Single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer: State of art

Clinical application of two-port laparoscopic surgery in sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer resection

Background

In the field of minimally invasive surgery, the two-port laparoscopic surgery is on the rise. This study investigated the safety and efficacy of two-port laparoscopic surgery (TLS) for resecting sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancers compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

Methods

The clinical data of patients undergoing laparoscopic sigmoid colon cancer and upper rectal cancer resection at the Department of General Surgery of the First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical College between July 2019 and January 2022 were retrospectively collected. Grouped according to different laparoscopic surgery. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria,A total of 81 patients were enrolled, of the 25 patients from the TLS group,and of the 56 patients from the CLS group. We mainly compared whether there were statistical differences between the two groups in terms of operative time, intraoperative bleeding, incision length, time to first ambulation, time to first flatus, time to first defecation, postoperative complication rate, and other surgical outcomes.

Results

There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of baseline clinical characteristics (P > 0.05). In terms of the surgical outcomes, there were statistical differences in the total incision length (TLS: 6.21 ± 0.67 cm, CLS: 8.64 ± 1.08 cm, P < 0.001)), time to first ambulation (TLS: 2.0 ± 0.7 d, CLS:3.1 ± 0.9 d, P < 0.001), time to first flatus (TLS: 2.5 ± 0.8 d, CLS: 3.0 ± 0.8 d, P = 0.028), time to first defecation (TLS: 3.8 ± 1.3 d, CLS: 5.1 ± 2.1 d, P = 0.010), and time for liquid diet (TLS: 4.3 ± 1.4 d, CLS: 5.3 ± 1.9 d, P = 0.021). There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of the pathology (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

In terms of safety, TLS in sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer resection is comparable to CLS. However, its incision is smaller and more aesthetic, and it causes lesser trauma than CLS. Additionally, it is also superior to CLS in postoperative recovery.

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.

Initial experience with the transanal approach for lateral pelvic lymph node dissection in rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of transanal lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (TaLPLND) in rectal cancer has not yet been clarified. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the short-term results as an initial experience of TaLPLND.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients with middle to lower rectal cancer who underwent TaLPLND from July 2018 to July 2021. Our institutions targeted lymph nodes in the internal iliac area and the obturator area for lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND).

RESULTS

A total of 30 consecutive patients with rectal cancer were included in this analysis. The median age was 60 years (range, 36-83 years), and the male-female ratio was 2:1. The median operative time was 362 min (IQR, 283-661 min), and the median intraoperative blood loss was 74 ml (IQR, 5-500 ml). Intraoperative blood transfusion was required in one case. No cases required conversion to laparotomy. TaLPLND was performed bilaterally in 13 patients (43.3%). Five patients (16.7%) underwent LPLND with combined resection of the internal iliac vessels. The median distance of the distal margin from the anal verge was 20 mm. The pathological radial margin (pRM) was positive in one case, and the negative pRM rate was 96.7%. Short-term postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification grade ≥ II) were observed in nine cases (30.0%). There were no cases of reoperation or mortality. The median number of harvested lateral pelvic lymph nodes was 11 (range, 3-28). On pathological examination, lateral pelvic lymph nodes were positive for metastasis in seven cases (23.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

TaLPLND appeared to be beneficial from an oncological point of view because it was close to the upstream lymphatic drainage from the tumor. The short-term outcomes of this initial experience indicate that this novel approach is feasible.

Abdominal Ultrasonography After Transrectal Filling With Contrast Agents in Colorectal Cancer With Severely Stenotic Lesions

OBJECTIVE

Abdominal ultrasonography after transrectal filling with contrast agent (AU-TFCA) was retrospectively evaluated with respect to determination of T stage and lesion length in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) who had previously failed colonoscopy because of severe intestinal stenosis.

METHODS

The population comprised 83 patients with CRC with intestinal stenosis and previously failed colonoscopy who underwent AU-TFCA, and in addition contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 2 wk before surgery. The diagnostic performance of AU-TFCA and CECT/MRI was evaluated relative to the post-operative pathological results (PPRs) by paired sample t-test, receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve, Pearson's χ²-test and κ and intraclass correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

The T staging identified via AU-TFCA, but not CECT/MRI, was relatively consistent with that of the PPRs (linearly weighted κ coefficient: 0.558, p < 0.001, and linearly weighted κ coefficient: 0.237, p < 0.001, respectively). The overall diagnostic accuracy of T staging based on AU-TFCA (83.1%) was significantly higher than that based on CECT/MRI (50.6%). Regarding lesion length, the results of AU-TFCA and PPRs were comparable (t = 1.852, p = 0.068), but those of CECT/MRI and PPRs were significantly different (t = 8.450, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

AU-TFCA is effective in evaluation of lesion length and T stage in patients with severely stenotic CRC lesions who previously failed colonoscopy. The diagnostic accuracy of AU-TFCA is significantly better compared with that of CECT/MRI.

Comparison of robotic reduced-port and laparoscopic approaches for left-sided colorectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

The reduced-port approach can overcome the limitations of single-incision laparoscopic surgery while maintaining its advantages. Here, we compared the effects of robotic reduced-port surgery and conventional laparoscopic approaches for left-sided colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Between January 2015 and December 2016, the clinicopathological characteristics and treatment outcomes of 17 patients undergoing robotic reduced-port surgery and 49 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for left-sided colorectal cancer were compared.

RESULTS

The two groups were comparable in almost all outcome measures except for the distal resection margin, which was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.001). The between-group differences in reoperation, incisional hernia development, and overall and progression-free survival were nonsignificant; however, the total hospital cost was significantly higher in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (US$13779.6 ± US$3114.8 vs. US$8556.3 ± US$2056.7, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Robotic reduced-port surgery for left-sided colorectal cancer is safe and effective but more expensive with no additional benefit compared with the conventional laparoscopic approach. This observation warrants further evaluation.

Oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer (CSILS): study protocol for a multicentre, prospective, open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial

Background

In most previous studies, single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) was feasible and safe in the short term. However, long-term oncologic outcomes remain uncertain, as only a few studies contained long-term survival data. SILS for CRC is still in the early stages of research. Further studies, particularly large-scale, prospective randomized controlled trials, are necessary to assess the value of SILS for CRC.

Methods

This study is a prospective, multicentre, open-label, noninferiority, parallel-group randomized controlled trial that investigates the long-term oncologic outcomes of SILS compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for CRC. A total of 710 eligible patients will be randomly assigned to the SILS group or the CLS group at a 1:1 ratio using a central, dynamic, and stratified block randomization method. Patients with ages ranging from 18 to 85 years old, of both sexes, with CRC above the peritoneal reflection diagnosed as cT1-4aN0-2M0 and a tumour size no larger than 5 cm will be considered for the study. The primary endpoint is 3-year disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary endpoints include: intraoperative outcomes, postoperative recovery, postoperative pain assessment, pathological outcomes, early morbidity and mortality rate, cosmetic effects, quality of life, 3-year overall survival (OS), incidence of incisional hernia, 5-year DFS and 5-year OS. The first two follow-up visits will be scheduled at one month and three months postoperatively, then every three months for the first two years and every six months for the next three years.

Discussion

Currently, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been designed to investigate the long-term oncologic outcomes of SILS for CRC. This study is expected to provide clinical evidence of the oncologic outcomes of SILS compared to CLS for CRC to promote its widespread use.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT 04527861 (registered on August 27, 2020).

Laparoscopic Radical Resection of Colorectal Cancer in the Treatment of Elderly Colorectal Cancer and Its Effect on Gastrointestinal Function

Objective

To explore the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer in the elderly patients and its impact on gastrointestinal function.

Methods

A total of 122 elderly patients with colorectal cancer admitted to our hospital from March 2020 to June 2021 were selected as the research subjects, and they were divided into the control group (n = 61) and the observation group (n = 61). The control group was treated with traditional laparotomy, and the observation group was treated with laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer. The clinical data of operation time, incision length, intraoperative bleeding volume, and hospitalization time in the two groups were recorded. Serum motilin (MTL) and gastrin (GAS) levels were measured pre- and post-operatively. The duration of abdominal distension, the time for the abdominal sound to return to normal, the time for the anal exhaust to normal, and the time for normal food intake were recorded after operation. The patients were followed up for 6 months post-operatively, and the complications during follow-up were recorded.

Results

The total response rate of the observation group (95.08%) was higher than that of the control group (81.97%) (P < 0.05). The operation time, incision length, intraoperative bleeding volume, and hospitalization time of the observation group were lower than those of the control group (P < 0.05). The duration of abdominal distension, the time for bowel sounds to return to normal, the time for the anus to exhaust gas to normal, and the normal eating time in the observation group were all lower than those in the control group (P < 0.05). After surgery, the levels of MTL and GAS in the two groups were lower than those before surgery, and those in the observation group were lower than those in the control group (P < 0.05). The total incidence of complications in the observation group (3.28%) was lower than that in the control group (13.12%) (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer in the elderly patients has good effect, short operation time, less trauma, less blood loss during operation, short hospital stay, good recovery of gastrointestinal function, fewer complications, and high safety.

Short-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Single-Center, Open-Label, Non-Inferiority, Randomized Clinical Trial

Objective

To date, well-designed randomized controlled trials examining the safety, efficacy, and long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colorectal cancer are scarce. The aim of the current study was to compare short-term outcomes of SILS for colorectal cancer with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

Methods

Between June 28, 2017, and June 29, 2019, a single-center, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Department of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital (North), Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine in Shanghai, China. In total, 200 patients diagnosed or suspected of colorectal cancer (cT_1-4aN_0-2M₀) were randomly assigned to either the SILS or CLS group in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was early morbidity rate. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative outcomes, pain intensity, postoperative recovery, pathologic outcomes, and long-term outcomes.

Results

In total, 193 participants (SILS, 97; CLS, 96) were analyzed in the modified intention-to-treat (MITT) population. Among them, 48 underwent right hemicolectomy (SILS n = 23, 23.7% and MLS n = 25, 26%), 15 underwent left hemicolectomy (SILS n = 6, 6.2% and MLS n = 9, 9.4%), 1 underwent transverse colectomy (MLS n = 1, 1%), 57 underwent sigmoidectomy (SILS n = 32, 33% and MLS n = 25, 26%), and 72 underwent anterior resection (SILS n = 36, 37.1% and MLS n = 36, 37.5%). No significant differences were observed in the baseline characteristics. The intraoperative complication was comparable between the two groups [5 (5.2%) vs. 4 (4.2%); difference, 1%; 95% CI, -5.8% to 7.8%; p > 0.999) and so was postoperative complication rates [10 (10.3%) vs. 14 (14.6%); difference, -4.3%; 95% CI, -13.9% to 5.3%; p = 0.392]. The SILS group showed shorter incision length [median (IQR), 4 (3.5-5) vs. 6.6 (6-7.5), p < 0.001] and lower VAS scores on the first [median (IQR), 4 (3-5) vs. 4 (4-5), p = 0.002] and the second day [median (IQR), 2 (1.5-3) vs. 3 (2-4), p < 0.001] after surgery. No statistically significant difference was found in other measured outcomes.

Conclusions

Compared with CLS, SILS performed by experienced surgeons for selected colorectal cancer patients is non-inferior with good short-term safety and has the advantage of reducing postoperative pain.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03151733.

Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies

PURPOSE

To compare single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and multiport laparoscopic surgery (MLS) for colorectal cancer in terms of short- and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies comparing SILS and MLS for colorectal cancer were enrolled. Outcomes of interests included intraoperative, postoperative, pathological, and survival outcomes.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies (6 RCTs and 10 PSM studies) published between 2012 and 2020 with a total of 2425 patients were enrolled. Compared with MLS, SILS was associated with less postoperative pain at postoperative day (POD) 1 (P = 0.02, MWD = -0.73, 95%CI: -1.37, -0.09) and POD2 (P < 0.001, MWD= -1.10, 95%CI: -1.45, -0.74) and shorter length of total incision length (P < 0.001, MWD = -3.31, 95%CI: -3.95, -2.67). No differences were observed in terms of operative time, blood loss, intraoperative and postoperative complications, incision hernia, and pathological or survival outcomes between SILS and MLS. Subgroup analysis for right-sided colon cancer, sigmoid colon cancer, and rectosigmoid colon cancer showed that the SILS group was only associated with less postoperative pain and shorter total incision length. The surgical and pathological outcomes were comparable between SILS and MLS.

CONCLUSIONS

SILS is a beneficial alternative to MLS in select colorectal cancer patients, especially for right-sided colon cancer, sigmoid colon cancer, and rectosigmoid cancer, with better cosmetic effects and less postoperative pain. Simultaneously, SILS does not compromise intraoperative and postoperative complications, surgical quality, or long-term outcomes.

Meta-analysis of effects of quality control circle activities in nursing care of patients with liver cancer undergoing interventional operation

BACKGROUND

Based on the domestic and foreign research on the application of quality control circle (QCC) in interventional therapy of liver cancerapy, we conducted a meta-analysis on its effects to provide nursing workers with evidence on its applications in nursing work.

AIM

To systematically evaluate the effects of QCC in the nursing care of patients with liver cancer undergoing interventional operation by using evidence-based medicine.

METHODS

China HowNet, VIP, Wanfang, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched to retrieve the relevant literature on QCC activity intervention for patients with liver cancer undergoing interventional surgery from June 2010 to June 2020. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the literature was selected, the data were extracted, and the literature quality was evaluated. Revman 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 60 articles were retrieved in this study, and eight were finally included after screening. The results of meta-analysis showed that QCC activity intervention could significantly improve patient satisfaction (odds ratio [OR] = 6.57, 95% confidence interval [CI]: (4.04-10.68, P < 0.00001) and awareness of health knowledge among patients (OR = 5.73, 95%CI: 3.74-9.83, P < 0.00001), and decrease postoperative anorexia (OR = 0.37, 95%CI: 0.21-0.68, P = 0.001), fever (OR = 0.42, 95%CI: 0.26-0.67, P = 0.0003), abdominal pain (OR = 0.36, 95%CI: 0.21-0.62, P = 0.0003), and nausea and vomiting (OR = 0.37, 95%CI: 0.221-0.61, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

For patients with liver cancer after interventional surgery, QCC activity intervention could improve patientg satisfaction and awareness of health knowledge and reduce the surgical complications.

Feasibility of Single-Incision Plus One Port Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer

PURPOSE

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is a recently developed minimally invasive surgical technique. We aimed to compare the feasibility and safety of single-incision plus one port laparoscopic low anterior resection (S+1-LAR) with those of multi-port laparoscopic low anterior resection (M-LAR) for mid-to-low rectal cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patient characteristics and surgical outcomes by assessing data collected from the medical records of patients who underwent elective laparoscopic low anterior resection for mid-to-low rectal cancer at the Gangneung Asan Hospital.

RESULTS

From April 2015 to April 2019, 52 patients underwent S+1-LAR (n=28) or M-LAR (n=24) for mid-to-low rectal cancer at Gangneung Asan Hospital. There were no significant between-group differences in clinical characteristics. The mean postoperative 1-day pain score was significantly lower in the S+1-LAR group. Surgical outcomes and postoperative complications did not differ significantly between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

S+1-LAR is a feasible and safe technique and is comparable with M-LAR in terms of surgical outcomes of patients with mid-to-low rectal cancer.

Clinical and oncological outcomes of single-incision vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the clinical and oncological outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for patients with rectal cancer (RC) who underwent total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case-control study of patients with RC operated between 12/2013 and 12/2017 in Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine. In total, 177 patients who underwent CLS and 51 who underwent SILS met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching method (PSM).

RESULTS

Compared with the CLS group, the SILS group showed shorter operation time [105 (40) vs. 125 (55) min, P = 0.045], shorter total incision length [4 (1) vs. 6.5 (1.5) cm, P < 0.001], lower VAS score on POD2 [1 (1) vs. 2 (1), P < 0.001], shorter time to soft diet [7 (1) vs. 8 (2) days, P = 0.048], and shorter length of hospital stay [9 (2) vs. 11 (3) days, P < 0.001]. The postoperative complications were similar between two groups [1(2%) vs. 5 (9.8%), P = 0.205]. No readmissions or mortality in either group occurred within 30 days of surgery. All 102 specimens met the requirements of TME. No significant differences were observed in the pathologic outcomes between the two groups. The median follow-up period was 32.6 months in the SILS group and 36.8 months in the CLS group (P = 0.053). The 3-year disease-free survival rates and overall survival rates of the SILS and CLS groups were 89.8% vs. 96.0% (P = 0.224) and 90.9% vs. 96.9% (P = 0.146), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CLS, TME surgery for rectal cancer can be performed safely and effectively using the SILS technique with better cosmetic results, less postoperative pain, faster postoperative recovery, and acceptable clinical and oncological outcomes.

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

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

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.

Clinical and oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for right colon cancer: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for right colon cancer is going to be considered as a new option. The potential benefits, clinical, and oncologic outcomes are still controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate clinical and oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for right colon cancer using propensity score matching analysis.

METHODS

From December 2013 to June 2017, 174 patients underwent laparoscopic radical right hemicolectomy through a single-incision (n = 32) or a conventional (n = 142) approach. The data were prospectively collected and the patients were matched at a radio of 1:1 according to age, sex, body mass index (BMI), previous abdominal surgeries, comorbidities, ASA score (≤ 2/> 2), and pathologic stage.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in estimated blood loss, time to diet, postoperative pain score, length of hospital stay between the SILS and CLS groups. However, the SILS group showed longer operation time (175 (40) vs 145 (52.5), p = 0.011) and shorter incision length (4 (1.4) vs 7 (1.9), p < 0.001). There were 2 (6.3%) postoperative complications in the SILS group and 5 (15.6%) in the CLS group (p = 0.426). The pathologic outcomes were similar between two groups. The median follow-up period was 26.5 months in the SILS group and 34.9 months in the CLS group (p = 0.002). There were 3 recurrences (9.4%) in the SILS group and 3 (9.4%) in the CLS group. The 3-year disease-free survival rates were 92.4 and 93.8% (p = 0.984), and overall survival rates were 92.3 and 93.0% (p = 0.884) in the SILS and the CLS groups, respectively. No incisional hernia was observed during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Though single-incision laparoscopic surgery for right colon cancer showed longer operation time in this study, it appears to be a safe and feasible option with comparable clinical and oncologic outcomes to conventional laparoscopic surgery.

Single-incision laparoscopic ileocecal resection using an organ retractor

INTRODUCTION

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery has been reported to be a safe and feasible technique for colorectal cancer. However, the technique needs skill due to the limitations of the device. An organ retractor is a new grasp device that has the potential to overcome these limitations.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

A 63-year-old woman with a tumor palpated in the right lower quadrant of the abdomen presented to hospital. Colonoscopy showed a type 2 mass with nearly complete stenosis, and a biopsy specimen showed well-differentiated adenocarcinoma. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery ileocecal resection was performed using an organ retractor. A 3-cm incision was placed in the umbilicus, and three conventional ports were inserted. An organ retractor was used for hepatocolic ligament resection, resection of the ileocolic vessels, and resection of the insertion of the mesentery proper. For each resection, the trailer line's tension was adjusted to provide a good operative view. The patient's postoperative course was good, and she was discharged 7days after surgery.

DISCUSSION

An organ retractor was effective for single-incision laparoscopic surgery technique not only to maintain a good operative view, but also to change trailer line tension, which enabled safe dissection.

CONCLUSION

An organ retractor could facilitate single-incision laparoscopic surgery.

Comparison of single incision and multi incision diagnostic laparoscopy on evaluation of diaphragmatic status after left thoracoabdominal penetrating stab wounds

AIM:

Single incision diagnostic laparoscopy (SIDL) may be an alternative procedure to multi-incision diagnostic laparoscopy (MDL) for penetrating thoracoabdominal stab wounds. The purpose of this study is sharing our experience and comparing two techniques for diaphragmatic status.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Medical records of 102 patients with left thoracoabdominal penetrating stab injuries who admitted to Istanbul School of Medicine, Trauma and Emergency Surgery Clinic between February 2012 and April 2016 were examined. The patients were grouped according to operation technique. Patient records were retrospectively reviewed for data including, age, sex, length of hospital stay, diaphragm injury rate, surgical procedure, operation time and operation time with wound repair, post-operative complications and accompanying injuries.

RESULTS:

The most common injury location was the left anterior thoracoabdomen. SIDL was performed on 26 patients. Nine (34.6%) of the 26 patients had a diaphragm injury. Seventy-six patients underwent MDL. Diaphragmatic injury was detected in 20 (26.3%) of 76 patients. The average operation time and post-operative complications were similar; there was no statistically significant difference between MDL and SIDL groups.

CONCLUSION:

SIDL can be used as a safe and feasible procedure in the repair of a diaphragm wounds. SIDL may be an alternative method in the diagnosis and treatment of these patients.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Reduction in operative trauma along with an improvement in endoscopic access has undoubtedly occupied surgical minds for at least the past 3 decades. It is not at all surprising that minimally invasive colon surgery has come a long way since the first laparoscopic appendectomy by Semm in 1981. It is common knowledge that the recent developments in video and robotic technologies have significantly furthered advancements in laparoscopic and minimally invasive surgery. This has led to the overall acceptance of the treatment of benign colorectal pathology via the endoscopic route. Malignant disease, however, is still primarily treated by conventional approaches.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This review article is based on a literature search pertaining to advances in minimally invasive colorectal surgery for the treatment of malignant pathology, as well as on personal experience in the field over the same period of time. Our search was limited to level I and II clinical papers only, according to the evidence-based medicine guidelines. We attempted to present our unbiased view on the subject relying only on the evidence available.

CONCLUSION

Focusing on advances in colorectal minimally invasive surgery, it has to be stated that there are still a number of unanswered questions regarding the surgical management of malignant diseases with this approach. These questions do not only relate to the area of boundaries set for the use of minimally invasive techniques in this field but also to the exact modality best suited to the treatment of every particular case whilst maintaining state-of-the-art oncological principles.

Review of 500 single incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery cases - Lessons learned

Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a minimally invasive platform with specific benefits over traditional multiport laparoscopic surgery. The safety and feasibility of SILS has been proven, and the applications continue to grow with experience. After 500 cases at a high-volume, single-institution, we were able to standardize instrumentation and operative steps, as well as develop adaptations in technique to help overcome technical and ergonomic challenges. These technical adaptations have allowed the successful application of SILS to technically difficult patient populations, such as pelvic cases, inflammatory bowel disease cases, and high body mass index patients. This review is a frame of reference for the application and wider integration of the single incision laparoscopic platform in colorectal surgery.

Review of single incision laparoscopic surgery in colorectal surgery

As surgical techniques continue to move towards less invasive techniques, single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), a hybrid between traditional multiport laparoscopy and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, was introduced to further the enhanced outcomes of multiport laparoscopy. The safety and feasibility of SILS for both benign and malignant colorectal disease has been proven. SILS provides the potential for improved cosmesis, postoperative pain, recovery time, and quality of life at the drawback of higher technical skill required. In this article, we review the history, describe the available technology and techniques, and evaluate the benefits and limitations of SILS for colorectal surgery in the published literature.

SILS v SILS+1: a Case-Matched Comparison for Colorectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is safe and feasible for benign and malignant colorectal diseases. SILS has comparable or improved outcomes compared to multiport laparoscopy but technical limitations when operating in the pelvis. To address these limitations, we developed an innovative SILS+1 approach using a single Pfannenstiel incision for pelvis access with one additional umbilical port. Our goal was to compare outcomes for SILS and SILS+1 in lower abdominal and pelvic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Review of a prospectively maintained database identified patients who underwent an elective reduced port laparoscopic lower abdominal/pelvic colorectal procedure from 2009 to 2014. Cases were stratified by approach: SILS versus SILS+1 then matched 1:2 on age, gender, body mass index (BMI), comorbidity, and procedure. Demographic, perioperative, and postoperative outcome variables were evaluated. The main outcome measures were operative time, conversion rate, length of stay, complication, morbidity, and mortality rates.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-two reduced port AR/LAR patients were evaluated-44 SILS and 88 SILS+1. The groups were similar in age, gender, BMI, and ASA class. The primary diagnosis in both cohorts was diverticulitis (90.9 % SILS, 87.5 % SILS+1), and main procedure performed an anterior rectosigmoidectomy (86.4 % SILS, 88.2 % SILS+1). Significantly more SILS+1 patients had previous abdominal surgery (p = 0.01). The operative time was significantly shorter in SILS+1 (mean 166.6 [SD 48.4] vs. 178.0 [SD 70.0], p = 0.03). The conversion rate to multiport or open surgery was also significantly lower with SILS+1 compared to SILS (1.1 vs. 11.4 %, p = 0.02). Postoperatively, the length of stay across the groups was similar. SILS trended towards higher complication and readmission rates (NS). There were no unplanned reoperations or mortality in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

SILS+1 facilitates pelvic and lower abdominal colorectal surgery, with shorter operative times and lower conversion rates. The additional port improved visualization and outcomes without any impact on length of stay, readmission, or complication rates.