Comparison of short-term surgical outcomes after single-incision laparoscopic versus multiport laparoscopic right colectomy: a two-center, prospective case-controlled study of 100 patients

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

OBJECTIVE

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

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparing the short-term outcomes and cost between solo single-incision distal gastrectomy and conventional multiport totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

Purpose

Single-incision laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (SIDG) requires experienced camera operators for a stable image. Since it is difficult for skilled camera operators to participate in all SIDG, we began performing solo surgery using mechanical camera holders. We aimed to compare the short-term outcomes and cost between solo SIDG and conventional multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) for early gastric cancer (EGC).

Methods

From January 2014 to December 2016, a total of 938 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy for EGC. Solo SIDG (n = 99) and MLDG patients (n = 198) were selected and 1:2 propensity score matching was done to compare the quality of operation and cost-effectiveness. All solo SIDG was performed by a surgeon using a camera holder, without any assistant.

Results

Mean operation time (120 ± 35.3 vs. 178 ± 53.4 minutes, P = 0.001) and estimated blood loss (24.6 ± 47.4 vs. 46.7 ± 66.5 mL, P = 0.001) were significantly lower in the solo SIDG group. Hospital stay, use of analgesics, and postoperative inflammatory markers (WBC, CRP) were similar between the 2 groups. The early (<30 days) complication rate in solo SIDG and MLDG groups was 21.2% and 23.7%, respectively (P = 0.240); the late (≥30 days) complication rate was 7.1% and 11.1%, respectively (P = 0.672). The manpower cost of solo SIDG was significantly lower than that of MLDG (P = 0.001).

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that solo SIDG performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons is safe and feasible for EGC. Solo SIDG is expected to be a promising potential treatment for EGC.

Single-port laparoscopically harvested omental flap for immediate breast reconstruction

PURPOSE

Immediate breast reconstruction using laparoscopically harvested omental flap is a safe and feasible technique, providing natural contour and softness to reconstructed breasts with reduced donor-site morbidity and deformity. We report our experience using single-port laparoscopically harvested omental flap (SLOF) for immediate breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Between February 2015 and December 2018, 129 patients with malignant neoplasm of the breast underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) or breast-conserving surgery (BCS) followed by immediate SLOF reconstruction at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. We assessed their clinicopathological data, complications, and cosmetic and oncologic outcomes. Cosmetic outcomes were evaluated by three-panel assessment and the BCCT.core software program.

RESULTS

One hundred and six (82.2%) underwent NSM and 23 (17.8%) underwent BCS. Mean operation time was 205 (range, 134-316) minutes. Most patients had early-stage disease; 15 (11.6%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Two had malignant phyllodes tumors. Cosmetic outcomes were excellent or good in 96.9% by three-panel assessment and 99.2% by the BCCT.core program with a nearly invisible donor-site scar in the umbilicus. Harvest-associated complications occurred in five (3.9%) patients, including two umbilical wound infections, one intra-abdominal infection, one umbilical hernia, and one pedicle injury. Fat necrosis (13.2%) and epigastric bulging (21.7%) were common mastectomy- or reconstruction-associated complications, but most were mild and some resolved spontaneously. Over a median 38-month follow-up, there were three local, two regional, and three systemic recurrences.

CONCLUSIONS

SLOF reconstruction is a feasible and safe option for immediate breast reconstruction after NSM or extensive BCS with minimal donor-site morbidity and great cosmetic outcomes.

A Systematic Review of Comparing Single-incision Versus Traditional Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy For Right Colon Diseases

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (SILS) has been promoted in clinic since 2008, but a systematic review of comparing SILS and traditional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (TLS) with long-term follow-up is rare. Here, in this study, comparison of SILS and TLS with long-term follow-up was evaluated by a meta-analysis method.

METHODS

All studies about SILS and TLS for right hemicolectomy from 2010 to 2018 were searched from databases including Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Wanfang. Operation index, recovery, and midterm follow-up data were evaluated by fixed-effects models, random-effects models, and Begg test.

RESULTS

We collected 22 studies with 2218 patients. SILS groups contained 1038 (46.7%) patients, and 1180 (53.3%) patients were observed in the TLS group. Patients' baseline data were similar in the 2 groups. Compared with TLS, SILS had shorter operation duration [standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.61 to -0.08, P<0.001, χ=49.40], shorter hospitalization time (SMD: -0.27, 95% CI: -0.37 to -0.16, P<0.001, χ=9.17), slightly less blood loss (SMD: -0.23, 95% CI: -0.36 to -0.10; P<0.001; χ=5.36), and smaller incision length (SMD: -2.19, 95% CI: -3.66 to -0.71, P<0.001; χ=316.1). No statistical differences were observed in other figures.

CONCLUSION

SILS is more convenient and has better efficacy than TLS and could provide a promising surgical approach for right colon diseases.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Systematic review of comparing single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for right colon cancer

Background

Single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (SILS) has long used in surgery for a long time. However, there is barely a systemic review related to the comparison between the SILS and the conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (CLS) for the right colon cancer in the long term follow-up. Herein, we used the most recent articles to compare these two techniques by meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Wanfang databases to compare SILS with CLS for right colon cancer up to May 2019. The operative, postoperative, pathological and mid-term follow-up outcomes of nine studies were extracted and compared.

Results

A total of 1356 patients participated in 9 studies, while 653 patients were assigned to the SILS group and 703 patients were assigned to the CLS group. The patients’ baselines in the SILS group were consistent with those in the CLS group. Compared to the CLS group, the SILS group had a shorter operation duration (SMD − 23.49, 95%CI − 36.71 to − 10.27, P < 0.001, chi-square = 24.11), shorter hospital stay (SMD − 0.76, 95% `CI − 1.07 to − 0.45, P < 0.001, chi-square = 9.85), less blood loss (SMD − 8.46, 95% CI − 14.59 to − 2.34; P < 0.05; chi-square = 2.26), smaller incision length (SMD − 1.60, 95% CI − 2.66 to − 0.55, P < 0.001; chi-square = 280.44), more lymph node harvested (SMD − 0.98, 95% CI − 1.79 to − 0.16, P < 0.05; chi-square = 4.61), and a longer proximal surgical edge (SMD − 0.51, 95% CI − 0.93 to − 0.09, P < 0.05; chi-square = 2.42). No significant difference was found in other indexes. After we removed a single large study, we performed another meta-analysis again. The operation duration in the SILS group was still better than that in the CLS group.

Conclusion

SILS could be a faster and more reliable approach than CLS for the right colon cancer and could accelerate patient recovery, especially for patients with a low BMI.

Single incision laparoscopic surgery from a caribbean perspective

Conventional laparoscopy with multiple ports has recently gained a strong foothold in the Caribbean, but single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has lagged behind. In this paper, we compare the data on SILS and conventional multi-port laparoscopy in the English-speaking Caribbean.

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.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials only exploring the role of single incision laparoscopic surgery versus conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery for colorectal resections

Background

The objective of this article is to evaluate the surgical outcomes in patients undergoing single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) versus conventional multi-incision laparoscopic surgery (MILS) for colorectal resections.

Methods

The data retrieved from the published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the surgical outcomes in patients undergoing SILS versus MILS for colorectal resections was analysed using the principles of meta-analysis. The combined outcome of dichotomous data was represented as risk ratio (RR) and continuous data was shown as standardized mean difference (SMD).

Results

Five RCTs on 525 patients reported the colorectal resections by SILS versus MILS technique. In the random effects model analysis using the statistical software Review Manager 5.3, the operation time (SMD, 0.20; 95% CI, -0.11 to 0.52; z=1.28; P=0.20), length of in-patient stay (SMD, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.51 to 0.14; z=1.10; P=0.27) and lymph node harvesting (SMD, 0.09; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.33; z=0.76; P=0.45) were comparable between both techniques. Furthermore, post-operative complications (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.65-1.54; z=0.02; P=0.99), post-operative mortality, surgical site infection rate (RR, 3.00; 95% CI, 0.13-70.92; z=0.68; P=0.50), anastomotic leak rate (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.11-1.63; z=1.24; P=0.21), conversion rate (P=0.13) and re-operation rate (P=0.43) were also statistically similar following SILS and MILS.

Conclusions

SILS failed to demonstrate any superiority over MILS for colorectal resections in all post-operative surgical outcomes.

Single-incision laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic right colectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery has gained widespread attention because of its potential benefits such as less skin incision and faster recovery. Up to now, only one meta-analysis (performed in 2013; including 9 studies, a total of 585 cases) compared single-incision laparoscopic right colectomy (SILRC) with conventional laparoscopic right colectomy (CLRC). An updated meta-analysis was undertaken to explore more convinced comparative findings between SILRC and CLRC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The search for studies that compared SILRC with CLRC was done on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. A total of 17 studies (including 1778 cases) were identified, the data of appointed outcomes were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

Patient demographics (age, gender, body mass index and previous abdominal operation) did not differ significantly. No significant differences were found between SILRC and CLRC in operative time, conversion, reoperation, perioperative complications, postoperative mortality, and 30-days readmission. Pathological outcomes, including lymph nodes harvested, proximal resection margin, and distal resection margin, were similar. SILRC showed less estimated blood loss (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -15.67 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -24.36 to -6.98; p = 0.0004), less skin incisions (WMD: -1.56 cm; 95%CI, -2.63 to -0.49; p = 0.004) and shorter hospital stay (WMD: -0.73d; 95%CI, -1.04 to -0.41; p < 0.00001), without publication bias.

CONCLUSION

SILRC may provide a safe and feasible alternative to CLRC with similar short-term outcomes and aesthetic advantage of less skin incision. Well-designed randomized controlled trials, involving large cases and carrying long-term outcomes, are needed.

Single-incision Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

The implementation of national cancer screening has increased the detection rates of early gastric cancer (EGC) in Korea. Since the successful introduction of laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in the early 1990s, this technique has demonstrated improved short-term outcomes without compromising long-term oncologic results. It is associated with reduced pain, shorter hospitalization, reduced morbidity rates, better cosmetic outcomes, and equivalent mortality rates as those for open surgery. Laparoscopic gastrectomy improves patients' quality of life (QOL) and provides favorable prognosis. Single-incision laparoscopic gastrectomy (SILG) is one extremely minimally invasive method, theoretically offering improved cosmetic results, less postoperative pain, and earlier recovery after surgery than conventional multiport laparoscopic gastrectomy. In this context, SILG is thought to be an optimal method to promote and maximize patients' QOL in the acute postoperative phase. However, the technical difficulties of this procedure have limited its use. Since the first report describing single-incision distal gastrectomy in 2011, only 16 studies to date have evaluated SILG. Most of these studies have focused on the technical feasibility and safety of SILG because its long-term outcomes have not been reported. This article reviews the advantages and limitations of SILG.

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.

Surgical approach to right colon cancer: From open technique to robot. State of art

This work is a topic highlight on the surgical treatment of the right colon pathologies, focusing on the literature state of art and comparing the open surgery to the different laparoscopic and robotic procedures. Different laparoscopic procedures have been described for the treatment of right colon tumors: Totally laparoscopic right colectomy, laparoscopic assisted right colectomy, laparoscopic facilitated right colectomy, hand-assisted right colectomy, single incision laparoscopic surgery colectomy, robotic right colectomy. Two main characteristics of these techniques are the different type of anastomosis: Intracorporeal (for totally laparoscopic right colectomy, single incision laparoscopic surgery colectomy, laparoscopic assisted right colectomy and robotic technique) or extracorporeal (for laparoscopic assisted right colectomy, laparoscopic facilitated right colectomy, hand-assisted right colectomy and open right colectomy) and the different incision (suprapubic, median or transverse on the right side of abdomen). The different laparoscopic techniques meet the same oncological criteria of radicalism as the open surgery for the right colon. The totally laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis and even more the single incision laparoscopic surgery colectomy, remain a technical challenge due to the complexity of procedures (especially for the single incision laparoscopic surgery colectomy) and the particular right colon vascular anatomy but they seem to have some theoretical advantages compared to the other laparoscopic and open procedures. Data reported in literature while confirming the advantages of laparoscopic approach, do not allow to solve controversies about which is the best laparoscopic technique (Intracorporeal vs Extracorporeal Anastomosis) to treat the right colon cancer. However, the laparoscopic techniques with intracorporeal anastomosis for the right colon seem to show some theoretical advantages (functional, technical, oncological and cosmetic advantages) even if all studies conclude that further prospective randomized trials are necessary. Robotic technique may be useful to overcome the problems related to inexperience in laparoscopy in some surgical centers.

Randomized clinical trial of single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic colectomy

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) for colonic cancer remain unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes of SILC compared with multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MPLC) for colonic cancer.

METHODS

Patients with histologically proven colonic carcinoma located in the caecum, ascending, sigmoid or rectosigmoid colon, clinically diagnosed as stage 0-III by CT, were eligible for this study. Patients were randomized before surgery and underwent tumour dissection with complete mesocolic excision. Safety analyses were conducted according to randomization groups.

RESULTS

A total of 200 patients were enrolled and randomized to the MPLC (100 patients) or SILC (100 patients) arm. Surgical outcomes were similar between the MPLC and SILC arms, including duration of operation (mean 162 versus 156 min respectively; P = 0·273), blood loss (mean 8·8 versus 21·4 ml; P = 0·102), conversion to open laparotomy (2·0 versus 1·0 per cent; P = 0·561), reoperation (3·0 versus 3·0 per cent; P = 1·000), time to first flatus (both median 1 day; P = 0·155) and postoperative hospital stay (both median 6; P = 0·372). The total skin incision length was significantly shorter in the SILC arm (mean 4·4 cm versus 6·8 cm in the MPLC arm; P < 0·001). The median duration of analgesia use was 5 days in the MPLC and 4 days in the SILC arm (P = 0·485). Overall complication rates were equivalent (15·0 versus 12·0 per cent respecitvely; P = 0·680).

CONCLUSION

SILC is not superior to MPLC.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000007220 (http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm).

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for children with Crohn's disease

PURPOSE

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has been described in adults with Crohn's disease, but its use in pediatric Crohn's patients has been limited. The purpose of this study was to review our experience with SILS in pediatric patients with Crohn's disease.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed for patients diagnosed with Crohn's disease who underwent small bowel resection or ileocecectomy at a freestanding children's hospital from 2006 to 2014. Data collected included demographic data, interval from diagnosis to surgery, operative time, length of stay, and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Analysis identified 19 patients who underwent open surgery (OS) and 41 patients who underwent SILS. One patient (2.4 %) within the SILS group required conversion to OS. Demographic characteristics were similar between the 2 cohorts. The most common indication for surgery was stricture/obstruction (SILS 70.7 % vs. OS 68.4 %, p = 0.86), and ileocecectomy was the most common primary procedure performed (SILS 90.2 % vs. OS 100 % OS). Operative times were longer for SILS (135 ± 50 vs. 105 ± 37 min, p = 0.02). However, when the last 20 SILS cases were compared to all OS cases, the difference was no longer statistically significant (SILS 123.3 ± 34.2 vs. OS 105 ± 36.5, p = 0.12). No difference was noted in postoperative length of stay (SILS 6.5 ± 2.2 days vs. OS 7.4 ± 2.2 days, p = 0.16) or overall complication rate (SILS 24.4 % vs. OS 26.3 %, p = 0.16).

CONCLUSION

SILS ileocecectomy is feasible in pediatric patients with Crohn's disease, achieving outcomes similar to OS. As experience increased, operative times also became comparable.

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Right Hemi-Colectomy: a Systematic Review

As surgeons became more adept with laparoscopic colon surgery, other less invasive procedures, such as single-incision laparoscopic right hemi-colectomy (SIL-RH), have been applied. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of SIL-RH as well as its intraoperative and postoperative outcomes for right-sided colon diseases. A detailed search in PubMed for citations that included SIL-RH from 2000 to 2014 revealed 21 studies fulfilling the criteria of the present review. A total of 684 patients were analyzed. Of the patients, 50.2 % were men. Mean patient age was 64.8 years. Of the patients, 36.1 % had already undergone an abdominal operation before the performance of SIL-RH, while 69 % of the patients underwent SIL-RH for colon cancer. Relatively low rates of overall morbidity (15 %) and mortality (0.75 %) were reported in the included studies. Mean length of postoperative hospital stay (LOS) was 5.5 days. Bowel motility return had a mean value of 2.8 days. Mean number of harvested lymph nodes (LN) was 19.2 LN. All resection margins were tumor-free. SIL-RH was a safe alternative to multiport laparoscopic right hemi-colectomy (ML-RH) in terms of morbidity and mortality, postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery, LOS, as well as oncological radicalness.

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 versus conventional multiport laparoscopic colorectal surgery-systematic review and pooled analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this pooled analysis is to determine the effect of single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery (SILC) on short-term clinical and oncological outcomes compared with conventional multiport laparoscopic colorectal surgery (CLC).

METHODS

An electronic search of Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases was performed. Weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated for the effect size of SILC on continuous variables and pooled odds ratios (POR) were calculated for discrete variables.

RESULTS

No significant differences between the groups were noted for mortality or morbidity including anastomotic leak, reoperation, pneumonia, wound infection, port-site hernia, and operative time. The benefits of a SILC approach included reduction in time to return of bowel function (WMD = -1.11 days; 95 % C.I. -2.11 to -0.13; P = 0.03), and length of hospital stay (WMD = -1.9 days; 95 % C.I. -2.73 to -1.07; P < 0.0001). Oncological surgical quality was also shown for SILC for the treatment of colorectal cancer with a similar average lymph node harvest, proximal and distal resection margin length compared to CLC.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC can be performed safely by experienced laparoscopic surgeons with similar short-term clinical and oncological outcomes to CLC. SILC may further enhance some of the benefits of minimally invasive surgery with a reduction in blood loss and length of hospital stay.

Evaluation of technical feasibility and safety of Single-Site™ robotic right colectomy: three case reports

BACKGROUND

Robotic Single-Site™ surgery overcomes the technical constraints of single-access laparoscopy. After performing over 130 Single-Site robotic cholecystectomies and stabilizing operative times, we applied this technology to right colon surgery.

METHODS

We successfully completed three Single-Site robotic right colectomies (SSRRCs) using the da Vinci Si Surgical System(®) with a Single-Site kit (© Intuitive Surgical™) inserted through a suprapubic incision.

RESULTS

Overall SSRRC operative time was 218.3 ± 75.9 min. A side-to-side anisoperistaltic anastomosis was fashioned intracorporeally (two cases) or extracorporeally (one case). All patients were discharged within 5 days. There were no complications and oncological principles were satisfied. There were no recurrences up to 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first report of SSRRC with intracorporeal anastomosis using the da Vinci(®) Single-Site™ port inserted through a suprapubic incision. This approach is feasible and safe, with oncological outcomes potentially equivalent to those of robotic or laparoscopic multiport surgery.

Pure single-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: comparative study with multi-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to show the feasibility and safety of pure single-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (SDG) by comparing its short-term outcomes with those of conventional multiport totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG).

STUDY DESIGN

Prospectively collected data of 50 gastric cancer patients who underwent pure SDG from November 2011 through October 2013 were compared with the matched data of 50 TLDG patients.

RESULTS

Mean operation time (144.5 vs 140.3 minutes; p = 0.561) and number of harvested lymph nodes (51.7 ± 16.3 vs 52.4 ± 17.9; p = 0.836) were comparable. Estimated blood loss was lower in the SDG patients (50.5 ± 31.5 mL vs 87.5 ± 79.6 mL; p = 0.007). Postoperative recovery was faster in the SDG patients in terms of lower maximum pain score on the operative day (6.1 ± 1.4 vs 6.9 ± 1.5; p = 0.015) and postoperative day 1 (4.6 ± 1.0 vs 5.5 ± 1.4; p < 0.001), less use of parenteral analgesics (0.8 ± 1.0 vs 1.4 ± 1.0; p = 0.020), and less increase in C-reactive protein level on postoperative day 5 (4.57 ± 6.26 mg/L vs 8.51 ± 5.25 mg/L; p = 0.008). Postoperative morbidity occurred in 6 (12%) and 5 (10%) patients in the SDG and TLDG group, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that pure SDG is both safe and feasible for early gastric cancer, with similar operation time and better short-term outcomes than TLDG in terms of postoperative pain, estimated blood loss, inflammatory reaction, and cosmetic result.

What should we intend for minimally invasive treatment of colorectal cancer?

Non-inferiority of laparoscopic treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) has been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials although operative and perioperative management varies widely among centers. Literature data in English language published up to April 15, 2014 were analyzed in order to give an up to date analysis that would highlights the key aspects of a modern and factual minimally invasive treatment of CRC. Laparoscopic resection is the first choice treatment of colon cancer. Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer should be considered an investigational procedure to be performed in high volume centers with special interest in laparoscopy and colorectal surgery. Less invasive approaches should be taken into account with the aim of reducing surgical stress. The adoption of ERAS programs has demonstrated to optimize short-term results. Future research should be directed to prove possible long-term advantages, in terms of overall and disease-free survival, of minimally invasive treatment of CRC.

Single incision laparoscopic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

A meta-analysis was performed to compare the outcome of single incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with standard multiport laparoscopic right hemicolectomy.

METHOD

A systematic search of databases was carried out to extract comparative studies (randomized and non-randomized, prospective and retrospective). Data were analysed according to Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. A meta-analysis was performed when the data permitted this form of analysis.

RESULTS

Nine comparative studies were retrieved comprising 241 patients with single incision and standard laparoscopy. None of these was randomized. There was no significant difference between the two methods for the primary end-points of mortality, morbidity and cancer-specific parameters and for the secondary end-points of operation time, blood loss, ileus, hospital stay and conversion. It was not possible to analyse pain and cosmetics data owing to insufficient information.

CONCLUSION

Single incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy is comparable with standard multiport laparoscopic right hemicolectomy in primary and secondary outcomes. Given current information it is justified to use single incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, but there is a need for a prospective randomized study.