Therapeutic advances: Single incision laparoscopic hepatopancreatobiliary surgery

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery to treat hepatopancreatobiliary cancer: A technical review

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), or laparoendoscopic single-site surgery, was launched to minimize incisional traumatic effects in the 1990s. Minor SILS, such as cholecystectomies, have been gaining in popularity over the past few decades. Its application in complicated hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgeries, however, has made slow progress due to instrumental and technical limitations, costs, and safety concerns. While minimally invasive abdominal surgery is pushing the boundaries, advanced laparoscopic HPB surgeries have been shown to be comparable to open operations in terms of patient and oncologic safety, including hepatectomies, distal pancreatectomies (DP), and pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD). In contrast, advanced SILS for HPB malignancy has only been reported in a few small case series. Most of the procedures involved minor liver resections and DP; major hepatectomies were rarely described. Single-incision laparoscopic PD has not yet been reported. We herein review the published SILS for HPB cancer in the literature and our three-year experience focusing on the technical aspects.

Single Incision Pediatric Endoscopic Surgery: From Myth to Reality a Case Series

Laparoscopic surgery has continued to evolve to minimize access sites and scars in both the adult and pediatric populations. In children, single-incision pediatric endoscopic surgery (SIPES) has been shown to be effective, feasible, and safe with comparative results to multiport equivalents. Thus, the use of SIPES continues over increasingly complex cases, however, conceptions of its efficacy continue to vary greatly. In the present case series and discussion, we review the history of SIPES techniques and its current application today. We present this in the setting of five common myths about SIPES techniques: limitations against complex cases, restrictions to specialized training, increased morbidity outcomes, increased operative lengths, and increased operative costs. Regarding the myth of SIPES being limited in application to simple cases, examples were highlighted throughout the literature in addition to the authors’ own experience with three complex cases including resection of a lymphatic malformation, splenectomy with cholecystectomy, and distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy. A review of SIPES learning curves shows equivalent operative outcomes to multiport learning curves and advancements towards practical workshops to increase trainee familiarity can help assuage these aptitudes. In assessing comorbidities, adult literature reveals a slight increase in incisional hernia rates, but this does not correlate with single-incision pediatric data. In experienced hands, operative SIPES times average approximate multiport laparoscopic equivalents. Finally, regarding expenses, SIPES represents an equivalent alternative to laparoscopic techniques.

Advances in Laparoscopic Surgery

Recently, a new platform of abdominal access, called single-port surgery, has emerged in human and veterinary laparoscopy. The single-port platform enables all laparoscopic instruments, including the telescope, to pass individually through the same abdominal incision. Recently, there have been several published reports documenting the efficacy and safety of single-port procedures in veterinary patients. This article discusses the common single-port devices and instrumentation, as well as procedures now routinely offered in veterinary minimally invasive surgery.

Application of stapling devices in liver surgery: Current status and future prospects

The liver is a vascular-rich solid organ. Safe and effective dissection of the vessels and liver parenchyma, and control of intraoperative bleeding are the main concerns when performing liver resection. Several studies have confirmed that intraoperative blood loss and postoperative transfusion are predictors of postoperative morbidity and mortality in liver surgery. Various methods and instruments have been developed during hepatectomy. Stapling devices are crucial for safe and rapid anastomosis. They are used to divide hepatic veins and portal branches, and to transect liver parenchyma in open liver resection. In recent years, laparoscopic liver surgery has developed rapidly, and is now preferred by many surgeons. Stapling devices have also been gradually introduced in laparoscopic liver surgery, from dividing vascular and biliary structures to parenchymal transection. This may be because staplers make manipulation more simple, rapid and safe. Even in single incision laparoscopic surgery, which is recognized as a new minimally invasive technique, staplers are also utilized, especially in left lateral hepatectomy. For safe application of stapling devices in liver surgery, more related designs and modifications, such as application of a suitable laparoscopic articulating liver tissue crushing device, a staple line reinforcement technique with the absorbable polymer membrane or radiofrequency ablation assistance, are still needed. More randomized studies are needed to demonstrate the benefits and find broader indications for the use of stapling devices, to help expand their application in liver surgery.

Intraumbilical versus periumbilical incision in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

An important issue in laparoscopic surgery is initial peritoneal access. An intraumbilical (IU) incision may be easier and faster to place, but due to concerns about wound complications, the periumbilical (PU) incision is still often used. A prospective randomized controlled study was performed to investigate the outcomes of the IU incision and PU incision in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

Study subjects were patients who received laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute or chronic cholecystitis, gallbladder polyp or adenomyomatosis, or porcelain gallbladder from June 2014 to January 2015. Enrolled subjects were randomly allocated to the IU incision group or the PU incision group. Demographic data, perioperative outcomes, and the results of a cosmetic satisfaction questionnaire were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 130 subjects were analyzed (64 in the IU group, 66 in the PU group). There were no differences in patient demographics. The operation time was significantly shorter in the IU group (34.2 ± 14.6 vs 41.7 ± 21.3, P = 0.020). The cosmetic survey score was significantly higher in the IU group (36.8 ± 5.2 vs 33.2 ± 5.2, P < 0.001). There was no difference in the complication rates of the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The IU incision is a safe, feasible method of initial intraperitoneal access that can reduce the operation time and offer superior cosmetic effects to the patient.

Laparoscopic liver resection: Experience based guidelines

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been progressively developed along the past two decades. Despite initial skepticism, improved operative results made laparoscopic approach incorporated to surgical practice and operations increased in frequency and complexity. Evidence supporting LLR comes from case-series, comparative studies and meta-analysis. Despite lack of level 1 evidence, the body of literature is stronger and existing data confirms the safety, feasibility and benefits of laparoscopic approach when compared to open resection. Indications for LLR do not differ from those for open surgery. They include benign and malignant (both primary and metastatic) tumors and living donor liver harvesting. Currently, resection of lesions located on anterolateral segments and left lateral sectionectomy are performed systematically by laparoscopy in hepatobiliary specialized centers. Resection of lesions located on posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8) and major liver resections were shown to be feasible but remain technically demanding procedures, which should be reserved to experienced surgeons. Hand-assisted and laparoscopy-assisted procedures appeared to increase the indications of minimally invasive liver surgery and are useful strategies applied to difficult and major resections. LLR proved to be safe for malignant lesions and offers some short-term advantages over open resection. Oncological results including resection margin status and long-term survival were not inferior to open resection. At present, surgical community expects high quality studies to base the already perceived better outcomes achieved by laparoscopy in major centers’ practice. Continuous surgical training, as well as new technologies should augment the application of laparoscopic liver surgery. Future applicability of new technologies such as robot assistance and image-guided surgery is still under investigation.

Impact of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) procedures on surgeon stress and workload: a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) may lead to higher patient satisfaction; however, SILC may expose the surgeon to increased workload. The goal of this study was to compare surgeon stress and workload between SILC and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC).

METHODS

During a double-blind randomized controlled trial comparing patient outcomes for SILC versus CLC (NCT0148943), surgeon workload was assessed by four measures: surgery task load index questionnaire (Surg-TLX), maximum heart rate, salivary cortisol level, and instruments usability survey. The maximum heart rate and salivary cortisol levels were sampled from the surgeon before the random assignment of the surgical procedure, intraoperatively after the cystic duct was clipped, and at skin closure. After each procedure, the surgeon completed the Surg-TLX and an instrument usability survey. Student's t tests, Wilcoxon rank sum test, and Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric ANOVAs on the dependent variables by the technique (SILC vs. CLC) were performed with α = 0.05.

RESULTS

Twenty-three SILC and 25 CLC procedures were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. No significant differences were observed between SILC and CLC for patient demographics and procedure duration. SILC had significantly higher post-surgery surgeon maximum heart rates than CLC (p < 0.05). SILC also had significantly higher mean change in the maximum heart rate between during and post-procedure (p < 0.05) than CLC. Salivary cortisol level was significantly higher during SILC than CLC (p < 0.01). Awkward manipulation of the instruments and limited fine motions were reported significantly more frequently with SILC than CLC (p < 0.01). In the surgeon-reported Surg-TLX, subscale of physical demand was significantly more demanding for SILC than CLC (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeon heart rate, salivary cortisol level, instrument usability, and Surg-TLX ratings indicate that SILC is significantly more stressful and physically demanding than the CLC. Surgeon stress and workload may impact patients' outcomes; thus, ergonomic improvement on SILC is necessary.