Single-Incision Laparoscopy Could Be Better than Standard Laparoscopy in Right Colectomy for Cancer

BACKGROUND

Human natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is slowed down by technical hurdles. Concomitantly, single-incision laparoscopy has been increasingly reported as an alternative. By reducing the invasiveness of standard laparoscopy, we may further reduce postoperative pain, decrease morbidity, preserve abdominal wall, and enhance cosmesis. Such techniques have been widely applied, including in colorectal surgery. The aim of this multicenter study is to compare the results of single-incision right colectomy (SIRC) with the results of the standard laparoscopic right colectomy (SLRC) in patients with colon cancer.

METHODS

The files of patients who underwent right colectomy for cancer in five hospitals between January 2010 and December 2013 have been reviewed. Exclusion criteria were open surgery, emergency setting, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score >3. Patients were distributed in Groups A (SIRC) or B (SLRC).

RESULTS

Five hundred ninety-two patients were included in this study, 336 in Group A and 256 in Group B. Mean operative time was 129.0 minutes (range 65-245) in Group A and 168.1 minutes in the Group B (range 70-290), respectively (P < .001). No mortality occurred in either group. The overall 30-day morbidity rates were 21.4% in Group A and 25% in Group B, respectively (P = .64). The median length of hospital stay was 4.95 days (range 3-14) in Group A and 5.5 days in Group B (range 3-12), respectively (P = .28). Conversion to laparotomy occurred in four patients in each group (P = 1). Length of skin incision was significantly shorter in Group A than in Group B (2.99 ± 0.63 cm versus 4.94 ± 0.65 cm, P < .001). Histological analysis of the operative specimens showed no significant differences.

CONCLUSION

SIRC is feasible and sure for patients with colon cancer. As compared with SLRC, SIRC may offer some advantages, including lower operative morbidity, shorter hospital stay, and better cosmoses, without compromising the oncological quality of the resected specimen.

Seton or glue for trans-sphincteric anal fistulae: a prospective randomized crossover clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Fibrin glue treatment of anal fistulae has been proposed to minimize the risk of faecal incontinence but its acceptance by coloproctologists is still poor because the published data is controversial. Therefore, we carried out a prospective randomized crossover trial comparing treatment with a commercial fibrin glue to classical seton treatment, with healing rate, hospital stay, healing time, faecal incontinence and postoperative pain as study outcomes.

METHOD

Sixty-four homogeneous patients with trans-sphincteric anal fistulae referred to seven colorectal units were randomized to undergo fibrin glue (39 patients) or seton (25 patients) treatment. Patients failing to heal after treatment with fibrin glue were re-randomized to undergo a second injection with glue or seton treatment.

RESULTS

Sixty-two of the 64 patients completed the minimum 1-year follow-up period. Twenty-one of 24 patients healed in the seton group compared with 15/38 in the fibrin glue group (P = 0.0007). The 23 failures after glue treatment were re-randomized to have a second glue injection (eight patients) or a seton treatment (15 patients). Four of the eight (50%) patients treated with a second injection of glue, and nine out of the 15 (60%) patients in the seton group, healed. Patients treated with fibrin glue reported less postoperative pain and had a shorter hospital stay than patients treated with a seton; furthermore, faecal continence and anal manometry significantly worsened after seton treatment.

CONCLUSION

Seton treatment has a significantly higher probability of success compared with fibrin glue treatment but poses a higher risk of faecal incontinence. Fibrin glue could be considered as a first line of treatment for patients at risk of faecal incontinence or other comorbidities.