Single-port transumbilical laparoscopic appendectomy: a preliminary multicentric comparative study in 87 patients with acute appendicitis. Minim Invasive Surg. 2012;2012:492409. [PMID: 22655190 PMCID: PMC3359719 DOI: 10.1155/2012/492409]

Laparoscopic appendectomy with single port vs conventional access: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Conventional three-access laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) is currently the gold standard treatment, however, Single-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy (SILA) has been proposed as an alternative. The aim of this systematic review/meta-analysis was to evaluate safety and efficacy of SILA compared with conventional approach.

METHODS

Per PRISMA guidelines, we systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CLA vs SILA for acute appendicitis. The randomised Mantel-Haenszel method was used for the meta-analysis. Statistical data analysis was performed with the Review Manager software and the risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane "Risk of Bias" assessment tool.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies (RCTs) were selected (2646 patients). The operative time was significantly longer in the SILA group (MD = 7,32), confirmed in both paediatric (MD = 9,80), (Q = 1,47) and adult subgroups (MD = 5,92), (Q = 55,85). Overall postoperative morbidity was higher in patients who underwent SILA, but the result was not statistically significant. In SILA group were assessed shorter hospital stays, fewer wound infections and higher conversion rate, but the results were not statistically significant. Meta-analysis was not performed about cosmetics of skin scars and postoperative pain because different scales were used in each study.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis show that SILA, although associated with fewer postoperative wound infection, has a significantly longer operative time. Furthermore, the risk of postoperative general complications is still present. Further studies will be required to analyse outcomes related to postoperative pain and the cosmetics of the surgical scar.

Single-incision compared with conventional laparoscopy for appendectomy in acute appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A meta-analysis of the relevant literature evaluated the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) relative to those of conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA).

METHODS

The major biomedical databases, including ClinicalTrials.gov, were searched up to January 2022 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). SILA and CLA were compared regarding patient body mass index, operative time, and perioperative complications. The Cochrane Handbook and RevMan 5.3 were used to judge trial quality and perform the meta-analysis, respectively.

RESULTS

The 17 included RCTs comprised 2068 patients, of whom 1039 and 1029 patients underwent SILA and CLA, respectively. The operative time for SILA was longer than that for CLA (MD = 8.35 min, 95% CI = 6.58 to 10.11, P < 0.00001), but the cosmetic results from SILA were superior (SMD = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.58 to 1.03, P < 0.00001). However, the incidence rates were similar in terms of patient body mass index; postoperative pain scores; and rates of abdominal abscess, conversion to open surgery, ileus, surgical site infection, and overall perioperative complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

SILA is a safe technique for acute appendicitis, and its cosmetic outcomes are superior to those of CLA.

Transumbilical Single-Incision Laparoscopic-Assisted Appendectomy (TULAA) Is Useful in Adults and Young Adolescents: Comparison with Multi-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy

Background and objectives: Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SLA) in most previous studies has used intracorporeal excision of the appendix and needed a longer operative time than multi-port laparoscopic appendectomy (MLA), although SLA does have the potential benefit of an almost invisible scar within the umbilicus. Some studies have reported that extracorporeal transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy (TULAA) in children took a considerably reduced operative time compared to MLA. We adopted TULAA in adults, adding routine dissection of the peritoneal attachment of the appendix. The aim was to compare the operative outcomes between TULAA and MLA. Materials and Methods: Between March 2013 and January 2016, 770 patients with acute uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis from 15 to 75 years of age were enrolled retrospectively. The operation was performed as early (EA) and interval appendectomy (IA). Results: Operative time was shorter in the TULAA group than in the MLA group, except for IA. No open conversion occurred in the TULAA group, except one case of ileocecal resection for IA. No intra-abdominal fluid collection was found in the TULAA group. Extended resection (especially partial cecectomy) was performed less frequently in the TULAA group than in the MLA group for IA. Mean postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the TULAA group for uncomplicated appendicitis. When the data of the EA group and the IA group were compared, operative time was significantly shorter in the IA group for both MLA and TULAA. The open conversion rate and the complication rate tended to be lower in the IA group. Confined to IA, the TULAA group tended to have shorter mean initial, postoperative, and total hospital stays. Conclusions: TULAA can be a useful surgical alternative to MLA in adults and young adolescents, because it lacks open conversion and provides both a shorter operative time and a shorter postoperative hospital stay. TULAA is feasible for IA in that it showed a lower rate of extended resection and complications.

European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery changed the management of numerous surgical conditions. It was associated with many advantages over open surgery, such as decreased postoperative pain, faster recovery, shorter hospital stay and excellent cosmesis. Since two decades single-incision endoscopic surgery (SIES) was introduced to the surgical community. SIES could possibly result in even better postoperative outcomes than multi-port laparoscopic surgery, especially concerning cosmetic outcomes and pain. However, the single-incision surgical procedure is associated with quite some challenges.

METHODS

An expert panel of surgeons has been selected and invited to participate in the preparation of the material for a consensus meeting on the topic SIES, which was held during the EAES congress in Frankfurt, June 16, 2017. The material presented during the consensus meeting was based on evidence identified through a systematic search of literature according to a pre-specified protocol. Three main topics with respect to SIES have been identified by the panel: (1) General, (2) Organ specific, (3) New development. Within each of these topics, subcategories have been defined. Evidence was graded according to the Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Recommendations were made according to the GRADE criteria.

RESULTS

In general, there is a lack of high level evidence and a lack of long-term follow-up in the field of single-incision endoscopic surgery. In selected patients, the single-incision approach seems to be safe and effective in terms of perioperative morbidity. Satisfaction with cosmesis has been established to be the main advantage of the single-incision approach. Less pain after single-incision approach compared to conventional laparoscopy seems to be considered an advantage, although it has not been consistently demonstrated across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the increased direct costs (devices, instruments and operating time) of the SIES procedure and the prolonged learning curve, wider acceptance of the procedure should be supported only after demonstration of clear benefits.

Two-port laparoscopic appendectomy with the help of a needle grasper: better cosmetic results and fewer trocars than conventional laparoscopic appendectomy

INTRODUCTION

The two-port laparoscopic appendectomy technique (TPLA) lays between the conventional three-port trocar procedure and single-port laparoscopic appendectomy surgery. During TPLA, the appendix is suspended with stitches, resulting in perforation risk and difficulty in exploration.

AIM

We used a needle grasper in TPLA to hang and manipulate the appendix.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thirty-four patients (10 female, 24 male) who underwent TPLA between February 2015 and November 2015 were analyzed retrospectively for patient demographics, duration of operation, laparotomy or conventional laparoscopy necessity, drain use, complications, and hospital stay periods. The needle grasper was inserted at the right under the abdominal quadrant (McBurney point) without an incision to hang and manipulate the appendix.

RESULTS

The mean age was 25.19 ±8.464 years; the mean body mass index (BMI) was 23.50 ±3.246 kg/m(2). ASA scores were 1 and 2. The operations were completed without any additional trocar in 34 patients. The mean operation time was 57.03 ±3.814 min. There were no intraoperative complications in any patients. Three patients required a drain; all were discharged after drain removal. Thirty-one patients were discharged on the 1(st) postoperative day; three patients with drains were discharged on the 2(nd) day. The mean hospital stay period was 1.18 ±0.535 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the needle grasper, the appendix was held and suspended and the mesoappendix was cauterized and skeletonized successfully in TPLA. Inserting a needle grasper into the abdominal cavity at the McBurney point to manipulate the appendix helps and does not leave a visible scar.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing single incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy

BACKGROUND

Single incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) has been proposed as an alternative to conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of SILA when compared with CLA through a systematic review.

METHODS

We performed an electronic search of EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared SILA with CLA were included.

RESULTS

Six RCTs met eligibility criteria, which included a total of 800 patients, 401 in the SILA group and 399 in the CLA group. There were no significant differences in terms of overall complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-1.47; p = 0.77). SILA had a higher technical failure rate (OR 3.30; 95% CI 1.26-8.65; p = 0.01) and required a longer operative time (mean difference [MD] 4.67; 95% CI 1.76-7.57; p = 0.002). SILA was associated with better cosmetic results (standardized MD -0.4; 95% CI -0.64 to -0.16; p = 0.001) and earlier return to normal activity (MD -0.64; 95% CI -1.09 to -0.20; p = 0.005), although these advantages should be taken with caution due to the small number of studies reporting these two items and the short follow-up in the evaluation of cosmetic results. There were no significant differences in terms of postoperative pain or length of hospital stay between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SILA is comparable to CLA in selected patients, although it is associated with a higher technical failure rate and longer operative time. Further randomized trials are needed to determine if SILA really offers benefits over CLA.

Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy versus conventional 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy for appendicitis: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and safety of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) and conventional 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy (3-port LA) for appendectomy.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Springer link, and the Cochrane library databases up to April, 2014, for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data were pooled by weighted mean differences (WMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

We found 11 RCTs, with a collective total of 731 patients treated with SILA and 725 patients treated with 3-point LA. Results indicated no significant differences between SILA and 3-port LA in primary outcomes, including wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus, and total postoperative complications, and some secondary outcomes, including postoperative pain scores and length of hospital stay. However, SILA was associated with significantly longer operative times (WMD = 6.78, 95% CI = 3.78-9.79, P < 0.00001) and higher doses of analgesia (WMD = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.45-1.47, P = 0.0002) than the 3-port LA.

CONCLUSION

Although there was no significant difference in the safety of SILA vs. that of 3-port LA, our findings do not support the application of SILA because of its significantly longer operative times and the higher doses of analgesia required compared with those for 3-point LA.

Single incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of single incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) in comparison with conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (CMLA) has not been conclusively determined.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (Medline, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) was performed. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SILA with CMLA were carried out by RevMan 5.0 software.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs comparing SILA and CMLA were included. Overall, 1,216 patients were operated on: 611 cases by SILA versus 605 cases by CMLA. Compared with CMLA, SILA was associated with increased procedural difficulty, prolonged procedural duration, shorter length of hospital stay, earlier return to normal activity and better cosmesis. There were no significant differences in postoperative pain scores and complication rates between SILA and CMLA.

CONCLUSION

The current best evidence shows SILA holds the promise of improving postoperative recovery and cosmetic result with equal efficacy and safety, whereas it is associated with higher surgical difficulty with longer surgical time when compared with CMLA.

Past and present in abdominal surgery management for Cushing's syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Data on specific abdominal surgery and Cushing's syndrome are infrequent and are usually included in the adrenalectomy reports. Current literature suggests the feasibility and reproducibility of the surgical adrenalectomies for patients diagnosed with non-functioning tumours and functioning adrenal tumours including pheochromocytoma, Conn's syndrome and Cushing's syndrome.

DISCUSSION

Medical treatment for Cushing's syndrome is feasible but follow-up or clinical situations force the patient to undergo a surgical procedure. Laparoscopic surgery has become a gold standard nowadays in a broad spectrum of pathologies. Laparoscopic adrenalectomies are also standard procedures nowadays. However, despite the different characteristics and clinical disorders related to the laparoscopically removed adrenal tumours, the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes do not significantly differ in most cases between the different groups of patients, techniques and types of tumours. Tumour size, hormonal type and surgeon's experience could be different factors that predict intraoperative and postoperative complications. Transabdominal and retroperitoneal approaches can be considered. Outcomes for Cushing's syndrome do not differ depending on the surgical approach. Novel technologies and approaches such as single-port surgery or robotic surgery have proven to be safe and feasible.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic adrenalectomy is a safe and feasible approach to adrenal pathology, providing the patients with all the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. Single-port access and robotic surgery can be performed but more data are required to identify their correct role between the different surgical approaches. Factors such as surgeon's experience, tumour size and optimal technique can affect the outcomes of this surgery.

Laparoscopic appendectomy: State of the art. Tailored approach to the application of laparoscopic appendectomy?

Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency in developed countries. The treatment of acute appendicitis is either open or laparoscopic appendectomy. The latter has gained wide acceptance in the past years, although the debate on the true merits of laparoscopic appendectomy is still on going. Some authors prefer this approach as the gold standard for all patients, but in our opinion a tailored approach is warranted for specific patient groups. In addition, a standardised guideline on the technical aspects is still lacking. In the current article, open versus laparoscopic appendectomy and several technical aspects, such as stump closure, appendix extraction and single incision are discussed laparoscopic appendectomy are being addressed. In the future perspectives we will briefly discuss the third 'newly' introduced antibiotic treatment.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of open, laparoscopic and single port appendicectomies

INTRODUCTION

Appendicectomy is the most common surgical procedure performed in general surgery. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of open appendicectomy (OA), laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) and single port laparoscopic appendicectomy (SPLA).

METHODS

Fifty consecutive patients with suspected acute appendicitis were studied (OA: n=20, LA: n=20, SPLA: n=10). Clinical outcomes were compared between the three groups in terms of operative time, blood loss, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay and cost.

RESULTS

Patient demographics were similar among groups (p>0.05). SPLA was characterised by longer operative time (88.1 minutes vs 35.6 minutes in OA and 33.4 minutes in LA) and higher costs (12.84 thousand Chinese yuan [RMB] vs 8.41 thousand RMB in LA and 4.99 thousand RMB in OA). OA was characterised by more blood loss (9.8ml vs 7.5ml in SPLA and 6.8ml in LA), longer hospital stay (7.5 days vs 3.5 days in LA and 3.4 days in SPLA) and lower costs. The total number of complications was higher for OA (n=2) than for LA and SPLA (n=0) although this was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Where feasible, LA should be undertaken as the initial treatment of choice for most cases of suspected appendicitis.

Safety and efficacy of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for appendectomies: A meta-analysis

AIM: To compare single incision laparoscopic surgery for an appendectomy (SILS-A) with conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (C-LA) when implemented by experienced surgeons.

METHODS: Studies and relevant literature regarding the performance of single-incision laparoscopic surgery vs conventional laparoscopic surgery for appendectomy were searched for in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and World Health Organization international trial register. The operation time (OR time), complications, wound infection and postoperative day using SILS-A or C-LA were pooled and compared using a meta-analysis. The risk ratios and mean differences were calculated with 95%CIs to evaluate the effect of SILS-A.

RESULTS: Sixteen recent studies including 1624 patients were included in this meta-analysis. These studies demonstrated that, compared with C-LA, SILS-A has a similar OR time in adults but needs a longer OR time in children. SILS-A has similar complications, wound infection and length of the postoperative day in adults and children, and required similar doses of narcotics in children, the pooled mean different of -0.14 [95%CI: -2.73-(-2.45), P > 0.05], the pooled mean different of 11.47 (95%CI: 10.84-12.09, P < 0.001), a pooled RR of 1.15 (95%CI: 0.72-1.83, P > 0.05), a pooled RR of 1.9 (95%CI: 0.92-3.91, P > 0.05), a pooled RR of 1.01 (95%CI: 0.51-2.0, P > 0.05) a pooled RR of 1.86 (95%CI: 0.77-4.48, P > 0.05), the pooled mean different of -0.25 (95%CI: -0.50-0, P = 0.05) the pooled mean different of -0.01 (95%CI: -0.05-0.04, P > 0.05) the pooled mean different of -0.13 (95%CI: -0.49-0.23, P > 0.05) respectively.

CONCLUSION: SILS-A is a technically feasible and reliable approach with short-term results similar to those obtained with the C-LA procedure.

Abordaje transumbilical en pacientes pediátricos con diagnóstico de apendicitis aguda. Una serie de 424 pacientes

Antecedentes: El tratamiento de la apendicitis aguda implica su extirpación; es frecuente la solicitud de cicatrices postquirúrgicas del mejor tamaño posible. Una de las estrategias disponibles es el abordaje transumbilical. Objetivo: Describir las características clínicas y los desenlaces operatorios de los pacientes pediátricos en quienes se realiza apendicectomía vía transumbilical. Metodología: Estudio prospectivo de 424 pacientes sucesivos en cuanto a los desenlaces operatorios a corto plazo. Resultados: El tiempo promedio de intervención quirúrgica fue de 22 minutos; 95.8% de los pacientes presentaron evolución satisfactoria del postquirúrgico; 1.4% de los pacientes se reintervinieron para drenar un absceso intracavitario residual y 0.2% presentó infección de sitio operatorio sin más complicaciones. Conclusión: El abordaje transumbilical de la apendicitis es una alternativa mínimamente invasiva para todos los estados de apendicitis aguda e implica disminución del tiempo de realización, menor estancia del posquirúrgico, menor incidencia de complicaciones y mayor conformidad con los resultados estéticos.