Single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection with bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection for advanced rectal cancer: a case report. Int Surg. 2015;100:15-20. [PMID: 25594635 DOI: 10.9738/intsurg-d-14-00232.1]

Single-Port Robot-Assisted Abdominoperineal Resection: A Case Review of the Fi rst Four Experiences

Recently, abdominoperineal resection (APR) using a robot has been demonstrated in other studies. However, there has been no report on APR for rectal cancer using the single-port robot (SPR) platform. In response to this research gap, we described the clinical experience of APR using a SPR. From April 2019 to March 2020, APR using a SPR platform was performed in a total of 4 patients. Three patients had a transumbilical approach, and 1 patient had a transstoma site approach. The average operation time was 307 minutes, and the patient docking time to the SPR platform was 133.5 minutes. There were no complications during the operation, and no laparoscopy or open conversion. No reoperation occurred within 30 days. Mild postoperative complications occurred in 2 patients. We found that APR has safety and feasibility in surgery using an SPR platform. There was no intraoperative event and severe postoperative complications.

Totally robotic vs hybrid abdominoperineal resection: A retrospective multicenter analysis

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (APR) for low rectal cancers is technically demanding. Robotic assistance may be of help and can be hybrid (HAPR) or totally robotic (RAPR). The present study describes outcomes of robotic APR and compares both approaches.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A multicentric retrospective analysis of rectal cancer patients undergoing either HAPR or RAPR was conducted. Patients' demographics, surgeons' experience, oncologic results, and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-five patients were included, 48 in HAPR group and 77 in RAPR group. Demographics and comorbidities were comparable. Operative time was reduced in RAPR group (266.9 ± 107.8 min vs 318.9 ± 75.1 min, P = .001). RAPR patients were discharged home more frequently (91.18% vs 66.67%, P = .001), and experienced fewer parastomal hernias (3.71% vs 9.86%, P = .001).

CONCLUSION

RAPR is safe and feasible with appropriate oncologic outcomes. Totally robotic approach reduces operative time and may improve functional outcomes.

Review of 500 single incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery cases - Lessons learned

Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a minimally invasive platform with specific benefits over traditional multiport laparoscopic surgery. The safety and feasibility of SILS has been proven, and the applications continue to grow with experience. After 500 cases at a high-volume, single-institution, we were able to standardize instrumentation and operative steps, as well as develop adaptations in technique to help overcome technical and ergonomic challenges. These technical adaptations have allowed the successful application of SILS to technically difficult patient populations, such as pelvic cases, inflammatory bowel disease cases, and high body mass index patients. This review is a frame of reference for the application and wider integration of the single incision laparoscopic platform in colorectal surgery.

SILS v SILS+1: a Case-Matched Comparison for Colorectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is safe and feasible for benign and malignant colorectal diseases. SILS has comparable or improved outcomes compared to multiport laparoscopy but technical limitations when operating in the pelvis. To address these limitations, we developed an innovative SILS+1 approach using a single Pfannenstiel incision for pelvis access with one additional umbilical port. Our goal was to compare outcomes for SILS and SILS+1 in lower abdominal and pelvic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Review of a prospectively maintained database identified patients who underwent an elective reduced port laparoscopic lower abdominal/pelvic colorectal procedure from 2009 to 2014. Cases were stratified by approach: SILS versus SILS+1 then matched 1:2 on age, gender, body mass index (BMI), comorbidity, and procedure. Demographic, perioperative, and postoperative outcome variables were evaluated. The main outcome measures were operative time, conversion rate, length of stay, complication, morbidity, and mortality rates.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-two reduced port AR/LAR patients were evaluated-44 SILS and 88 SILS+1. The groups were similar in age, gender, BMI, and ASA class. The primary diagnosis in both cohorts was diverticulitis (90.9 % SILS, 87.5 % SILS+1), and main procedure performed an anterior rectosigmoidectomy (86.4 % SILS, 88.2 % SILS+1). Significantly more SILS+1 patients had previous abdominal surgery (p = 0.01). The operative time was significantly shorter in SILS+1 (mean 166.6 [SD 48.4] vs. 178.0 [SD 70.0], p = 0.03). The conversion rate to multiport or open surgery was also significantly lower with SILS+1 compared to SILS (1.1 vs. 11.4 %, p = 0.02). Postoperatively, the length of stay across the groups was similar. SILS trended towards higher complication and readmission rates (NS). There were no unplanned reoperations or mortality in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

SILS+1 facilitates pelvic and lower abdominal colorectal surgery, with shorter operative times and lower conversion rates. The additional port improved visualization and outcomes without any impact on length of stay, readmission, or complication rates.