Two-port vs. three-port laparoscopic appendicectomy: A bridge to least invasive surgery

Single-Incision, Two-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy as an Alternative to Transumbilical Single-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy

Purpose

We designed a modified technique to perform an advanced procedure using conventional instruments and did not employ specialized single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) port equipment. We compared postoperative results for transumbilical, single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (TUSPLA) and single-incision, 2-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SITPLA).

Methods

This retrospective study enrolled 77 patients who underwent TUSPLA or SITPLA to provide more minimally invasive surgery between May 2017 and April 2018. TUSPLA was performed in 39 patients and 38 underwent SITPLA. In the SITPLA group, two 5-mm trocars were inserted through the umbilicus and an extra puncture site was used for a left-handed instrument. Demographic characteristics, operative data, and postoperative outcomes were collected and compared between the groups.

Results

The mean total operative time in the SITPLA group was shorter than in the TUSPLA group (p=0.003). The mean laparoscopic instrumental time was also shorter (p<0.001) in the SITPLA. The number of postoperative analgesics in the SITPLA group was less than in the TUSPLA group (p=0.002). The length of hospital day after surgery was shorter in the SITPLA group than in the TUSPLA group (p=0.008). There were no other significant differences between the groups.

Conclusion

SITPLA had a shorter operative time, required less pain management, and had a similar cosmetic outcome when compared with TUSPLA.

Conventional laparoscopic appendectomy versus double-incision, three-port laparoscopic appendectomy: A 1-year randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Management of appendicitis has evolved dramatically in the last 120 years, from McBurney's large incision to minimally invasive laparoscopic appendectomy to hardly noticeable incisions with SILS. As a bridge between conventional laparoscopic surgery and SILS, double-incision laparoscopic surgery further minimizes the invasiveness of laparoscopic surgery by reducing the number of incisions. This study aimed to establish the efficacy of double-incision, three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (DILA) as an alternative to conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy.

METHODS

A total of 60 patients were divided randomly into two groups: the conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) group and the DILA appendectomy group. Demographics, diagnostic history, additional intraoperative findings, and duration of operation were recorded. Postoperative pain after 6 h and 24 h and cosmetic outcome after the surgery were also evaluated. Statistical analysis was done using Fisher's exact test, χ² test, and Student's t-test.

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed in demographic and clinical characteristics in either group (P > 0.05). No significant difference in mean postoperative pain was observed between the two groups at 6 h (P = 0.62) or 24 h (P = 0.484). However, patients in the DILA group were more satisfied with their cosmetic outcomes than those in the CLA group (P = 0.04). The mean operative time was 26.4 min in the CLA group and 27.6 min in the DILA group (P = 0.62).

CONCLUSION

DILA can be performed with operative outcomes that are equivalent to CLA but with superior cosmetic outcomes.

Single-incision versus conventional three-incision laparoscopic appendectomy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Conventional three-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (CTLA) is considered the new golden standard for the treatment of acute appendicitis. However, single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) can further reduce the number of abdominal incisions and visible scars.

METHODS

Major databases were researched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing SILA and CTLA for acute appendicitis from January 1983 and to March 2015. The technical feasibility, effectiveness, and safety between SILA and CTLA were compared. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models.

RESULTS

In total, 11 RCTs with 1489 patients were analyzed. The patients in the SILA group had a significantly shorter hospital duration (WMD: -0.63; 95% CI: -1.04, -0.21; P = 0.003) and return to activity (WMD: -2.91; 95% CI: -5.45, -0.37; P = 0.02) but experienced a longer operating time (WMD: 6.56; 95% CI: 3.55, 9.58; P < 0.0001) and higher rate of conversion (OR: 6.82; 95% CI: 3.14, 14.79; P < 0.00001). There were no differences between the two groups in visual analog pain scores, doses of analgesics, overall complication rates, wound infection, or cosmesis (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

SILA is a safer and more effective than CTLA in both pediatric and adult patients.