Needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective study of 60 patients

Twenty years of mini-laparoscopy in Brazil: What we have learned so far

The mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) was first performed in 1996, as the logical advancement of the conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In Brazil, mini-laparoscopy was first performed in 1998, by Professors Peter Goh and Go Wakabaiashi, who performed a cholecystectomy using 3-mm instruments. The first study, with a considerable number of patients, was performed in Recife by Dr. Carvalho, and he reported that 719 patients were submitted to a MLC with a small rate of conversion for conventional laparoscopy. We discuss the development of mini-laparoscopy in Brazil for the past 20 years.

Tokyo Guidelines 2018: surgical management of acute cholecystitis: safe steps in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis (with videos)

In some cases, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) may be difficult to perform in patients with acute cholecystitis (AC) with severe inflammation and fibrosis. The Tokyo Guidelines 2018 (TG18) expand the indications for LC under difficult conditions for each level of severity of AC. As a result of expanding the indications for LC to treat AC, it is absolutely necessary to avoid any increase in bile duct injury (BDI), particularly vasculo-biliary injury (VBI), which is known to occur at a certain rate in LC. Since the Tokyo Guidelines 2013 (TG13), an attempt has been made to assess intraoperative findings as objective indicators of surgical difficulty; based on expert consensus on these difficulty indicators, bail-out procedures (including conversion to open cholecystectomy) have been indicated for cases in which LC for AC is difficult to perform. A bail-out procedure should be chosen if, when the Calot's triangle is appropriately retracted and used as a landmark, a critical view of safety (CVS) cannot be achieved because of the presence of nondissectable scarring or severe fibrosis. We propose standardized safe steps for LC to treat AC. To achieve a CVS, it is vital to dissect at a location above (on the ventral side of) the imaginary line connecting the base of the left medial section (Segment 4) and the roof of Rouvière's sulcus and to fulfill the three criteria of CVS before dividing any structures. Achieving a CVS prevents the misidentification of the cystic duct and the common bile duct, which are most commonly confused. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47. Related clinical questions and references are also included.

Percutaneous Externally Assembled Laparoscopic vs Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Nephrectomy in a Porcine Model: A Prospective, Randomized, Blinded, Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes between laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) and a novel percutaneous externally assembled laparoscopic (PEAL) nephrectomy in an in vivo porcine model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten female farm pigs were randomized to LESS nephrectomy (5) or PEAL nephrectomy (5). Operative times, estimated blood loss, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were compared. The surgeons used a Likert scale to grade difficulty of peritoneal access, port placement, tool assembly, hilar dissection, closure, and overall difficulty of surgery. Scar assessment was performed by a blinded plastic surgeon using the Vancouver Scar Scale. Descriptive statistics were reported as median and range. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for continuous and ordinal variables. A p value <0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Median operative time was significantly shorter in the PEAL group vs the LESS group (85 minutes vs 127 minutes, p = 0.03). Median Likert scores showed overall hilar dissection and nephrectomy to be significantly easier using PEAL compared with LESS (2 vs 9, p < 0.01 for both). The PEAL instruments left no visible scar at 5 feet in any animal, and only 1 out of 10 scars could be identified on physical examination.

CONCLUSIONS

The PEAL surgical paradigm demonstrates nearly scarless outcomes while providing shorter operative times and easier performance than LESS nephrectomy in a porcine model.

[Mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy as an innovative method in minimally invasive abdominal surgery]

INTRODUCTION

In our study, we applied a mini-laparosopic approach during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) (using the minimum size of trocars with the simultaneous intention to reduce their number). The advantages and disadvantages of the mini-LC approach were compared with those of traditional LC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

During mini-LC procedures, we used 3 ports (11 mm, 5 mm, 3.5 mm). Mini-LC was performed in 10 patients, and the results were compared with those of 10 cases of traditional LCs. The two groups were homogenous in terms of gender, age, BMI and ASA classification. Comparison criteria included operative time, the need to use an extra port, conversion rate, oral analgesic requirement, early/late complications and cosmetic results.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in terms of operative time, blood loss, hospital stay and complications. Cumulative size of incisions was 19.5 mm with mini-LC- and 41 mm in the LC group, respectively, and the tissue injury was 124.2 mm(2) and 448.2 mm(2). Cosmetic results of mini-LC were highly improved by these values. Increased oral analgetic requirements were detected in LC group.

CONCLUSION

Mini-LC is a safe procedure with outstanding cosmetic results accompanied by less oral analgetic requirements. In selected patients, it can be recommended as an alternative method of traditional LC.

Single-port endo-laparoscopic surgery in combined abdominal procedures

Single-port endo-laparoscopic surgery has gained support in the surgical community because it is perceived to offer a better postoperative outcome as it requires only a single incision. We write this prospective observational study to ascertain the feasibility and safety of this technique in patients otherwise requiring two operations. Five patients who underwent double procedures with a single-port device were reviewed: Case 1, a transabdominal preperitoneal hernia repair and gastric wedge resection; Case 2, cholecystectomy and diaphragmatic hernia repair; Case 3, oophorectomy and incisional hernia repair; Case 4, anterior resection of the rectum and hepatic segmentectomy; and Case 5, left adrenalectomy and cholecystectomy. Patient demographics, type of port used, operative time, complications and incision length were collected. Mean operative time for the cases ranged from 100 to 315 min. Incision length for the single-port device was 2 cm. In Case 2, an additional 5-mm port was used and an intraoperative complication involving a laceration of the liver occurred during the suturing of the gallbladder fundus. An additional 8-cm lower abdominal incision (Pfannenstiel) was required in Case 4 to complete the colonic anastomosis and for specimen retrieval. Single-port endo-laparoscopic surgery is a feasible and safe technique for approaching double procedures. It drastically reduces the number of scars that a double procedure creates, and if difficulty arises, another port can always be added to ease the operation. It can also potentially reduce the number of admissions and anesthesia that a patient undergoes.

Miniports versus standard ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

In conventional (standard) port laparoscopic cholecystectomy, four abdominal ports (two of 10 mm diameter and two of 5 mm diameter) are used. Recently, use of smaller ports, miniports, have been reported.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of miniport (defined as ports smaller than the standard ports) laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2013 to identify randomised clinical trials of relevance to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing miniport versus standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy were considered for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects models using RevMan analysis. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 trials with 734 patients randomised to miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (380 patients) versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy (351 patients). Only one trial which included 70 patients was of low risk of bias. Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy could be completed successfully in more than 80% of patients in most trials. The remaining patients were mostly converted to standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy but some were also converted to open cholecystectomy. These patients were included for the outcome conversion to open cholecystectomy but excluded from other outcomes. Accordingly, the results of the other outcomes are on 343 patients in the miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy group and 351 patients in the standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy group, and therefore the results have to be interpreted with extreme caution.There was no mortality in the seven trials that reported mortality (0/194 patients in miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus 0/203 patients in standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy). There were no significant differences between miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy and standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the proportion of patients who developed serious adverse events (eight trials; 460 patients; RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.04 to 3.08) (miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: 1/226 (adjusted proportion 0.4%) versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: 3/234 (1.3%); quality of life at 10 days after surgery (one trial; 70 patients; SMD -0.20; 95% CI -0.68 to 0.27); or in whom the laparoscopic operation had to be converted to open cholecystectomy (11 trials; 670 patients; RR 1.23; 95% CI 0.44 to 3.45) (miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: 8/351 (adjusted proportion 2.3%) versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy 6/319 (1.9%)). Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy took five minutes longer to complete than standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy (12 trials; 695 patients; MD 4.91 minutes; 95% CI 2.38 to 7.44). There were no significant differences between miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy and standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the length of hospital stay (six trials; 351 patients; MD -0.00 days; 95% CI -0.12 to 0.11); the time taken to return to activity (one trial; 52 patients; MD 0.00 days; 95% CI -0.31 to 0.31); or in the time taken for the patient to return to work (two trials; 187 patients; MD 0.28 days; 95% CI -0.44 to 0.99) between the groups. There was no significant difference in the cosmesis scores at six months to 12 months after surgery between the two groups (two trials; 152 patients; SMD 0.13; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.46).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be completed successfully in more than 80% of patients. There appears to be no advantage of miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy in terms of decreasing mortality, morbidity, hospital stay, return to activity, return to work, or improving cosmesis. On the other hand, there is a modest increase in operating time after miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared with standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the safety of miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy is yet to be established. Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy cannot be recommended routinely outside well-designed randomised clinical trials. Further trials of low risks of bias and low risks of random errors are necessary.

Needlescopic surgery for liver, gallbladder and spleen diseases

BACKGROUND

We propose that needlescopic surgery (NS) should be considered as a way of improving the esthetic result and post-operative quality of life of patients and of reducing costs and stress on surgeons, and we have evaluated the results of NS.

METHODS

We used NS in 157 patients between May 1998 and December 2010: cholecystectomy in 150 patients, marsupialization of splenic and hepatic cysts in 4 and splenectomy in 3, respectively. Under general anesthesia, one 12-mm and two or three 2- or 3-mm ports were introduced into the operative field. The specimen was retrieved from the 12-mm wound using a plastic bag.

RESULTS

The procedures were successfully completed in all patients without conversion to an open procedure. In eight (5.3%) of 150 cholecystectomies a change to 5-mm instruments was required. The mean operation times and postoperative hospital stays for cholecystectomy, splenectomy, and marsupialization of splenic and hepatic cysts were 80.2 min and 3.2 days, 167 min and 5.6 days, 170 min and 7 days, and 120 min and 7 days, respectively. There were a few perioperative complications. The most important factor for reducing operation time and achieving a low conversion rate is the use of at least one 3- or 5-mm port for the grasping instruments in cholecystectomy. We recognized a residual cyst requiring splenectomy 62 months after marsupialization in one case. Technical points for performing safe procedures on solid organs were: no direct organ mobilization to avoid organ injuries, the rotation of the operating table and the utilization of organ gravity to create a better operative field, the minimum use of the needlescope to perform a safe maneuver and the improvement of bi-manual technique.

CONCLUSIONS

NS is a safe and feasible procedure for achieving minimal invasive surgery. We should consider NS as a first choice to treat operable diseases in this laparoscopic era.

Is there still any role for minilaparoscopic-cholecystectomy? A general surgeons' last five years experience over 932 cases

Laparoscopy has rapidly emerged as the preferred surgical approach in a number of different diseases because it ensures correct diagnoses and appropriate treatment. The use of mini-instruments (5 mm or less in diameter) and, when possible, the reduction of the number of trocars used might be its natural evolution. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a gold standard technique. The aim of the present work is to illustrate the results of the prospective experience of minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy (5 mm MLC) performed at our institution. Between August 2005 and July 2010 a total of 932 patients (mean age 45 years) underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Amongst them, 887 (95.1%) were operated on with a 5 mm-three trocar approach and in the remaining 45 cases (4.8%) a 3 mm trocar was used. The primary endpoint was the feasibility rate of the techniques. Secondary endpoints were safety and the impact of the techniques on duration of laparoscopy. In two cases conversion to laparotomy was necessary. We needed to add a fourth-5 mm trocar in the 10.7% of the cases (95 patients) in the 5 mm MLC. There were two cases of redo-laparoscopy in this group due to bile leakage from the cystic duct in one case, and to bleeding from the gallbladder bed in the other. Minor occurrence ranged as high as 2.1% in the 5 mm-MLC group, while it was nil in the 3 mm-MLC patients. The present experience shows that the 5 mm-three trocars MLC is a safe, easy, effective and reproducible approach to gallbladder diseases. Such features make the technique a challenging alternative to conventional laparoscopy both in the acute and the scheduled setting. We consider the 3 mm-MLC approach suitable only in selected cases, young and thin patients, due to the fragility of the smaller instruments.

Reevaluation of needlescopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Although the use of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has spread rapidly, most procedures employ additional needlescopic instruments to ensure safety and shorten the operation time. Therefore, on the basis of results obtained in our department, the present study was conducted to reevaluate the current state of needlescopic surgery (NS) to improve the cosmetic results and postoperative quality of life of patients and to reduce cost and degree of stress on surgeons.

METHODS

Between May 1998 and February 2011, we performed NS in 202 patients. The diagnoses included gallbladder diseases in 151 patients, spontaneous pneumothorax in 11, thyroid tumor and axillary lymph node metastases in 10 patients each, splenic cyst and appendicitis in 4 patients each, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura and postoperative abdominal wall hernia in 3 patients each, primary aldosteronism and hepatic cyst in 2 patients each, and adhesional bowel obstruction and gastric stromal tumor in 1 patient each. Under general anesthesia, one 12-mm and tow or three 2- or 3-mm ports were introduced into the operative field. The specimen was retrieved via the 12-mm wound using a plastic bag.

RESULTS

The operations were completed in all patients without the need to convert to an open procedure. In 8 (5.3%) of the 151 cholecystectomies, a change to 5-mm instruments was required. There were no perioperative complications. Pertinent technical points included avoidance of direct organ mobilization to minimize injury, rotation of the operating table and utilization of organ gravity to create a better operative field, minimum use of needlescope to ensure safe maneuvering, and improvement of the bi-hand technique.

CONCLUSIONS

NS is a safe and feasible procedure that allows experienced surgeons to achieve minimally invasive surgery with low morbidity, without the need to convert to a conventional or open procedure.