Glove port single-incision laparoscopic splenectomy and the treatment of its complications

Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic splenectomy

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus that single-incision laparoscopic surgery splenectomy (SILS-SP) is on a par with conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery splenectomy (CMLS-SP).

AIMS

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess feasibility and safety of SILS-SP when compared with CMLS-SP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eligible articles were identified by searching several databases including PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI (China) and the Cochrane Library, up until February 2016. Studies were reviewed independently and rated by Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Evaluated outcomes were complications, operative time, post-operative hospital stay, blood loss, starting diet, post-operative pain scores, conversion and analgesic requirements.

RESULTS

Ten retrospective studies met the eligibility criteria. Overall, there was no significant difference between SILS-SP and CMLS-SP in complications, operative time, post-operative hospital stay, blood loss, starting diet, post-operative pain scores, conversion and analgesic requirements.

CONCLUSIONS

SILS-SP is feasible and safe in certain patients, with no obvious advantages over CMLS-SP. Therefore, it may be considered an alternative to CMLS-SP. We await high-quality, double-blind RCTs. These should include clear statements on standard scores of post-operative pain and cosmetic results, longer follow-up assessment and cost-benefit analysis.

Two-port laparoscopic anterior resection through a self-made glove device versus conventional laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparison of short-term surgical results

Background

The laparoscopic approach has become increasingly incorporated into the development of new surgical procedures. An ever-increasing number of surgeons desire methods that minimize surgical trauma and provide improved cosmetic outcomes. Since 2014, we have performed two-port laparoscopic surgery using a transumbilical multichannel glove port and a 12-mm port. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term surgical results of two-port laparoscopic anterior resection (TPLAR) with those of conventional laparoscopic anterior resection (CLAR) for rectal cancer.

Methods

Between January 2014 and May 2014, a total of 27 patients underwent TPLAR and 30 patients underwent CLAR for the treatment of rectal cancer. The short-term surgical results of these two groups of patients were analyzed retrospectively.

Results

The differences in operative time, blood loss, conversion rate, complication rate, distal resection margin, number of harvested lymph nodes, duration until ambulation, duration until first flatus, length of postoperative hospital stay, and overall hospital costs between the two groups were not significant. The median (range) length of the abdominal incisions of the TPLAR patients was shorter than the length of the CLAR patients (5.1 (4.5–16.3) cm vs 8.2 (7.0–10.0) cm, respectively; p < 0.001). The respective median (range) postoperative pain scores were lower in the TPLAR than in the CLAR patients at 24 h (4 (1–6) h vs 5 (2–8) h; p = 0.045), 48 h (3 (1–4) h vs 4 (range 1–8) h; P = 0.004) and 72 h (1 (0–3) h vs 2 (1–5) h; p = 0.010). The median overall score on the satisfaction-with-abdominal-incision questionnaire of the TPLAR patients was significantly higher (better) than the score of the CLAR patients.

Conclusions

TPLAR for rectal cancer is safe and feasible, with short-term perioperative and oncological outcomes similar to those of CLAR. TPLAR provides less postoperative pain and better cosmetic outcomes.

Single-incision laparoscopic splenectomy

Background and Objectives:

The single-incision approach in laparoscopic surgery is a relatively new concept. This systematic review of the literature was performed to appraise the existing clinical evidence concerning the use of the single-incision technique for spleen resection.

Methods:

We performed a systematic search of the PubMed and Scopus databases, and the studies retrieved were included in our review. The references of the included studies were also hand searched.

Results:

Thirty-one relevant studies were found in the field including 81 patients with an age range from 0.6 to 90 years and a body mass index range from 18 to 36.7 kg/m². Splenomegaly (44.6%), idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (31%), and immune thrombocytopenic purpura (6.8%) were the most common indications for the procedure. Concerning the applied port system, multiple single ports (5 to 12 mm) were used in 54.4% of patients, the SILS port (Covidien, Mansfield, Massachusetts) was used in 26.6%, the TriPort (Advanced Surgical Concepts, Wicklow, Ireland) was used in 7.6%, glove ports were used in 6.3%, and the GelPort (Applied Medical, Rancho Santa Margarita, California) was used in 5.1%. The median operative time was 125 minutes (range, 45–420 minutes), and the median quantity of blood loss was 50 mL (range, 10–450 mL). No conversion to open surgery and no transfusion were needed. The length of hospital stay was between 1 and 9 days. Low rates of complications and no patient deaths were found. The existing evidence on cosmesis is limited.

Conclusion:

Single-site/single-port laparoscopic surgery is a minimally invasive procedure that seems to be a challenging alternative in the management of spleen resection.