Innovative technique of needlescopic grasper-assisted single-incision laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: A comparative study

Needle device-assisted single-incision laparoscopic gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis

INTRODUCTION

Single-incision laparoscopic gastrectomy can be difficult because of complex instrumentation and a limited working angle. We standardized a needle device-assisted single-incision laparoscopic gastrectomy (NA-SILG) procedure for early gastric cancer in 2013. Herein, we present our technique and evaluate it in comparison to the conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy CLG) technique.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 149 patients who underwent a NA-SILG or distal (CLG) for early gastric cancer between January 2013 and August 2016. We performed 1:1 propensity score matching between the two groups.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients who underwent a NA-SILG and 131 who underwent a CLG were included. Almost all patients were in clinical stage IA. Operative times were 216 ± 29.7 minutes and 220 ± 51.7 minutes for the NA-SILG and CLG groups, respectively; the median intraoperative bleeding amounts were 5 mL and 10 mL for the NA-SILG and CLG groups, respectively. The median number of retrieved lymph nodes was 41.5 and 57 for the NA-SILG and CLG groups, respectively. The number of patients needing analgesics was significantly lower in the NA-SILG group (P = .003) than in the CLG group. Neither group had postoperative complications more severe than Clavien-Dindo classification III.

CONCLUSION

Needle device-assisted SILG is safe and feasible for early gastric cancer treatment in slim figure patients. It has short and long-term outcomes comparable to the CLG but is less invasive and results in less postoperative pain.

Experimental evaluation of the fineness of needle forceps: advantages other than minimal access

PURPOSE

Needle forceps are used to limit damage to the abdominal wall in endoscopic surgery; however, few experimental studies have evaluated the fineness and performance of needle forceps. We conducted this study to identify the advantages of needle forceps over conventional 5 mm forceps, focusing on fine grasping and needle control.

METHODS

Twenty physicians executed tasks using 5 mm forceps and 2.1 mm small diameter forceps in a laparoscopic experimental setting. First, we timed the execution and recorded the number of drops in a task of grasping and moving grains of rice and red beans. Next, we measured the execution time, looseness of the knot, and the deviation from the stitching point in a suture and ligation task using suture needles with a diameter of 17 or 26 mm.

RESULTS

The needle forceps required a significantly shorter execution time to move the rice grains (37.7 s vs. 45.8 s; p = 0.01) and a significantly higher completion rate (90% vs 20%; p < 0.01). The deviation of the stitching point using the 17 mm needle with needle forceps was significantly smaller than with the 5 mm forceps (0.5 mm vs. 1.0 mm; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Needle forceps are better for procedures requiring fine grasping and enable more accurate small diameter needle control than 5 mm forceps.

A Comparative Study of Needlescopic Grasper Assisted Single Incision versus Three-Port versus Pure Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Purpose

Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is a surgical method to treat gallbladder disease designed to reduce postoperative pain and improve cosmetic results. However, pure SILC (pSILC) has several inherent limitations. In this study, we report the surgical outcomes of SILC with needlescopic grasper (nSILC) compared with those of pSILC and conventional three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TPLC).

Methods

This retrospective study enrolled 103 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease in our hospital between January 2013 and January 2015. Among them, 33 patients underwent pSILC, 35 underwent nSILC, and 35 underwent TPLC. We collected demographic characteristics and operative data to analyze outcomes between groups.

Results

All procedures were done by laparoscopy and the gallbladder of each patient was completely removed. Women and younger patients were more to undergo SILC than TPLC. Analysis showed that the operation time of the nSILC group was longer than that of the TPLC group, but shorter than that of the pSILC group (skin to skin operation time [pSILC: 65.2±19.1 min, nSILC: 49.7±12.9 min, and TPLC: 43.4±14.7 min, p<0.001], and major procedure time [pSILC: 42.2±18.7 min, nSILC: 25.9±8.9 min, and TPLC: 23.4±12.7 min, p<0.001]). There were no significant differences between the groups for patient visual analogue scale score, length of hospital stay, or intraoperative blood loss.

Conclusion

nSILC is feasible surgical method in patients with benign gallbladder disease compared to TPLC, and that is an effective procedure to overcome the disadvantage of pSILC.

Feasibility of needlescopic surgery for colorectal cancer: safety and learning curve for Japanese Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System-unqualified young surgeons

BACKGROUND

Needlescopic surgery (NS) is a minimally invasive technique for colorectal cancer. NS may be easier to perform than other minimally invasive surgery such as single-incision laparoscopic surgery and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery because the port setting is the same while the shafts are thinner than in conventional laparoscopic surgery. We evaluated the capability of introducing this surgery for sigmoid and rectosigmoid colon cancer by assessing the learning curve in Japanese Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System (JESSQS)-unqualified surgeons.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 112 cases of sigmoidectomy and anterior resection were performed by NS from October 2011 to December 2015 in our institution. Surgical outcomes including operation time, blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, perioperative complications, and overall survival were compared between JESSQS-qualified surgeons (Group A) and JESSQS-unqualified surgeons (Group B). The learning curve for NS was established using the average operation times in JESSQS-unqualified surgeons.

RESULTS

Groups A and B comprised of 41 and 71 patients, respectively. Ninety patients underwent sigmoidectomy and 22 patients underwent anterior resection. No conversion to open surgery occurred. The operation time was significantly shorter in Group A than B (P = 0.0080). There were no significant differences in blood loss, the postoperative hospital stay, perioperative complications, or overall survival between the two groups. These variables were similar even when NS was considered relatively difficult, as in patients with obesity (body mass index of ≥ 25 kg/m²), bulky tumors (tumor size of ≥ 50 mm), and stage III/IV cancer. The average operation time in JESSQS-unqualified young surgeons was significantly shorter in the ninth and tenth cases than in the first and second cases of NS (P = 0.0282).

CONCLUSIONS

NS for sigmoid and rectosigmoid colon cancer was performed safely by both JESSQS-qualified surgeons and JESSQS-unqualified surgeons. Even JESSQS-unqualified young surgeons might be able to quickly learn NS techniques.

European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery changed the management of numerous surgical conditions. It was associated with many advantages over open surgery, such as decreased postoperative pain, faster recovery, shorter hospital stay and excellent cosmesis. Since two decades single-incision endoscopic surgery (SIES) was introduced to the surgical community. SIES could possibly result in even better postoperative outcomes than multi-port laparoscopic surgery, especially concerning cosmetic outcomes and pain. However, the single-incision surgical procedure is associated with quite some challenges.

METHODS

An expert panel of surgeons has been selected and invited to participate in the preparation of the material for a consensus meeting on the topic SIES, which was held during the EAES congress in Frankfurt, June 16, 2017. The material presented during the consensus meeting was based on evidence identified through a systematic search of literature according to a pre-specified protocol. Three main topics with respect to SIES have been identified by the panel: (1) General, (2) Organ specific, (3) New development. Within each of these topics, subcategories have been defined. Evidence was graded according to the Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Recommendations were made according to the GRADE criteria.

RESULTS

In general, there is a lack of high level evidence and a lack of long-term follow-up in the field of single-incision endoscopic surgery. In selected patients, the single-incision approach seems to be safe and effective in terms of perioperative morbidity. Satisfaction with cosmesis has been established to be the main advantage of the single-incision approach. Less pain after single-incision approach compared to conventional laparoscopy seems to be considered an advantage, although it has not been consistently demonstrated across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the increased direct costs (devices, instruments and operating time) of the SIES procedure and the prolonged learning curve, wider acceptance of the procedure should be supported only after demonstration of clear benefits.