Postoperative pain after cholecystectomy: Conventional laparoscopy versus single-incision laparoscopic surgery

Feasibility of Solo Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery in Non-anatomical Minor Liver Resection: a Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

We introduced solo surgery using a laparoscopic scope holder to wide an operator's activity range and reduce instrument crowding and clashing in single incisional surgery. This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of solo single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery (MULS) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Among 477 consecutive patients between January 2004 and December 2017, 214 patients were included. To overcome selection bias, we performed 1:1 match using propensity score matching between SILS and MULS. Baseline characteristics, operative outcomes, and postoperative complications were compared.

RESULTS

No significant differences in baseline characteristics and pathologic features were found between the two groups. Operation time, estimated blood loss, and postoperative major complication were not significantly different (119.0 min vs 141.6 min, p = 0.275; 200.0 mL min vs 373.3 min, p = 0.222; 0 vs 0, p = 1.000). However, postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in SILS (2.73 days vs 7.67 days, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Solo SILS had comparable postoperative complications and feasibility in the aspect of operation time and hospital stay compared with conventional MULS for a favorable located single HCC.

Port site infiltration of local anesthetic after laparoendoscopic single site surgery for benign adnexal disease

Objective

To determine whether local bupivacaine injection into the incision site after gynecologic laparoendoscopic single site surgery (LESS) improves postoperative pain.

Methods

This prospective cohort study included consecutive 158 patients who had LESS for benign adnexal disease from March 2013 to December 2015. Chronologically, 82 patients (March 2013 to August 2014) received no bupivacaine (group 1) and 76 (August 2014 to December 2015) received a bupivacaine block (group 2). For group 2, 10 mL 0.25% bupivacaine was injected into the 20 mm-incision site through all preperitoneal layers after LESS completion. Primary outcome is postoperative pain score using the visual analog scale (VAS).

Results

There was no difference in clinicopathological characteristics between the groups. Operating time (expressed as median [range], 92 [55–222] vs. 100 [50–185] minutes, P=0.137) and estimated blood loss (50 [30–1,500] vs. 125 [30–1,000] mL, P=0.482) were similar between the groups. Post-surgical VAS pain scores after 3 hours (3.5 [2–6] vs. 3.5 [2–5], P=0.478), 6 to 8 hours (3.5 [2–6] vs. 3 [1–8], P=0.478), and 16 to 24 hours (3 [2–4] vs. 3 [1–7], P=0.664) did not differ between groups.

Conclusion

Bupivacaine injection into the trocar site did not improve postoperative pain after LESS. Randomized trials are needed to evaluate the benefits of local bupivacaine anesthetic for postoperative pain reduction.

A Comparative Study of Outcomes Between Single-Site Robotic and Multi-port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: An Experience from a Tertiary Care Center

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of single-site robotic cholecystectomy with multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy within a high-volume tertiary health care center.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained data was conducted on patients undergoing single-site robotic cholecystectomy or multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy between October 2011 and July 2014. A single surgeon performed all the surgeries included in the study.

RESULTS

A total of 678 cholecystectomies were performed. Of these, 415 (61%) were single-site robotic cholecystectomies and 263 (39%) were multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Laparoscopic patients had a greater mean BMI (30.5 vs. 29.0 kg/m²; p = 0.008), were more likely to have undergone prior abdominal surgery (83.3 vs. 41.4%; p < 0.001) and had a higher incidence of preexisting comorbidities (76.1 vs. 67.2%; p = 0.014) as compared to the robotic group. There was no statistical difference in the total operative time, rate of conversion to open procedure and mean length of follow-up between the two groups. The mean length of hospital stay was shorter for patients within the robotic group (1.9 vs. 2.4 days; p = 0.012). Single-site robotic cholecystectomy was associated with a higher rate of wound infection (3.9 vs. 1.1%; p = 0.037) and incisional hernia (6.5 vs. 1.9%; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy should remain the gold standard therapy for gallbladder disease. Single-site robotic cholecystectomy is an effective alternative procedure for uncomplicated benign gallbladder disease in properly selected patients. This must be carefully balanced against a high rate of surgical site infection and incisional hernia, and patients should be informed of these risks.

The use of expanding ports in laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery may cause more pain: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses on the clinical outcome after laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) have not revealed any major differences in postoperative pain between the two procedures. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the difference in postoperative pain between the two procedures, focusing on whether LESS was conducted with a non-expanding port (LESSnonex) or a port expanding (LESSex) within the incision.

METHOD

EMBASE, Medline, PubMed, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on LESS versus CLS for general abdominal procedures. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 29 RCTs with 2999 procedures were included. Pain (VAS 0-10) 6 h after surgery was significantly lower in the group where LESS was conducted with LESSnonex compared to CLS, WMD=-0.72 (- 1.10 to - 0.33). Pain 18-24 h was significantly higher in the group where LESS was conducted with LESSex compared to CLS, WMD = 0.38 (0.01-0.75). Wound-related complications were significantly more frequent in LESSex procedures compared to CLS, OR = 1.94 (1.03-3.63).

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis indirectly indicates that the type of access device that is used for an abdominal LESS procedure may contribute to the development of early postoperative pain as the use of a non-expanding model was associated with a more advantageous outcome. Direct randomized comparison of LESSnonex and LESSex is warranted to confirm if the use of expanding access devices generates more pain and wound complications.

[Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: advantages and disadvantages]

AIM

To analyze the outcomes of single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Early and long-term postoperative period has been analyzed in 240 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCE) including 120 cases of single-port technique and 120 cases of four-port technique. Both groups were compared in surgical time, pain syndrome severity (visual analog scale), need for analgesics, postoperative complications, hospital-stay, daily activity recovery and return to physical work, patients' satisfaction of surgical results and their aesthetic effect.

RESULTS

It was revealed that single-port LCE is associated with lower severity of postoperative pain, quick recovery of daily activity and return to physical work, high satisfaction of surgical results and their aesthetic effect compared with four-port LCE. Disadvantages of single-port LCE include longer duration of surgery, high incidence of postoperative umbilical hernia. However hernia was predominantly observed during the period of surgical technique development.

CONCLUSION

Further studies to standardize, evaluate the safety and benefits of single-port LCE are necessary.

Single-Site Robotic Cholecystectomy: The Timeline of Progress

AIM

To investigate the learning curve and perioperative outcomes of single-site robotic cholecystectomy during the first 102 cases by a single surgeon.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed on the first 102 cases of single-site robotic cholecystectomy. Patients were divided into five chronological groups based on the date of surgery, with 20 patients in each group except the 5th group which had 22 patients. The groups were compared by docking time, robotic dissection time, and overall surgery time. A P value of 0.05 was used as statistically significant.

RESULTS

The female to male ratio was 2:1. The mean age was 51 years (18-87) and the mean BMI was 28.26 (18-41). Overall, 69 % of the patients underwent elective cholecystectomy and 31 % required urgent surgery. In all, 17 % of patients had previous abdominal surgeries. In total, 45 % of procedures were regarded as same day surgery. The total mean length of stay was 1.97 days (0-8). The mean operative time was 110 min (36-265), mean robotic console time 70 min (26-179), and mean docking time 9 min (1-26). The overall conversion rate was 3.9 % and the complication rate was 4 %. The docking time, robotic time, and average operative time were significantly different in the first group as compared to the remaining the five groups (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Single-site robotic cholecystectomy is safe in both elective and urgent conditions, and in patients with previous abdominal surgeries. It has a short learning curve.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized clinical trial study

BACKGROUND

Surgical technique using small-diameter instruments and single-incision laparoscopy are two new options for less invasive laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). In this study, we have compared mini-LC (MLC) with single-incision LC (SILC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study is a randomized clinical trial conducted on the patients diagnosed with symptomatic cholelithiasis who underwent LC. Forty patients were randomized to two equal groups of MLC and SILC. They were compared in terms of demographic data, operation time, and surgical complications.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar in two groups. Operation time in MLC was significantly shorter than that in SILC (45.1 ± 69 min vs 63.75 ± 7.57 min, P-value < 0.001). Also, the total length of the wound in SILC group was shorter than that in MLC group (P-value < 0.003). Postoperative pain scores were similar in two groups. Hospital stay was shorter in MLC (1.2 ± 0.6 days vs 1.6 ± 0.8 days, P < 0.021). There was no difference in postoperative complications in two groups.

CONCLUSION

MLC because of less operation time is preferred than SILC. Also, by subjective measures, it was a more comfortable method compared to SILC.

Single-incision cholecystectomy for left-sided gallbladder

True left-sided gallbladder (sinistroposition) is a rare anatomic anomaly in which the gallbladder is found to the left of the falciform ligament, under the left lobe of the liver. Though uncommon, it is important for the surgeon to recognize this finding because the ductal anatomy is unique and the mechanics of the operation provide a technical challenge. Multiple case reports have documented safe management of sinistroposition encountered during conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We present a case of sinistroposition encountered during a single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We believe that the single-site laparoscopic technique is not only a safe option but may actually provide certain benefits in approaching this difficult anatomy in the properly selected patient and the experienced single-site surgeon's hands.

A randomized controlled trial comparing post-operative pain in single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy

INTRODUCTION

An increasing body of evidence is being published about single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC), but there are no well-powered trials with an adequate evaluation of post-operative pain. This randomized trial compares SILC against four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with post-operative pain as the primary endpoint.

METHODS

Hundred patients were randomized to either SILC (n = 50) or LC (n = 50). Exclusion criteria were (1) Acute cholecystitis; (2) ASA 3 or above; (3) Bleeding disorders; and (4) Previous open upper abdominal surgery. Patients and post-operative assessors were blinded to the procedure performed. The site and severity of pain were compared at 4 h, 24 h, 14 days and 6 months post-procedure using the visual analog scale; non-inferiority was assumed when the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the difference was above -1 and superiority when p ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS

The study arms were demographically similar. At 24 h post-procedure, SILC was associated with less pain at extra-umbilical sites (rest: p = 0.004; movement: p = 0.008). Pain data were inconclusive at 24 h at the umbilical site on movement; SILC was otherwise non-inferior for pain at all other points. Operating duration was longer in SILC (79.46 vs 58.88 min, p = 0.003). 8% of patients in each arm suffered complications (p = 1.000). Re-intervention rates, analgesic use, return to function, and patient satisfaction did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC has improved short-term pain outcomes compared to LC and is not inferior in both short-term and long-term pain outcomes. The operating time is longer, but remains feasible in routine surgical practice.

Early postoperative pain after keyless abdominal rope-lifting surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Keyless abdominal rope-lifting surgery is a novel, gasless, single-incision laparoscopic surgical technique. In this study we aimed to compare the postoperative pain from keyless abdominal rope-lifting surgery with carbon dioxide laparoscopy performed for benign ovarian cysts.

METHODS

During a 20-month period, 77 women underwent surgery for a benign ovarian cyst. Keyless abdominal rope-lifting surgery and conventional carbon dioxide laparoscopy techniques were used for the operations in 32 women and 45 women, respectively. The 2 operative techniques were compared with regard to demographic characteristics; preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data including early postoperative pain scores; and frequency of shoulder pain and analgesic requirements.

RESULTS

Data regarding demographic characteristics, preoperative findings, cyst diameters and rupture rates, intra-abdominal adhesions, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative hospital stay did not differ between groups (P > .05). However, the mean operative and abdominal access times were significantly longer in the keyless abdominal rope-lifting surgery group (P < .05). Visual analog scale pain scores at initially and at the second, fourth, and 24th hours of the postoperative period were significantly lower in the keyless abdominal rope-lifting surgery group (P < .05). Similarly, keyless abdominal rope-lifting surgery caused significantly less shoulder pain and additional analgesic use (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Keyless abdominal rope-lifting surgery seems to cause less pain in the management of benign ovarian cysts in comparison with conventional carbon dioxide laparoscopy.

Simplified laparoscopic cholecystectomy with two incisions

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has traditionally been performed with four incisions to insert four trocars, in a simple, efficient and safe way.

AIM

To describe a simplified technique of laparoscopic cholecystectomy with two incisions, using basic conventional instrumental.

TECHNIQUE

In one incision in the umbilicus are applied two trocars and in epigastrium one more. The use of two trocars on the same incision, working in "x" does not hinder the procedure and does not require special instruments.

CONCLUSION

Simplified laparoscopic cholecystectomy with two incisions is feasible and easy to perform, allowing to operate with ergonomy and safety, with good cosmetic result.

Remains of the day: Biliary complications related to single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy

AIM: To assesse the rate of bile duct injuries (BDI) and overall biliary complications during single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) compared to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC).

METHODS: SPLC has recently been proposed as an innovative surgical approach for gallbladder surgery. So far, its safety with respect to bile duct injuries has not been specifically evaluated. A systematic review of the literature published between January 1990 and November 2012 was performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing SPLC versus CLC reporting BDI rate and overall biliary complications were included. The quality of RCT was assessed using the Jadad score. Analysis was made by performing a meta-analysis, using Review Manager 5.2. This study was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A retrospective study including all retrospective reports on SPLC was also performed alongside.

RESULTS: From 496 publications, 11 RCT including 898 patients were selected for meta-analysis. No studies were rated as high quality (Jadad score ≥ 4). Operative indications included benign gallbladder disease operated in an elective setting in all studies, excluding all emergency cases and acute cholecystitis. The median follow-up was 1 mo (range 0.03-18 mo). The incidence of BDI was 0.4% for SPLC and 0% for CLC; the difference was not statistically different (P = 0.36). The incidence of overall biliary complication was 1.6% for SPLC and 0.5% for CLC, the difference did not reached statistically significance (P = 0.21, 95%CI: 0.66-15). Sixty non-randomized trials including 3599 patients were also analysed. The incidence of BDI reported then was 0.7%.

CONCLUSION: The safety of SPLC cannot be assumed, based on the current evidence. Hence, this new technology cannot be recommended as standard technique for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Two-trocar cholecystectomy by strategic laparoscopy for improved cosmesis (SLIC)

Results of this study suggest that strategic laparoscopy for improved cosmesis cholecystectomy is feasible, safe, and decreases the cumulative incision length as well as the number of incisions in patients with favorable body habitus and previous surgical history.

Background and Objectives:

Until the advent of single-incision laparoscopic surgery, few advances were aimed at improving cosmesis with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Criticisms of the single-incision laparoscopic surgery technique include a larger incision and increased incidence of wound-related complications. We present our initial experience with a novel technique aimed at performing strategic laparoscopy for improved cosmesis (SLIC) for cholecystectomy.

Methods:

Twenty-five patients with biliary symptoms were selected for SLIC cholecystectomy. Access to the abdomen was obtained with a 5-mm optical trocar in the left upper quadrant and a 5-mm trocar in the umbilicus. Retraction was performed by a transabdominal suture in the dome of the gallbladder and a needlescopic grasper. Age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, operative time, length of stay, pathology results, and short-term complications at follow-up were prospectively recorded.

Results:

The 25 female patients had a mean age of 34.3 years and mean body mass index of 24 kg/m². American Society of Anesthesiologists scores ranged from 1 to 3. The mean operative time was 51.3 minutes. Pathology revealed chronic cholecystitis in all patients. All procedures were performed on an outpatient basis. The only complication was one ultrasonography-documented deep vein thrombosis. All 25 planned SLIC cholecystectomies were successfully completed.

Conclusions:

SLIC cholecystectomy is feasible and safe. This technique decreases the cumulative incision length, as well as the number of incisions, leading to very desirable cosmetic results in patients with a favorable body habitus and surgical history.

Single-fulcrum laparoscopic cholecystectomy in uncomplicated gallbladder diseases: a retrospective comparative analysis with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy

PURPOSE

Single-fulcrum laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SFLC) is a variant type of single incision and multi-port technique that does not use specialized one-port devices or articulating instruments. We retrospectively compared perioperative outcomes of SFLC with those of conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between March 2009 and December 2010, SFLC was performed in 130 patients. Among them, 105 patients with uncomplicated gallbladder disease (no inflammation or no clinical symptoms) and another 105 patients who underwent CLC were selected for this study.

RESULTS

There was no open conversion. In comparison with CLC, SFLC was performed more often in young (46.4±12.2 years vs. 52.5±13.6 years, p=0.001) female patients (80/25 vs. 62/43, p=0.008). The total operation time was longer in SFLC (56.7±14.1 min vs. 47.5±17.1 min, p<0.001), but pain scores immediately after operation and at discharge time were lower for SFLC than for CLC (3.1±1.3 vs. 4.0±1.9, p<0.001, 2.0±0.9 vs. 2.4±0.8, p=0.002). Total cost was lower for SFLC than for CLC (US $ 1801±289.9 vs. US $ 2003±617.4, p=0.004). There were no differences in hospital stay or complication rates.

CONCLUSION

SFLC showed greater technical feasibility and cost benefits in treating uncomplicated benign gallbladder disease than CLC.

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Using Conventional Laparoscopic Instruments and Comparison with Three-Port Cholecystectomy

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery also known as laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery for cholecystectomy is performed using a single umbilical skin incision through which a laparoscope and two instruments are introduced. It is virtually a "scarless" surgery. The present study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy using conventional instruments and compare it with three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Thirty patients who underwent single-incision cholecystectomy were compared to an equal number of patients who underwent three-port cholecystectomy. Both groups were assessed on the basis of operative time, intraoperative complications, postoperative pain, ambulation, hospital stay, and body image at first and third week. Single-incision cholecystectomy had the advantage of less postoperative pain, early ambulation, and better body image as compared to three-port cholecystectomy; the results being statistically significant. There was no statistically significant difference in operative time and hospital stay between the two groups. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy using conventional instruments is a safe and effective surgery. It gives better cosmetic results, almost scarless surgery, without increasing the cost of surgery.

A prospective, randomized, single-blind trial of 5-mm versus 3-mm ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: is smaller better?

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is said to provide improved cosmesis with a reduction in postoperative pain, but SILC involves a change in operative technique. A single-blind, randomized controlled trial compared cosmetic outcomes and postoperative pain between 3- and 5-mm ports used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

METHODS

For this study, 80 patients with symptomatic gallstones were recruited from a single center and randomized to a LC using either a 5-mm port and three 3-mm ports (group A) or a 10-mm port and three 5-mm ports (group B). Operative details; pain scores at 1 h, 6 h, and 1 week; and analgesia required during the first week were collected. Cosmetic outcome was assessed at 6 months using a validated questionnaire.

RESULTS

For each group, 40 patients were recruited. The two groups were well matched except for sex. Group A had 11 males, and Group B had 4 males. The mean operative time was 49 ± 12 min (range, 24-120 min) in the 3-mm group versus 46 ± 19 min (range, 21-124 min) in the control group (p = 0.40). The two groups did not differ statistically in the day case rate. The pain scores in Group A were 2.5 ± 2.1 at 1 h, 3.2 ± 2.2 at 6 h, and 0.8 ± 2.2 at 1 week versus 4.2 ± 2.9 at 1 h, 3.3 ± 2.4 at 6 h, and 2.1 ± 2.4 at 1 week in Group B (p = 0.003, 0.63, and 0.002, respectively). No difference in the analgesia consumption was observed during the first postoperative week. The patients in Group A had significantly better cosmetic outcome scores at 6 months.

CONCLUSION

The use of 3-mm ports is technically feasible in patients undergoing LC for gallstones. The operating times are comparable with those for conventional LC, whereas the pain scores are reduced, and the cosmetic outcome is better.

Cost assessment of instruments for single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

This study concludes that a modified single-incision procedure for cholecystectomy using 2 regular ports inserted through the umbilicus can be performed at lower cost than a conventional 4-port procedure.

Background and Objectives:

Specially designed surgical instruments have been developed for single-incision laparoscopic surgery, but high instrument costs may impede the implementation of these procedures. The aim of this study was to compare the cost of operative implements used for elective cholecystectomy performed as conventional laparoscopic 4-port cholecystectomy or as single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods:

Two consecutive series of patients undergoing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy were assessed: (1) single-incision cholecystectomy using a commercially available multichannel port (n=80) and (2) a modified single-incision cholecystectomy using 2 regular trocars inserted through the umbilicus (n=20) with transabdominal sutures for gallbladder mobilization (puppeteering technique). Patients who underwent conventional 4-port cholecystectomy during the same time period (n=100) were selected as controls.

Results:

The instrumental cost of the single-incision cholecystectomy using a commercial port was significantly higher (median, $1123) than the cost for conventional 4-port (median $441, P < .0005) and modified single-incision cholecystectomy (median $342, P < .0005). The cost of the modified single-incision procedure was significantly lower than that for the 4-port cholecystectomy (P < .0005).

Conclusion:

The modified single-incision procedure using 2 regular ports inserted through the umbilicus can be performed at lower cost than conventional 4-port cholecystectomy.

Single port versus multiple port laparoscopic cholecystectomy-a comparative study

Single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) was introduced to minimize postoperative morbidity and improve cosmesis. We performed a comparative study to assess feasibility, safety and perceived benefits of SPLC. Two groups of patients (104 each) with comparable demographic characteristics were selected for SPLC and multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MPLC) between May 2010 to March 2011. SPLC was performed using X cone® with 5 mm extra long telescope and 3 ports for hand instruments. MPLC was performed with traditional 4 port technique. A large window was always created during dissection to obtain the critical view of safety. Data collection was prospective. The primary end points were post-operative pain and surgical complications. Secondary end points were patient assessed cosmesis and satisfaction scores and operating time. The mean VAS scores for pain in SPLC group were higher on day 0 (SPLC 3.37 versus MPLC 2.72, p = 0.03) and equivalent to MPLC group on day 1(SPLC 1.90 versus MPLC 1.79, p = 0.06). Number of patients requiring analgesia for breakthrough pain (SPLC 21.1 % versus MPLC 26.9 %, p = 0.31) was similar. Number and nature of surgical complications was similar (SPLC 17.3 % versus MPLC 21.2 %, p =0.59). Mean patient assessed cosmesis scores (SPLC 7.96 versus MPLC 7.16, p = 0.003) and mean patient satisfaction scores (SPLC 8.66 versus MPLC 8.16, p = 0.004) were higher in SPLC group indicating better cosmesis and greater patient satisfaction. SPLC took longer to perform (61 min versus 26 min, p = 0.00). Conversion was required in 5 patients in SPLC group. SPLC appears to be feasible and safe with cosmetic benefits in selected patients. However, challenges remain to improve operative ergonomics. SPLC needs to be proven efficacious with a high safety profile to be accepted as standard laparoscopic technique.

Sils without Frills

Historically, invasive, large incisions were necessary to perform "open" abdominal surgical procedures. While effective, this method increased the possibility of multiple complications, including post-operative pain, wound infection, incisional hernia and prolonged hospitalization. Concerns over the rate of complications and morbidities led surgeons to develop laparoscopic surgical techniques, in which operations in the abdomen are performed through small incisions as opposed to larger, open incisions across the surgical site. There was a continuous effort to minimize the number of ports, and finally single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) came into practice. Sils without frills is a concept where multiple ports are made in a curved 2.5 cm incision in a triangle. The chopstick method is used to minimize instrument and telescope clash during the procedure. Standard laparoscopic instruments are introduced along with a 30 ° telescope. Instrument clashes are avoided by chop stick technique of crossing them at a proximal point so that ends are away from each other. Dissection takes place in forward backward movement after making lateral retraction by the other instrument. With experience the operative time is expected to become comparable with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. But benefits regarding post operative pain in SILS has not been confirmed. It is felt that expertise and reduction of operative time may reduce post operative pain. No special telescopes, ports or hand instruments are needed for this procedure but may have a role in advanced laparoscopic procedures.

Transvaginal cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

This report describes the first prospective cohort study comparing transvaginal cholecystectomies (TVC) with single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomies (SILC) and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomies (4PLC).

METHODS

Between May 2009 and August 2010, 14 patients underwent a TVC. These patients were compared with patients who underwent SILC (22 patients) or 4PLC (11 patients) in a concurrent, randomized, controlled trial. Demographic data, operative time, numerical pain scales, complications, and return to work were recorded.

RESULTS

Mean age (TVC: 33.5 ± 3.0 year; SILC: 38.4 ± 3.3 year; 4PLC: 35.5 ± 4.1 year; p = 0.58) and mean BMI (TVC: 28.8 ± 1.5 kg/m(2); SILC: 31.8 ± 1 kg/m(2); 4PLC: 31.4 ± 2.2 kg/m(2); p = 0.35) were not statistically significant. However, mean operative time (TVC: 67 ± 3.9 min; SILC: 48.9 ± 2.6 min; 4PLC: 42.3 ± 3.9 min; p < 0.001) was significantly longer for TVC. Numerical pain scales showed significantly lower pain scores on POD 1 and 3 for TVC compared with SILC and 4PLC (TVC: 4.1 ± 0.5 and 2.9 ± 0.7; SILC: 6.1 ± 0.5 and 5.3 ± 0.5; 4PLC: 5.7 ± 0.4 and 4.7 ± 0.3; p = 0.02) with equilibration of pain scores by days 14 and 30. Return to work (TVC: 6.4 ± 1.5 days; SILC: 13.1 ± 1.3 days; 4PLC: 14.1 ± 1.4 days; p < 0.001) also was significantly faster for patients in the TVC group. One conversion in the TVC group to a 4PLC was necessary due to adhesions within the pelvis. One dislodged IUD was seen and immediately replaced in the TVC group. One hernia was observed in the SILC group.

CONCLUSIONS

Transvaginal cholecystectomy is a safe and well-tolerated procedure with statistically significantly less pain at 1 and 3 days after surgery, with a faster return to work but longer operative times compared with single incision and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Intermediate results of a prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive techniques have become an integral part of general surgery, with recent investigation into single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC). This study presents a prospective, randomized, multicenter, single-blind trial of SILC compared with four-port cholecystectomy (4PLC) with the goal of assessing safety, feasibility, and factors predicting outcomes.

METHODS

Patients with biliary colic and documented gallstones or polyps or with biliary dyskinesia were randomized to SILC or 4PLC. Data measures included operative details, adverse events, and conversion to 4PLC or laparotomy. Pain, cosmesis, and quality-of-life scores were documented. Patients were followed for 12 months.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients were randomized to SILC (n = 117) or 4PLC (n = 80) (3 patients chose not to participate after randomization). Patients were similar except for body mass index (BMI), which was lower in the SILC patients (28.9 vs. 31.0, p = 0.011). One SILC patient required conversion to 4PLC. Operative time was longer for SILC (57 vs. 45 min, p < 0.0001), but outcomes, including total adverse events, were similar (34% vs. 38%, p = 0.55). Cosmesis scores favored SILC (p < 0.002), but pain scores were lower for 4PLC (1 point difference in 10-point scale, p < 0.028) despite equal analgesia use. Wound complications were greater after SILC (10% vs. 3%, p = 0.047), but hernia recurrence was equivalent for both procedures (1.3% vs. 3.4%, p = 0.65). Univariate analysis showed female gender, SILC, and younger age to be predictors for increased pain scores, while SILC was associated with improved cosmesis scores.

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicenter randomized controlled trial of SILC versus 4PLC, SILC appears to be safe with a similar biliary complication profile. Pain scores and wound complication rates are higher for SILC; however, cosmesis scores favored SILC. For patients preferring a better cosmetic outcome and willing to accept possible increased postoperative pain, SILC offers a safe alternative to the standard 4PLC. Further follow-up is needed to detail the long-term risk of wound morbidities, including hernia recurrence.

Single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC): comparison of learning curves. First European experience

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is an emerging procedure developed to decrease parietal trauma and improve cosmetic results. However, many technical constraints, such as lack of triangulation, instrument collisions, and cross-handing, hamper this approach. Using a robotic platform may overcome these problems and enable more precise surgical actions by increasing freedom of movement and by restoring intuitive instrument control.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected, under institutional review board approval, data on the first 25 patients who underwent single-site robotic cholecystectomies (SSRC) at our center. Patients enrolled in this study underwent SSRC for symptomatic biliary gallstones or polyposis. Exclusion criteria were: BMI > 33; acute cholecystitis; previous upper abdominal surgery; ASA > II; and age >80 and <18 years. All procedures were performed with the da Vinci Si Surgical System and a dedicated SSRC kit (Intuitive). After discharge, patients were followed for 2 months. These SSRC cases were compared to our first 25 single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomies (SILC) and with the literature.

RESULTS

There were no differences in patient characteristics between groups (gender, P = 0.4404; age, P = 0.7423; BMI, P = 0.5699), and there were no conversions or major complications in either cohort. Operative time was significantly longer for the SILC group compared with SSRC (83.2 vs. 62.7 min, P = 0.0006), and SSRC operative times did not change significantly along the series. The majority of patients in each group were discharged within 24 h, with an average length of hospital stay of 1.2 days for the SILC group and 1.1 days for the SSRC group (P = 0.2854). No wound complications (infection, incisional hernia) were observed in the SSRC group and in the SILC.

CONCLUSIONS

Our preliminary experience shows that SSRC is safe, can easily be learned, and performed in a reproducible manner and is faster than SILC.

Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC)-a matched pair analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of our study was to compare single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with respect to complications, operating time, postoperative pain, use of analgesics, length of stay, return to work, rate of incisional hernia, and cosmetic outcome.

METHODS

Sixty-seven patients underwent SILC. Of a cohort of 163 LC operated in the same time period, 67 patients were chosen for a matched pair analysis. Pairs were matched for age, gender, ASA, BMI, acuity, and previous abdominal surgery. In the SILC group, patient characteristics (gender, age, BMI, comorbidities, ASA, previous abdominal surgery, symptomatic cholecystolithiasis, cholecystitis) and perioperative data (surgeon, operation time, conversion rate and cause, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, reoperation rate, VAS at 24 h, VAS at 48 h, use of analgesics according to WHO class, and length of stay) were collected prospectively.

RESULTS

Follow-up in the SILC and LC group was completed with a minimum of 17 and a maximum of 26 months; data acquired were recovery time the patients needed until they were able to get back into the working process, long-term incidence of postoperative hernias, and satisfaction with cosmetic outcome. Operating time was longer for SILC (median 75 min, range 39-168 vs. 63, range 23-164, p = 0.039). There were no significant differences for SILC and LC with regard to postoperative pain measured by VAS at 24 h (median 3, range 0-8 vs. 2, range 0-8, p = 0.224), at 48 h (median 2, range 0-6 vs. 2, range 0-8, p = 0.571), use of analgesics, and length of stay (median 2 days, range 1-9 vs. 2, range 1-11, p = 0.098). There was no major complication in either group. The completion rate of SILC was 85.1% (57 of 67). Although there was a trend towards an earlier return to the working process in patients of the SILC group, this was not significant. The rate of incisional hernias was 1.9% (1/53) in the SILC and 2.1% (1/48) in the LC group indicating no significant difference. Self-assessment of satisfaction with the cosmetic outcome was not judged different by patients in both groups.

CONCLUSION

SILC is associated with longer operating time, but equals LC with respect to safety, postoperative pain, use of analgesics, length of stay, return to work, rate of incisional hernia, and cosmetic outcome.