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

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.

Single incision laparoscopy versus conventional multiport laparoscopy for colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There has been an increase in colorectal cancer resections worldwide and in the UK. Initially conducted as an open procedure, this was replaced with the conventional multiport technique. Laparoscopic colectomy became the standard surgical technique in 1991. With innovation in surgical technology, single incision laparoscopy (SIL) has attracted more attention as the possible next step in colorectal resection. The aim of this review was to compare outcomes between SIL and conventional laparoscopy (CL).

METHODS

A literature search was carried out in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The PubMed®, MEDLINE®, Embase®, Google Scholar™ and Cochrane Library databases were used to extract randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2000 and May 2021. Statistical analysis was performed with RevMan software.

RESULTS

A total of 11 RCTs were extracted with 1,370 patients (686 SIL, 684 CL). There was no significant difference between SIL and CL for operative time (standardised mean difference [SMD]: 0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.19 to 0.22, z=0.11, p=0.91), length of hospital stay (SMD: -0.10, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.02, z=1.61, p=0.11) or overall complications (odds ratio [OR]: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.75 to 1.30, z=0.09, p=0.93). SIL had a shorter mean incision (SMD: -0.99, 95% CI: -1.35 to -0.62, z=5.25, p<0.00001). Patients undergoing SIL had a higher conversion rate to CL or an open approach (OR: 3.10, 95% CI: 0.95 to 10.14, z=1.87, p=0.06) but this just missed statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

SIL can be considered a safe alternative to CL if performed by experienced surgeons.

Single-incision robotic assisted surgery: a nonrandomized cohort pilot study on a novel surgical platform in colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

The technological barriers and steep learning curve of single-incision laparoscopic surgery had kept it from further applications. A literature review had reported that robotic technology could preserve its advantages while simplifying its difficulties. This nonrandomized cohort pilot study aims to evaluate the feasibility and safety of single-incision robotic assisted colorectal surgery based on a novel robotic surgical platform, the SHURUI Endoscopic Surgical Robotic System (SR-ENS-600).

METHOD

This study enrolled 7 patients with colorectal malignancy who underwent single-incision robotic assisted surgery (SIRAS) at a tertiary general surgery center, and retrospectively included 23 patients who underwent robotic assisted surgery from September 2015 to June 2016 and 35 patients who underwent single-incision laparoscopic surgery from June 2017 to March 2018, which were labeled as the initial in-learning-curve attempts from the same surgical team. The technological feasibility and safety of SIRAS were evaluated. Perioperative outcomes, short-term postoperative outcomes, clinicopathologic outcomes, and follow-up were reported.

RESULTS

Six SIRAS operations were completed successfully without eventful intraoperative complications, except for one operation that encountered a large-volume of intraoperative hemorrhage. Two SIRAS cases were converted to multiport laparoscopic surgery because of intraoperative hemorrhage and difficulty in retraction. Postoperative pathology reported satisfactory specimen qualities. There were no short-term postoperative complications, no short-term mortality, no tumor recurrence, or metastasis reported. There was one incisional hernia reported half a year after operation. Patients with advanced staging were sent to standard evaluation and chemotherapy, and follow-up is still on-going.

CONCLUSIONS

SIRAS can be feasibly performed by a skilled surgical team via the SR-ENS-600 platform for strictly-selected patients, which provides preferable instrument maneuverability and stability in confined surgical fields and overcomes the technical difficulty of multisite dissection through a single-incision. Large-volume investigations and high-level evidences are required to further validate its safety and superiority.

Comparison of clinical efficacy of single-incision and traditional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies

Background

Single-incision laparoscopy surgery (SILS) is a new laparoscopic technique that has emerged in the past decade. Whether it has advantages over conventionl laparoscopy surgery (CLS) is inconclusive. This article aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer through high-quality literature text mining and meta-analysis.

Methods

Relevant articles were searched on the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from January 2012 to November 2021. All data was from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in order to increase the confidence of the analytical results.The main outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative complications.

Results

A total of 10 RCTs were included, involving 1609 patients. The quality of the included studies was generally high. No significant difference was found between SILS and CLS in the postoperative complications, operation time, postoperative hospital stay, number of lymph nodes removed, readmission, reoperation, complication level I- II, complication level IIIa, complication level IIIb, prolonged Ileus, blood loss, infection, anastomotic leakage and operation time. The results showed that SILS group had a higher rate of intraoperative complications, but it had lower incision length and better cosmetic effects.

Conclusion

These results indicate that SILS did not have a comprehensive and obvious advantage over the CLS. On the contrary, SILS has higher intraoperative complications, which may be related to the more difficulty of SILS operation, but SILS still has better cosmetic effects, which is in line with the concept of surgical development. Therefore, the SILS needs to be selected in patients with higher cosmetic requirements and performed by more experienced surgeons.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Training for Minimally Invasive Surgery for IBD: A Current Need

Surgery for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) management has passed through an important evolution over the last decades, with innovative strategies and new technologies, especially in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches. MIS procedures for IBD include multiport laparoscopy, single-port surgery, robotics, and the use of transanal platforms. These approaches can be used in the surgical management of both Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). There are significant peculiarities in the surgical field in CD and UC, and their perfect understanding are directly related to better outcomes in IBD patients, as a consequence of improvement in knowledge by IBD surgeons. Different strategies to train colorectal surgeons were developed worldwide, for better application of MIS, usually for malignant or non-IBD benign diseases. There is a significant lack of evidence in specific training strategies for MIS in the IBD field. In this review, the authors outline the importance of adequate surgical training in IBD MIS, by discussing the current evidence on different approaches and emphasizing the need for better training protocols included in multidisciplinary teams in IBD centers throughout the globe.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

SETTING

Single-center experience (2013-2019).

PATIENTS

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

INTERVENTIONS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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 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.

Clinical outcomes and inflammatory response to single-incision laparoscopic (SIL) colorectal surgery: a single-blinded randomized controlled pilot study

AIM

Single-incision laparoscopic (SIL) surgery is expanding, but its benefits, efficacy and safety compared with conventional laparoscopic (CL) surgery remain unclear. This pilot study examined clinical outcomes and biochemical markers of inflammation for colorectal resections by SIL and CL in a randomized controlled pilot trial.

METHOD

Fifty patients undergoing elective colorectal resection were randomized to either SIL or CL. Primary outcomes were operating time and length of stay (LoS); secondary outcomes included combined length of scars, pain scores, complications, Quality of Life EQ5D-VAS and the inflammatory markers interleukin-6 (IL-6), IL-8 and C-reactive protein (CRP) at baseline, 2, 6, 24 and 72 h.

RESULTS

There was no difference in age, gender, body mass index, indications and site of surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade or incidence of previous surgery between the groups. Except for one conversion from SIL to open surgery, surgery was completed as intended. No difference between SIL and CL was found for operating time [median 130 (72-220) vs 130 (90-317) min, respectively, P = 0.528], LoS [median 4 (3-8) vs 4 (2-19)days, P = 0.888] and time to first flatus [2 (1-4) vs 2 (1-5) days, P = 0.374]. The combined length of scars was significantly shorter for SIL [4 (2-18) vs 7 (5-8) cm, P < 0.001]; in each group, four postoperative complications occurred (16%). Postoperative pain scores were similar [mean 7.67 (interquartile range 4) vs 7.25 (interquartile range 3.75), P = 0.835] to day 3. EQ5D-VAS was no different for both groups at discharge [72.5 (40-90) vs 70 (30-100), P = 0.673] but slightly higher for CL at 3 months [79 (45-100) vs 90 (50-100), P = 0.033].The IL-6, IL-8 and CRP levels between both groups showed similar peaks and no significant differences.

CONCLUSION

SIL colorectal surgery by experienced laparoscopic surgeons appears to be safe and equivalent to CL, with no discernible difference in its effect on the physiological response to surgical trauma.

Systematic review of single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer

Objectives

To explore whether single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has the better short-term clinical and pathological outcomes than conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer.

Methods

A literature investigation of MEDLINE, PubMed, Ovid, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biological Medicine (CBM), and Wanfang databases for relevant researches was performed. Fixed effects and random effects models were used to calculate the corresponding outcomes. Standardized mean difference and risk ratio were calculated for continuous and dichotomous variables separately.

Results

Nine clinical controlled trials were composed of two randomized clinical trials and seven non-randomized clinical trials with a total of 829 patients. Two hundred ninety-nine (36.1%) patients underwent SILS, and 530 (63.9%) patients underwent CLS. The meta-analysis showed that SILS had more lymph node resection (SMD − 0.25, 95% CI − 0.50 to − 0.002) and less defecation time (SMD − 0.46, 95% CI − 0.75 to − 0.17), exhaust time (SMD − 0.46, 95% CI − 0.75 to − 0.18), and hospital stay (SMD − 0.30, 95% CI − 0.45 to − 0.15 than CLS. SILS was also accompanied with shorter incision length (SMD − 2.46, 95% CI − 4.02 to − 0.90), less pain score (SMD − 0.56, 95% CI − 0.91 to − 0.21), and lower complication rate (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.91). Blood loss, operative time, distal margin, conversion rate, anastomotic fistula, readmission, local recurrence, and distant metastasis showed no statistical differences in two groups. In all subgroup analysis, SILS also had advantages of incision length, operative time, defecation time, exhaust time, and hospitalization time than CLS.

Conclusion

SILS could be a more safe and reliable surgical technique than CLS for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer. However, further high-quality studies between these two techniques need to be further developed.

Comparative effectiveness of human scope assistant versus robotic scope holder in laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Several types of robotic scope holders have been developed to date, but there are only some experimental reports or the results of small clinical cases. The Soloassist® system is a unique robotic scope holder with which the surgeon can control the field of view by a joystick. We evaluated the efficacy of Soloassist in laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We investigated operative time, blood loss, setup time, length of hospital stay, and the number of participating surgeons in 273 laparoscopic colorectal resections, including 130 cases with human assistant (HA group) and 143 cases with Soloassist (SA group). Additionally, we also used logistic regression of the perioperative factors for the propensity score calculation to balance the bias.

RESULTS

The number of participating surgeons was apparently less in the SA group (HA group: 3.3 vs. SA group: 2.5, p < 0.01). The average operative time was shorter in the SA group, but there was no statistical difference (HA group: 287.0 min vs. SA group: 268.5 min, p = 0.07). No significant difference was found in setup time, conversion rate, perioperative complications, and length of hospital stay. There was no conversion case to human scope assistant and no system-specific adverse event. Similar results were observed between two groups after propensity score matching.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic colorectal resection with Soloassist is safe and feasible. The present study demonstrated that Soloassist system provided the possibilities of saving human resources in laparoscopic colorectal resection without prolonged operative time or system-specific morbidity. Soloassist is an effective robot-assisted surgical instrument for colorectal surgery.

Short-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectosigmoid cancer: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to evaluate the short-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port surgery (SILS + 1) compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colonic cancer.

BACKGROUND

At present, single-incision laparoscopic colectomy remains technically challenging. The use of SILS + 1 as an alternative has gained increasing attention; however, its safety and efficacy remain controversial.

METHODS AND PATIENTS

Between April 2014 and July 2016, 198 patients with clinical stage T1-4aN0-2 M0 rectosigmoid cancer were enrolled. The participants were randomly assigned to either SILS + 1 (n = 99) or CLS (n = 99). The morbidity and mortality within 30 days, operative and pathologic outcomes, postoperative recovery course, inflammation and immune responses, and pain intensity were compared.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in overall complications between the two groups (17.2 vs. 16.3%, P = 1.000). The total operating time for the SILS + 1 group was significantly shorter (100.8 ± 30.4 vs. 116.6 ± 36.6, P = 0.002). Blood loss was significantly greater in the CLS group (20 vs. 50, P < 0.001). Thirteen patients (14%) in the CLS group required additional postoperative analgesics, which was significantly more than four patients in the SILS + 1 group. Notably, on postoperative day three, the visual analogue scale score of the CLS group was greater than that of the SILS + 1 group (1.3 ± 1.1 vs. 1.7 ± 1.3, P = 0.023). Tumor diameter, pathologic stage, length of the proximal and distal margins, and number of lymph nodes harvested were similar, other values were also similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that SILS + 1 might be safe and feasible for rectosigmoid cancer when performed by experienced surgeons. It offers minimal invasiveness without compromising oncologic treatment principles. Trial Registration This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02117557).

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.

The single-incision laparoscopic surgery technique has questionable advantages in colorectal surgery

Background

Laparoscopic procedures have increasingly been accepted as standard in surgical treatment of benign and malignant entities, resulting in a continuous evolution of operative techniques. Since one of the aims in laparoscopic colorectal surgery is to reduce access trauma, one possible way is to further reduce the surgical site by the single-incision laparoscopic surgery technique (SLS). One of the main criticisms concerning the use of SLS is its questionable benefit combined with its technical demands for the surgeon. These questions were addressed by comparing SLS versus conventional laparoscopic multitrocar surgery (LMS) in benign and malignant conditions with respect to technical operative parameters and early postoperative outcome of the patients.

Methods

Between 2010 and 2013, we performed SLS for colorectal disease. Of the 111 patients who underwent colorectal resection, 47 patients were operated by SLS and 31 using the LMS technique. The collected data for our patients were compared according to operating time, postoperative morbidity and mortality, pain score numeric rating scale on day 1 and day 5 postoperatively and postoperative hospital stay. To complement the pain scores, the required pain medication for adequate pain relief on these days was given.

Results

There was no significant difference in age, BMI or sex ratio between the two groups. The intraoperative and early postoperative course was comparable as well. Postoperative hospital stay was the only parameter with a significant difference, showing an advantage for SLS.

Conclusion

SLS is a feasible surgical method and a technical option in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. However, we were not able to identify substantial advantages of SLS that would favor this technique.

Single Port and Conventional Laparoscopy in Colorectal Surgery: Comparison of Two Techniques

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) was introduced to further the enhanced outcome of conventional multiport laparoscopy (CML). We compared their short- and long-term outcomes in colorectal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective review of patients who underwent elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery during 3-year period. Patients' data, surgery outcomes, and oncological results were compared.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients (33 male, 28 female), mean age 67.4 years, underwent laparoscopic colonic resections: 28 SILS and 33 CML. Twenty-three (37.7%) patients had previous abdominal surgery. There were 19 (31.2%) right, 9 (14.7%) left, and 2 (3.3%) total colectomies, 16 (26.2%) sigmoidectomies, 13 (21.3%) anterior and 2 (3.3%) abdominoperineal resections. Colonic malignancy was a main indication for the surgery in 51 (83.6%) patients. Mean surgery time and postoperative stay were 92.0 minutes and 9 days, respectively. Pathological examination revealed stage I colon cancer in 16 (32%), stage II in 22 (44%), stage III in 10 (20%), and stage IV in 2 (4%) patients. Mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was 19 ± 13.5. No differences were found between groups in demographic data, type of surgery, surgery time and hospital stay, pathological results and tumor staging, and disease-free and overall survivals. In the SILS group, placement of additional trocar was required in 7 (25%) and conversion in 3 (10.7%) cases compared with 1 (3%) case of conversion to formal laparotomy in the CML group. Overall postoperative morbidity was 16.4%. There was no mortality in both the groups. During the study period, 3 patients from the CML group had cancer recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

SILS is a feasible and safe technique compared with CML in terms of surgical and oncological outcomes.

Hybrid Single-Incision Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Surgery Using One Additional 5 mm Trocar

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a feasible and safe procedure for colorectal cancer. However, SILS has some technical limitations such as collision between instruments and inadequate countertraction. We present a hybrid single-incision laparoscopic surgery (hybrid SILS) technique for colon cancer that involves use of one additional 5 mm trocar.

METHODS

Hybrid SILS for colon cancer was attempted in 70 consecutive patients by a single surgeon between August 2014 and July 2016 at Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine. Using prospectively collected data, an observational study was performed on an intention-to-treat basis.

RESULTS

Hybrid SILS was technically completed in 66 patients, with a failure rate of 5.7% (4/70). One patient was converted to open surgery for para-aortic lymph node dissection. Another was converted to open surgery due to severe peritoneal adhesion. An additional trocar was inserted for adhesiolysis in the other two cases. Median lengths of proximal and distal margins were 12.8 cm (interquartile range [IQR], 10.0-18.6), and 8.2 cm (IQR, 5.5-18.3), respectively. Median total number of lymph nodes harvested was 24 (IQR, 18-33). Overall rate of postoperative morbidity was 12.9%, but there were no Clavien-Dindo grade III or IV complications. There was no postoperative mortality or reoperation. Median postoperative hospital stay was 6 days (IQR, 5-7).

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid SILS using one additional 5 mm trocar is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgical technique for colon cancer. Experienced laparoscopic surgeons can perform hybrid SILS without a learning curve based on the formulaic surgical techniques presented in this article.

[Single incision laparoscopy : Current status]

BACKGROUND

Since the introduction of single incision laparoscopy (SIL), there has been disagreement among professional societies regarding a general recommendation for the use of this minimally invasive method.

OBJECTIVES

Determination of evidence-based advantages of SIL compared to multiport laparoscopy (MPL).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Description of recent technical developments and evaluation of prospective randomized clinical trials and valid meta-analyses with regard to organ-specific procedures. In addition, an expert opinion is provided based on 4209 SIL interventions.

RESULTS

SIL is nowadays applied in all fields of general and visceral surgery. Due to the initial enthusiasm, methodologically weak studies were often published in the literature. Any beneficial effect of SIL on reduced perioperative morbidity is not clearly confirmed, yet. A better cosmetic outcome is either obvious (in SIL liver resections) or nearly unverifiable (in SIL cholecystectomies).

CONCLUSION

SIL has proven feasible and safe after getting through the learning curve. Scientific evidence is currently insufficient to justify SIL without reservation in particular without the individual technical experience of the surgeon.

Re-appraisal and consideration of minimally invasive surgery in colorectal cancer

Throughout history, surgeons have been on a quest to refine the surgical treatment options for their patients and to minimize operative trauma. During the last three decades, there have been tremendous advances in the field of minimally invasive colorectal surgery, with an explosion of different technologies and approaches offered to treat well-known diseases. Laparoscopic surgery has been shown to be equal or superior to open surgery. The boundaries of laparoscopy have been pushed further, in the form of single-incision laparoscopy, natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and robotics. This paper critically reviews the pathway of development of minimally invasive surgery, and appraises the different minimally invasive colorectal surgical approaches available to date.

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.