PSQ scores than MPS patients (P < 0.05). In RPS subset analysis, patients with single port surgery (SPS) rated better PSQ scores than patients with SPS with additional port insertion (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

We find that RPS, especially SPS, enhances patient satisfaction by reducing abdominal wall trauma. This new advantage of RPS may prove valuable in its consideration as an option in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis of classic randomized controlled trials and high-quality Nonrandomized Studies in the last 5 years

OBJECTIVE

To present a meta-analysis of high-quality published reports comparing laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR) and open rectal resection (ORR) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Studies that compared LRR and ORR and were published within the last 5 years were identified. All eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative trials (NRCTs) were evaluated based on the Jadad score, the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool and modified Methodological Indices for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS). The mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) were used to compare the operative time, blood loss, mortality, complications, harvested lymph nodes, hospital stay, distal resection margin, and circumferential resection margin. The risk ratio (RR) method was used to examine recurrence and survival.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were identified and included 7 RCTs and 7 NRCTs and 4353 patients (2251 LRR, 2102 ORR). Although the operation time of the LRR group was obviously longer than that of the conventional surgery group (MD = 25.64, 95%CI = [5.17,46.10], P = 0.01), LRR was associated with fewer overall complications (OR = 0.67, 95%CI = [0.52,0.87], P = 0.002), less blood loss (MD = -66.49, 95%CI = [-88.31, -44.66], P < 0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stays (OR = -1.26,95%CI = [-2.45, -0.07],P = 0.004) and shorter bowel function recovery times (MD = -0.93, 95%CI = [-1.27,-0.58], P < 0.00001). Moreover, the difference in the DRM was statistically clear (MD = 0.14, 95%CI = [0.02,0.27], P = 0.03). However, no significant differences between the LRR and ORR groups were observed in terms of the number of lymph nodes harvested, mortality, positive CRM, local and distal recurrence, or overall and disease-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that there are no significant differences between LRR and ORR in terms of survival and pathological outcomes with the exception of the DRM. Moreover, this study suggests that LRR can be performed safely and elicits faster recovery times compared with conventional surgery.

Single-incision versus standard multi-incision laparoscopic colectomy in patients with malignant or benign colonic disease: a systematic review, meta-analysis and assessment of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) requires only one umbilical port site and (depending on technique) a specimen extraction site. The aim of this study was the assessment of the available evidence for the comparison of SILC to conventional multi-port laparoscopic colectomy (MLC) in adult patients, in whom elective colectomy is indicated because of malignant or benign disease. First, previous meta-analyses on this topic were assessed. Secondly, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, was performed.

METHODS

Electronic literature searches (CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE; up to March 2016) were performed. Additionally, we searched clinical trials registries and abstracts from surgical society meetings. For meta-analysis, risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95 % confidence intervals were calculated and pooled. The quality of previous meta-analyses was evaluated against established criteria (AMSTAR) and their reported results were investigated for consistency.

RESULTS

We identified 6 previous meta-analyses of mostly low methodological quality (AMSTAR total score: 2 - 5 out of 11 items). To fill the evidence gaps, all these meta-analyses had included non-randomised studies, but usually without assessing their risk of bias. In our systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials exclusively, we included two randomised controlled trials with a total of 82 colorectal cancer patients. There was insufficient evidence to clarify whether SILC leads to less local complications (RR = 0.52, 95 % CI 0.14 - 1.94) or lower mortality (1 death per treatment group). Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the SILC group (MD = -1.20 days, 95 % CI -1.95 to -0.44). One of the two studies found postoperative pain intensity to be lower at the first day. We also identified 7 ongoing trials with a total sample size of over 1000 patients.

CONCLUSION

The currently available study results are too sparse to detect (or rule out) relevant differences between SILC and MLC. The quality of the current evidence is low, and the additional analysis of non-randomised data attempts, but does not solve this problem. SILC should still be considered as an experimental procedure, since the evidence of well-designed randomised controlled trials is too sparse to allow any recommendation.

Single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a report of 33 cases in Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has gained worldwide acceptance as a minimally invasive technique in colorectal procedures since its introduction in 2008. However, case series on its feasibility and safety in Saudi Arabia are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the operative results and clinical outcome of single-port laparoscopic procedures in colorectal surgeries.

DESIGN

Retrospective.

SETTING

This study was conducted at King Khalid university Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Demographic and clinical data, including pathology, and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, were prospectively collected in patients undergoing SILS. This study was conducted during the period from January 2010 and October 2014.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Demographic and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing SILS colectomies.

RESULTS

Thirty-three (33) patients underwent SILS. The mean (SD) age was 51 years (18.2 years), and the average body mass index was 26.6 (6.9) kg/m2. Patients were primarily diagnosed with cancer (n=20/33, 61%), inflammatory bowel disease (n=12/33, 36%) and diverticulitis (n=1/33, 3%). Procedures included anterior resection (n=9/33, 27%), ileocecal resection (n=8/33 24%), hemicolectomy (n=7/33, 21%), extended right hemicolectomy (n=5/33, 15%) and total colectomy (n=4/33, 12%). The mean SD operative time was 212 minutes (76.4 minutes). The mean SD size of the extraction incision was 4.2 (1.7) cm. Six percent of the cases were converted to open (n=2/33), and 9% required placement of an extra port (n=3/33). Four (12%) patients had intraoperative complications, and 30% experienced postoperative complications. The average length of hospital stay was 6.4 (4.3) days.

COCNLUSIONS

SILS is technically feasible and safe for patients undergoing colorectal surgery with no unusual complications. However, comparative studies are necessary to validate the potential benefits of SILS over conventional colorectal laparoscopic surgery.

LIMITATIONS

The study lacked a comparison to conventional open procedures. Additionally, some evaluation criteria were not considered, including cosmesis, pain control, patient satisfaction and cost effectiveness.

Application of Fast-Track Recovery Protocols in Single-Port Laparoscopic Surgery Versus Multiport Laparoscopic Surgery for Colon Resection

AIM

The aim of this study is to analyze whether fast-track (FT) recovery protocols can be applied to single-port laparoscopic surgery for colon resection, as they are in multiport laparoscopic surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective study comparing single-port laparoscopic surgery (SP-FT) versus multiport laparoscopic surgery (MP-FT) for colon resection, and the applicability of our FT recovery protocol in all patients between 2013 and 2014. Variables evaluated were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, tumor size, number of nodes, surgery performed, postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

A total of 83 patients (28 SP-FT group and 55 MP-FT group) underwent FT recovery. The median age was 62 (11-85) years in SP-FT group and 72 (57-84) in MP-FT group. ASA score showed no significant difference (P = .973). The surgical procedures performed were as follows: SP-FT group 20 right hemicolectomy, 5 left hemicolectomy, and 3 subtotal colectomy and MP-FT group were 26 right hemicolectomy, 28 left hemicolectomy, and 1 subtotal colectomy. Mean operative time (minutes) was shorter in SP-FT group (151 ± 47.9 versus 182 ± 50.7), but no significant difference was observed. Regarding the tumor size (SP-FT 4.2 [2-7] cm versus MP-FT 4 [3-12] cm) and postoperative morbidity Clavien-Dindo ≥2 (SP-FT 10 patients versus MP-FT 20 patients), there were no significant differences (P = .535; P = .383). The median length of hospital stay was statistically significant: SP-FT 4.5 (3-53) days versus MP-FT 7 (4-33) days (P = .005).

CONCLUSIONS

FT rehabilitation is safe and reproducible in single-port laparoscopic surgery for colon pathologies, with postoperative results comparable with conventional laparoscopic surgery.

Single-Incision Laparoscopy Could Be Better than Standard Laparoscopy in Right Colectomy for Cancer

BACKGROUND

Human natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is slowed down by technical hurdles. Concomitantly, single-incision laparoscopy has been increasingly reported as an alternative. By reducing the invasiveness of standard laparoscopy, we may further reduce postoperative pain, decrease morbidity, preserve abdominal wall, and enhance cosmesis. Such techniques have been widely applied, including in colorectal surgery. The aim of this multicenter study is to compare the results of single-incision right colectomy (SIRC) with the results of the standard laparoscopic right colectomy (SLRC) in patients with colon cancer.

METHODS

The files of patients who underwent right colectomy for cancer in five hospitals between January 2010 and December 2013 have been reviewed. Exclusion criteria were open surgery, emergency setting, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score >3. Patients were distributed in Groups A (SIRC) or B (SLRC).

RESULTS

Five hundred ninety-two patients were included in this study, 336 in Group A and 256 in Group B. Mean operative time was 129.0 minutes (range 65-245) in Group A and 168.1 minutes in the Group B (range 70-290), respectively (P < .001). No mortality occurred in either group. The overall 30-day morbidity rates were 21.4% in Group A and 25% in Group B, respectively (P = .64). The median length of hospital stay was 4.95 days (range 3-14) in Group A and 5.5 days in Group B (range 3-12), respectively (P = .28). Conversion to laparotomy occurred in four patients in each group (P = 1). Length of skin incision was significantly shorter in Group A than in Group B (2.99 ± 0.63 cm versus 4.94 ± 0.65 cm, P < .001). Histological analysis of the operative specimens showed no significant differences.

CONCLUSION

SIRC is feasible and sure for patients with colon cancer. As compared with SLRC, SIRC may offer some advantages, including lower operative morbidity, shorter hospital stay, and better cosmoses, without compromising the oncological quality of the resected specimen.

Overview of robotic colorectal surgery: Current and future practical developments

Minimal access surgery has revolutionised colorectal surgery by offering reduced morbidity and mortality over open surgery, while maintaining oncological and functional outcomes with the disadvantage of additional practical challenges. Robotic surgery aids the surgeon in overcoming these challenges. Uptake of robotic assistance has been relatively slow, mainly because of the high initial and ongoing costs of equipment but also because of limited evidence of improved patient outcomes. Advances in robotic colorectal surgery will aim to widen the scope of minimal access surgery to allow larger and more complex surgery through smaller access and natural orifices and also to make the technology more economical, allowing wider dispersal and uptake of robotic technology. Advances in robotic endoscopy will yield self-advancing endoscopes and a widening role for capsule endoscopy including the development of motile and steerable capsules able to deliver localised drug therapy and insufflation as well as being recharged from an extracorporeal power source to allow great longevity. Ultimately robotic technology may advance to the point where many conventional surgical interventions are no longer required. With respect to nanotechnology, surgery may eventually become obsolete.

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: Current status and implementation of the latest technological innovations

The introduction of laparoscopy is an example of surgical innovation with a rapid implementation in many areas of surgery. A large number of controlled studies and meta-analyses have shown that laparoscopic colorectal surgery is associated with the same benefits than other minimally invasive procedures, including lesser pain, earlier recovery of bowel transit and shorter hospital stay. On the other hand, despite initial concerns about oncological safety, well-designed prospective randomized multicentre trials have demonstrated that oncological outcomes of laparoscopy and open surgery are similar. Although the use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery has increased in recent years, the percentages of patients treated with surgery using minimally invasive techniques are still reduced and there are also substantial differences among centres. It has been argued that the limiting factor for the use of laparoscopic procedures is the number of surgeons with adequate skills to perform a laparoscopic colectomy rather than the tumour of patients’ characteristics. In this regard, future efforts to increase the use of laparoscopic techniques in colorectal surgery will necessarily require more efforts in teaching surgeons. We here present a review of recent controversies of the use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery, such as in rectal cancer operations, the possibility of reproducing complete mesocolon excision, and the benefits of intra-corporeal anastomosis after right hemicolectomy. We also describe the results of latest innovations such as single incision laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for colon and rectal diseases.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: early results and medium-term oncological outcome

AIM

Conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer management is now widely accepted as an alternative to open surgery, bestowing specific advantages without causing detriment to oncological outcome. Evolving from this, single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has been successfully utilized for the removal of colonic tumours, but the literature lacks data analysing the suitability of SILS for rectal cancer resection, particularly on oncological outcome. We report the medium-term oncological outcome from a prospective observational study of SILS for rectal cancer, including high and low anterior resections.

METHOD

A prospective electronic database was collated of all patients undergoing SILS rectal cancer resection in our institution, between 2009 and 2014. In addition to patient, tumour and operative data, histopathological and medium-term oncological end-points were recorded. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to analyse survival.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients underwent SILS for rectal cancer by high anterior resection (n = 34), low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) (n = 24) and low anterior resection with TME and hand-sewn colo-anal anastomosis (n = 3). The median operation time was 105 (37-280) min and 92% of cases were completed by SILS. The mean interval to resuming oral feeding was 11 h and the median length of stay was 2 (1-8) days. The median number of lymph nodes found by the histopathologist in the resected specimen was 18 (6-44) and all operations completely removed the tumour (R0 resection). At a median follow-up of 46 (16-64) months, eight (13%) patients developed metastatic disease, of whom three had local recurrence. Overall, three patients have died, of whom all had metastatic disease.

CONCLUSION

Anterior resection with TME for rectal cancer can be safely performed using the SILS technique, with acceptable histopathological results and good oncological outcome.

Single-Site Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery Provides Similar Clinical Outcomes Compared With Standard Laparoscopic Surgery: An Analysis of 626 Patients

BACKGROUND

Compared with standard laparoscopy, single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery may potentially offer advantages by creating fewer surgical incisions and providing a multifunctional trocar. Previous comparisons, however, have been limited by small sample sizes and selection bias.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare 60-day outcomes between standard laparoscopic and single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery patients undergoing elective and urgent surgeries.

DESIGN

This was an unselected, retrospective cohort study comparing patients who underwent elective and unplanned standard laparoscopic or single-site laparoscopic colorectal resections for benign and malignant disease between 2008 and 2014. Outcomes were compared using univariate analyses.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a single institution.

PATIENTS

A total of 626 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Morbidity and mortality rates within 60 postoperative days were measured.

RESULTS

A total of 318 (51%) and 308 patients (49%) underwent standard laparoscopic and single-site laparoscopic procedures. No significant differences were noted in mean operative time (standard laparoscopy, 182.1 ± 81.3 vs single-site laparoscopy, 177.0 ± 86.5; p = 0.30) or postoperative length of stay (standard laparoscopy, 4.8 ± 3.4 vs single-site laparoscopy, 5.5 ± 6.9; p = 0.14). Conversions to laparotomy and 60-day readmissions were also similar for both cohorts across all of the procedures performed. A significant difference was identified in the number of patients who developed postoperative complications (standard laparoscopy, 19.2% vs single-site laparoscopy, 10.7%; p = 0.004), especially with respect to surgical-site infections (standard laparoscopy, 11.3% vs single-site laparoscopy, 5.8%; p = 0.02).

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective, single institution study.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery demonstrates similar results to standard laparoscopic colorectal surgery with regard to operative time, length of stay, and readmissions. Single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery may provide advantages in limiting the development of certain complications, such as superficial surgical-site infections.

Single-incision robotic colectomy (SIRC): Current status and future directions

By combining laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) techniques with the da Vinci robotic platform, single-incision robotic colectomy (SIRC) aims to further minimize incision-related complications and improve cosmetic outcomes from the current standard of care, laparoscopic colectomy. While there is limited literature on SIRC, all available reports suggest SIRC to be a safe and feasible procedure in terms of perioperative outcomes. Future research should focus on further clarification of proposed benefits of SIRC such as cosmetics, ergonomics, incidence of incision-related complications, and long-term oncologic outcomes.

Minimally invasive surgery for inflammatory bowel disease

Surgical management of inflammatory bowel disease is a challenging endeavor given infectious and inflammatory complications, such as fistula, and abscess, complex often postoperative anatomy, including adhesive disease from previous open operations. Patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis also bring to the table the burden of their chronic illness with anemia, malnutrition, and immunosuppression, all common and contributing independently as risk factors for increased surgical morbidity in this high-risk population. However, to reduce the physical trauma of surgery, technologic advances and worldwide experience with minimally invasive surgery have allowed laparoscopic management of patients to become standard of care, with significant short- and long-term patient benefits compared with the open approach. In this review, we will describe the current state-of the-art for minimally invasive surgery for inflammatory bowel disease and the caveats inherent with this practice in this complex patient population. Also, we will review the applicability of current and future trends in minimally invasive surgical technique, such as laparoscopic "incisionless," single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), robotic-assisted, and other techniques for the patient with inflammatory bowel disease. There can be no doubt that minimally invasive surgery has been proven to decrease the short- and long-term burden of surgery of these chronic illnesses and represents high-value care for both patient and society.

Single-Access Laparoscopic Rectal Resection Versus the Multiport Technique

Background. Single-access laparoscopic surgery is not used routinely for the treatment of colorectal disease. The aim of this retrospective cohort study is to compare the results of single-access laparoscopic rectal resection (SALR) versus multiaccess laparoscopic rectal resection with a mean follow-up of 24 months. Methods. This retrospective cohort study enrolled 42 patients. Between January 2010 and June 2012, 21 SALRs were performed. These patients were compared with a group of 21 other patients who had undergone multiport laparoscopic rectal resection. This control group had the same exclusion criteria and patient demographics. Short-term outcomes were reassessed with a mean follow-up of 2 years. Statistical analysis included the Student t test and Fisher’s exact test. Finally, we performed a differential cost analysis between the 2 procedures. Results. Exclusion criteria, patient demographics, and indication for surgery were similar in both groups. The conversion rate was 0% in both groups. There were no intraoperative complications or deaths. Bowel recovery was similar in both groups. No interventions, readmissions, or deaths were recorded at 30 days’ follow-up. At a mean follow-up of 24 months, all the patients with a preoperative diagnosis of cancer are still alive and disease free. Considering the selected 3 items, the mean cost per patient for single-access laparoscopic surgery and multiple-access laparoscopic surgery were estimated as 7213 and 7495 Euros, respectively. Conclusion. We think that SALR could be performed in selected patients by surgeons with high multiport laparoscopic skills. It is compulsory by law to evaluate outcomes and cost-effectiveness by using randomized controlled trials.

Micro-laparoscopic colectomy: initial experience

INTRODUCTION

Single-port surgery (SPS) has been growing in acceptance as an alternative to traditional laparoscopic surgery. With SPS, there are technical skills required that are not routine to standard laparoscopy. We explored the feasibility of micro-laparoscopic colectomy (MLC) using 3 mm instruments in patients eligible for standard laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

We performed an IRB approved retrospective review of all segmental colectomy performed by a single surgeon in selected patients using a micro-laparoscopic technique. We utilized two 3-mm trocars and one 12-mm Hasson umbilical incision, which was later widen for specimen extraction.

RESULTS

Eighty patients underwent MLC: Twenty-six for diverticulitis, 26 for cancer, 22 for polyps, 3 for Crohn's disease, and 3 for volvulus. Eight patients were converted into either laparotomy or hand port (10 %) and three patients required the addition of one 5-mm trocar. Mean final extraction incision length was 3.9 cm. In cancer patients, the average lymph node harvest was 26 (range 13-70). The 30-day mortality was zero and the anastomotic leak rate was 1.3 %.

CONCLUSIONS

MLC is safe and feasible when performing colon resections for benign and oncologic pathology. Extraction incision length is small and offers similar cosmesis to SPS without the steep learning curve needed to learn this technique.

New trends in colorectal surgery: Single port and natural orifice techniques

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) have rapidly gained pace worldwide, potentially replacing conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) as the preferred colorectal surgery technique. Currently available data mainly consist of retrospective series analyzed in four meta-analyses. Despite conflicting results and lack of an objective comparison, SILS appears to offer cosmetic advantages over CLS. However, due to conflicting results and marked heterogeneity, present data fail to show significant differences in terms of operative time, postoperative morbidity profiles, port-site complications rates, oncological appropriateness, duration of hospitalization or cost when comparing SILS with conventional laparoscopy for colorectal procedures. The application of “pure” NOTES in humans remains limited to case reports because of unresolved issues concerning the ideal access site, distant organ reach, spatial orientation and viscera closure. Alternatively, minilaparoscopy-assisted natural orifice surgery techniques are being developed. The transanal “down-to-up” total mesorectum excision has been derived for transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and represents the most encouraging NOTES-derived technique. Preliminary experiences demonstrate good oncological and functional short-term outcomes. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are now mandatory to confirm the long-term SILS results and validate transanal TEM for the application of NOTES in humans.

Introducing an enhanced recovery after surgery program in colorectal surgery: A single center experience

AIM: To study the implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program at a large University Hospital from “pilot study” to “standard of care”.

METHODS: The study was designed as a prospective single centre cohort study. A prospective evaluation of compliance to a protocol based on full application of all ERAS principles, through the progressive steps of its implementation, was performed. Results achieved in the initial pilot study conducted by a dedicated team (n = 47) were compared to those achieved in the shared protocol phase (n = 143) three years later. Outcomes were length of postoperative hospital stay, readmission rate, compliance to the protocol and morbidity. Primary endpoint was the description of the results and the identification of critical issues of large scale implementation of an ERAS program in colorectal surgery emerged in the experience of a single center. Secondary endpoint was the identification of interventions that have been proven to be effective for facilitating the transition from traditional care pathways to a multimodal management protocol according to ERAS principles in colorectal surgery at a single center.

RESULTS: During the initial pilot study (March 2009 to December 2010; 47 patients) conducted by a dedicated multidisciplinary team, compliance to the items of ERAS protocol was 93%, with a median length of hospital stay (LOS) of 3 d. Early anastomotic fistulas were observed in 2 cases (4.2%), which required reoperation (Clavien-Dindo grade IIIb). None of the patients had been discharged before the onset of the complication, which could therefore receive prompt treatment. There were also four (8.5%) minor complications (Clavien-Dindo grade II). Thirty days readmission rate was 4%. Perioperative mortality was nil. After implementation of the protocol throughout the Hospital in unselected patients (May 2012 to December 2012; 147 patients) compliance was 74%, with a median LOS of 6 d. Early anastomotic fistulas were observed in 11 cases (7.7%), 5 (3.5%) of which required reoperation (Clavien-Dindo grade IIIb). Two early anastomotic fistulas were treated by radiologic/endoscopic manoeuvres and 4 were treated conservatively. There were also 36 (25.2%) minor complications, 21 (14.7%) of which were Clavien-Dindo grade II and 15 (10.5%) of which were Clavien-Dindo grade I. Only two patients whose course was adversely affected by the development of an anastomotic leak had been discharged before the onset of the complication itself, requiring readmission. Readmission rate within 30 d was 4%. Perioperative mortality was 1%.

CONCLUSION: Our results confirm that introduction of an ERAS protocol for colorectal surgery allows quicker postoperative recovery and shortens the length of stay compared to historical series.