Randomized controlled trial comparing single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg. 2011;254:22-27. [PMID: 21494123 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0b013e3182192f89]

A Comparative Study of Single Incision versus Conventional Four Ports Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

INTRODUCTION

Cholelithiasis is one of the most common disorders of the digestive tract encountered by general surgeons worldwide. Conventional or open cholecystectomy was the mainstay of treatment for a long time for this disease. In the 1980s laparoscopic surgery revolutionized the management of biliary tract diseases. It brought about a revolutionary change in the basic concepts of surgical principles and minimal access surgery gradually started to be acknowledged as a safe means of carrying out surgeries.

AIM

To investigate the technical feasibility, safety and benefit of Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (SILC) versus Conventional Four Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (C4PLC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective randomized control trial was conducted to compare the advantages if any between the SILC and C4PLC. Thirty two patients underwent SILC procedure and C4PLC, each. The age of the patients ranged from 16-60years. Other demographic data and indications for cholecystectomy were comparable in both the groups. Simple comparative statistical analysis was carried out in the present study. Results on continuous variables are shown in Mean ± SD; whereas results on categorical variables are shown in percentage (%) by keeping the level of significance at 5%. Intergroup analysis of the various study parameters was done by using Fisher exact test. SPSS version 22 was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The mean operating time was higher in the SILC group (69 ± 4.00 mins vs. 38.53 ± 4.00 mins) which was of statistical significance (p=<0.05). Furthermore, the patients of the SILC group had less post-operative pain, with lesser analgesic requirements (p=<0.05), shorter hospital stay and earlier return to normal activity.

CONCLUSION

SILC is feasible and safe in trained hands. It did not compromise the procedural safety, or lead to any complication. The operating time was longer otherwise it has almost similar clinical outcomes to those of C4PLC.

Single-Incision Multiport/Single Port Laparoscopic Abdominal Surgery (SILAP): A Prospective Multicenter Observational Quality Study

Background

Increasing experience with minimally invasive surgery and the development of new instruments has resulted in a tendency toward reducing the number of abdominal skin incisions. Retrospective and randomized prospective studies could show the feasibility of single-incision surgery without any increased risk to the patient. However, large prospective multicenter observational datasets do not currently exist.

Objective

This prospective multicenter observational quality study will provide a relevant dataset reflecting the feasibility and safety of single-incision surgery. This study focuses on external validity, clinical relevance, and the patients’ perspective. Accordingly, the single-incision multiport/single port laparoscopic abdominal surgery (SILAP) study will supplement the existing evidence, which does not currently allow evidence-based surgical decision making.

Methods

The SILAP study is an international prospective multicenter observational quality study. Mortality, morbidity, complications during surgery, complications postoperatively, patient characteristics, and technical aspects will be monitored. We expect more than 100 surgical centers to participate with 5000 patients with abdominal single-incision surgery during the study period.

Results

Funding was obtained in 2012. Enrollment began on January 01, 2013, and will be completed on December 31, 2018. As of January 2016, 2119 patients have been included, 106 German centers are registered, and 27 centers are very active (>5 patients per year).

Conclusions

This prospective multicenter observational quality study will provide a relevant dataset reflecting the feasibility and safety of single-incision surgery. An international enlargement and recruitment of centers outside of Germany is meaningful.

Trial Registration

German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00004594; https://drks-neu.uniklinik-freiburg.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00004594 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6jK6ZVyUs)

Transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: long-term review from a single center

BACKGROUND

Currently, researches about single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) are various, but long-term reviews assessing relevant complications after SILC with considerable amount of case series are rare.

STUDY DESIGN

We retrospectively reviewed a large series of 529 patients undergoing SILC to assess the long-term postoperative recovery, including postoperative complications, retained symptoms, and quality of life. Finally, we assessed its associated risk factors related to SILC patients' recovery in the long term.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up period of 36.8 ± 8.8 months after SILC, 402 (76.0 %) patients underwent complete resolution. Frequent diarrhea (12.1 %) and recurrent omphalitis (5.9 %) were most commonly seen among other complications and retained symptoms within overall the patients. We identified 1 (0.3 %) incision hernia and 1 (0.3 %) intra-abdominal abscess among overall the patients, while 3 (0.8 %) common bile duct stones and 1 (0.3 %) biliary pancreatitis among the patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis during long-term review period. No significant differences were identified between patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis and gallbladder polyps when considering other incidences (all p > 0.05). Patients undergoing SILC with older age (p = 0.023) or female gender (p = 0.020) contributed to complete resolution.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC via traditional devices is feasible and safe with acceptable postoperative incidence rate in the long run. Patients with older age or female gender, who have no severe systemic diseases, tend to benefit more from the surgical intervention.

Influencing factors for port-site hernias after single-incision laparoscopy

PURPOSE

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has been demonstrated to be a feasible alternative to multiport laparoscopy, but concerns over port-site incisional hernias have not been well addressed. A retrospective study was performed to determine the rate of port-site hernias as well as influencing risk factors for developing this complication.

METHODS

A review of all consecutive patients who underwent SILS over 4 years was conducted using electronic medical records in a multi-specialty integrated healthcare system. Statistical evaluation included descriptive analysis of demographics in addition to bivariate and multivariate analyses of potential risk factors, which were age, gender, BMI, procedure, existing insertion-site hernia, wound infection, tobacco use, steroid use, and diabetes.

RESULTS

787 patients who underwent SILS without conversion to open were reviewed. There were 454 cholecystectomies, 189 appendectomies, 72 colectomies, 21 fundoplications, 15 transabdominal inguinal herniorrhaphies, and 36 other surgeries. Cases included 532 (67.6 %) women, and among all patients mean age was 44.65 (±19.05) years and mean BMI of 28.04 (±6). Of these, 50 (6.35 %) patients were documented as developing port-site incisional hernias by a health care provider or by incidental imaging. Of the risk factors analyzed, insertion-site hernia, age, and BMI were significant. Multivariate analysis indicated that both preexisting hernia and BMI were significant risk factors (p value = 0.00212; p value = 0.0307). Morbidly obese patients had the highest incidence of incisional hernias at 18.18 % (p value = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

When selecting patients for SILS, surgeons should consider the presence of an umbilical hernia, increased age and obesity as risk factors for developing a port-site hernia.

A Novel Procedure for Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy-The Teres Hanging Technique Combined with Fundus-First, Dome-Down Separation

BACKGROUND

Generally, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) requires the use of articulating devices or additional trocars because of the technical difficulties caused by the lack of ergonomics. We developed a novel procedure comprising mainly two simple ideas, "the teres hanging technique combined with fundus-first, dome-down separation," which mainly uses conventional rigid laparoscopic instruments. In this study, we demonstrated our technique and retrospectively evaluated the clinical outcomes.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Three trocars were set through a 2.0-cm transumbilical minilaparotomy that was covered with an EZ Access™ combined with a lap protector. To create an adequate surgical field, the teres ligament was laparoscopically hung up with a suture on a straight needle. The gall bladder was then dissected through the fundus to the neck using rigid laparoscopic instruments without any additional trocars. At our institution, 18 consecutive patients underwent SILC using our technique from January 2014 to August 2015. Each patient had a symptomatic gallbladder (GB) stone or polyp. All operations were performed by surgeons who had never performed SILC until this study.

RESULTS

In all operations, our technique was successfully completed without GB perforation or other intraoperative complications. Additional trocars or open laparotomy were not required. The median operation time was 79 minutes, and blood loss was negligible. No postoperative complications were encountered.

CONCLUSIONS

Our novel procedure is safe and feasible. Even for surgeons who have never performed SILC before, our technique may become a standard for benign GB disease without requiring the use of articulating devices or additional trocars.

Current status and future perspective of laparoscopic surgery in hepatobiliary disease

Recent advances in minimally invasive surgery include laparoscopic and robotic surgery. These surgical techniques have changed the paradigm of surgical treatment for hepatobiliary diseases. Minimally invasive surgery has the advantages of minimal wound extension for cosmetic effect, early postoperative recovery, and few postoperative complications in patients. For laparoscopic liver resection, the indications have been expanded and oncological outcome was proven to be similar with open surgery in the malignant disease. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a classical operation for benign gallbladder diseases and the effort to decrease the surgical wound resulted to perform single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. For choledochal cyst, laparoscopic surgery is applied gradually despite of the difficulties associated with anastomosis, and robotic surgery for hepatobiliary disease is also performed for more minimally invasive surgery; however, while admitting the advantage of robotic surgery, robotic technology should be improved for development of more convenient and cheaper instrument and continuous efforts to enhance surgical technique to overcome long operation is necessary. In this review, the status and future perspectives of minimally invasive surgery for hepatobiliary diseases are summarized and discussed.

Two-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: 18 Patients Human Experience Using the Dynamic Laparoscopic NovaTract Retractor

OBJECTIVE

The concept of reducing the number of transabdominal access ports has been criticized for violating basic tenets of traditional multiport laparoscopy. Potential benefits of reduced port surgery may include decreased pain, improved cosmesis, less hernia formation, and fewer wound complications. However, technical challenges associated with these access methods have not been adequately addressed by advancement in instrumentations. We describe our initial experience with the NovaTract™ Laparoscopic Dynamic Retractor.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients who underwent two-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy between 2013 and 2014 using the NovaTract retractor was performed. The patients were equally divided into three groups (Group A, B, C) based on the order of case performed.

RESULTS

Eighteen consecutive patients underwent successful two-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic cholelithiasis. Mean age was 39.9 years and mean body mass index was 28.1 kg/m(2) (range 21-39.4). Overall mean operative time was 65 minutes (range 42-105), with Group A of 70 minutes, Group B of 65 minutes, and Group C of 58 minutes (P = .58). All cases were completed laparoscopically using the retraction system, without a need for additional ports or open conversion. No intra- or postoperative complications were seen. All patients were discharged on the same day of surgery. No mortality found in this series.

CONCLUSIONS

The NovaTract laparoscopic dynamic retractor is safe and easy to use, which is reflected by acceptable operative time for a laparoscopic cholecystectomy using only two ports. The system allows surgical approach to mimic the conventional laparoscopic techniques, while eliminating or reducing the number of retraction ports.

Gallstones

Gallstones grow inside the gallbladder or biliary tract. These stones can be asymptomatic or symptomatic; only gallstones with symptoms or complications are defined as gallstone disease. Based on their composition, gallstones are classified into cholesterol gallstones, which represent the predominant entity, and bilirubin ('pigment') stones. Black pigment stones can be caused by chronic haemolysis; brown pigment stones typically develop in obstructed and infected bile ducts. For treatment, localization of the gallstones in the biliary tract is more relevant than composition. Overall, up to 20% of adults develop gallstones and >20% of those develop symptoms or complications. Risk factors for gallstones are female sex, age, pregnancy, physical inactivity, obesity and overnutrition. Factors involved in metabolic syndrome increase the risk of developing gallstones and form the basis of primary prevention by lifestyle changes. Common mutations in the hepatic cholesterol transporter ABCG8 confer most of the genetic risk of developing gallstones, which accounts for ∼25% of the total risk. Diagnosis is mainly based on clinical symptoms, abdominal ultrasonography and liver biochemistry tests. Symptoms often precede the onset of the three common and potentially life-threatening complications of gallstones (acute cholecystitis, acute cholangitis and biliary pancreatitis). Although our knowledge on the genetics and pathophysiology of gallstones has expanded recently, current treatment algorithms remain predominantly invasive and are based on surgery. Hence, our future efforts should focus on novel preventive strategies to overcome the onset of gallstones in at-risk patients in particular, but also in the population in general.

New advantageous tool in single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the needle grasper

INTRODUCTION

During single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC), the gallbladder is suspended with stitches, resulting in perforation risk and difficulty in exploration.

AIM

We used the needle grasper in SILC to hang and manipulate the gallbladder.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixty-five patients (43 female, 22 male) who underwent SILC between December 2013 and December 2014 were analyzed retrospectively for patient demographics, duration of operation, laparotomy or conventional laparoscopy necessity, drain use, complications, and hospital stay periods. To place the SILC port (Covidien, Inc.), the needle grasper was inserted at the right upper abdominal quadrant without an incision to hang and manipulate the gall-bladder.

RESULTS

The mean age was 47.9 ±13.068 years; the mean body mass index (BMI) was 26.94 ±3.913 kg/m². ASA scores were 1, 2, and 3. Two patients with high BMI with additional trocar use were excluded. The operations were completed without any additional trocar in 59 patients. The mean operation time was 89 ±22.41 min. Eighteen patients required a drain; all were discharged after drain removal. One patient needed re-hospitalization and percutaneous drainage and was discharged on the 9^th day. Fifty-three patients were discharged on the 1^st post-operative day. Eleven patients with drains were discharged on the 2^nd day, and 1 was discharged on the 7^th day. The mean hospital stay period was 1.26 ±0.815 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The main difficulty of SILC is to manipulate hand tools because the triangulation principle of laparoscopy use is not possible in SILC. Inserting a needle grasper into the abdominal cavity at the right subcostal area to manipulate the gallbladder helps and does not leave a visible scar.

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.

One, two, or three ports in laparoscopic cholecystectomy?

Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has been compared with 3- or 4-port LC. To our knowledge, there are no studies comparing the 3-, 2-, and 1-port techniques. Patients were randomized into 3 groups: LC 1-port using SILS, LC 2-port using a laparoscope with a working channel, and LC 3-port using the standard ports. Pain was evaluated at recovery, 4 hours, 24 hours, day 5, and day 8, using an analog visual scale. Homogenous groups in their demographic characteristics; all confirmed gallbladder lithiasis. At recovery, there was less pain in group 1 (P = 0.002); at 4 hours pain was similar in all groups (P = 0.899); at 24 hours there was less pain in groups 2 and 3 (P = 0.031); and at days 5 and 8 there was marginal (P = 0.053) and significant (P = 0.003) relevance. In terms of pain perception, LC performed through 1 port does not offer advantages when compared with 2 or 3 ports. More clinical trials are needed to confirm these data.

Advances in laparoscopy for acute care surgery and trauma

The greatest advantages of laparoscopy when compared to open surgery include the faster recovery times, shorter hospital stays, decreased postoperative pain, earlier return to work and resumption of normal daily activity as well as cosmetic benefits. Laparoscopy today is considered the gold standard of care in the treatment of cholecystitis and appendicitis worldwide. Laparoscopy has even been adopted in colorectal surgery with good results. The technological improvements in this surgical field along with the development of modern techniques and the acquisition of specific laparoscopic skills have allowed for its utilization in operations with fully intracorporeal anastomoses. Further progress in laparoscopy has included single-incision laparoscopic surgery and natural orifice trans-luminal endoscopic surgery. Nevertheless, laparoscopy for emergency surgery is still considered challenging and is usually not recommended due to the lack of adequate experience in this area. The technical difficulties of operating in the presence of diffuse peritonitis or large purulent collections and diffuse adhesions are also given as reasons. However, the potential advantages of laparoscopy, both in terms of diagnosis and therapy, are clear. Major advantages may be observed in cases with diffuse peritonitis secondary to perforated peptic ulcers, for example, where laparoscopy allows the confirmation of the diagnosis, the identification of the position of the ulcer and a laparoscopic repair with effective peritoneal washout. Laparoscopy has also revolutionized the approach to complicated diverticulitis even when intestinal perforation is present. Many other emergency conditions can be effectively managed laparoscopically, including trauma in select hemodynamically-stable patients. We have therefore reviewed the most recent scientific literature on advances in laparoscopy for acute care surgery and trauma in order to demonstrate the current indications and outcomes associated with a laparoscopic approach to the treatment of the most common emergency surgical conditions.

Early experience of duet laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (duet-LDG) using three abdominal ports for gastric carcinoma: surgical technique and comparison with conventional laparoscopic distal gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Reduced port laparoscopic surgery may lead to less pain and better cosmetic outcome than conventional surgery. Also, it requires fewer assistants and abdominal ports. Recently, some experts have reported operative techniques and outcomes of reduced port laparoscopic gastrectomy. In this study, we sought to introduce our techniques of duet laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (duet-LDG) using three abdominal ports and surgical outcomes of early experience of this procedure.

METHODS

Between 2010 and 2014, 431 patients undergoing LDG for gastric carcinoma were retrospectively reviewed. Among them, 49 patients underwent duet-LDG. During duet-LDG, an operator performed all the procedures using two abdominal ports with an additional umbilical laparoscopy port. Short-term surgical outcomes of duet-LDG were compared with conventional LDG groups.

RESULTS

The mean age of the duet-LDG group was 61.1 years with 38 males and 11 females. Forty patients underwent Billroth II, and 9 patients underwent Roux-en-Y reconstruction. The mean operating time was 147 min, and the mean intraoperative blood loss was 49 ml. Duet-LDG was successfully completed without intraoperative complications or open conversion in all patients. After an operation, six patients (12.2 %) developed postoperative complications, and no mortality occurred. The mean hospital stay was 8.6 days. When compared with the conventional LDG groups, patients who underwent duet-LDG showed no significant differences in short-term surgical outcomes including morbidity, mortality, and the duration of hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Duet-LDG is a viable alternative to conventional LDG for treating early gastric carcinoma providing comparable surgical outcomes. Less operative pain and scar, reduced medical cost, and requiring fewer assistants may benefit patients as well as surgeons. Finally, the efficacy of duet-LDG needs to be evaluated in diverse clinical aspects.

Expanding the indications for single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy to all patients with biliary disease: is it safe?

PURPOSE

The safety of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has been proven in well-selected patients. The objective of this study was to determine whether SILC can be offered to all patients with any indication for cholecystectomy.

METHODS

A total of 173 consecutive SILCs were performed between January 2010 and November 2012 with no exclusion criteria. Demographic data, operative, and postoperative outcomes were prospectively collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Patients with acute cholecystitis and gallstone pancreatitis had longer operative times and a higher conversion to 4-port cholecystectomy than patients with biliary colic. Similar relationships were seen when comparing patients with obesity to nonobese patients. There were no differences in complication rates between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC can be safely offered to patients with a wide spectrum of biliary disease with the understanding that this may result in increased operative times and a higher likelihood of conversion to multiport laparoscopy.

Short-term outcomes of single-site robotic cholecystectomy versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial

BACKGROUND

Randomized studies could not demonstrate significant outcome benefit after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared to classic four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). The new robotic single-site platform might offer potential benefits on local inflammation and postoperative pain due to its technological advantages. This prospective randomized double-blind trial compared the short-term outcomes between single-incision robotic cholecystectomy (SIRC) and CLC.

METHODS

Two groups of 30 eligible patients were randomized for SIRC or CLC. During the first postoperative week, patients and study monitors were blinded to the type of procedure performed by four dressing tapes applied on the abdomen. Pain was assessed at 6 h and on day 1, 7 and 30 after surgery, along with a 1-10 cosmetic score.

RESULTS

No significant difference in postoperative pain occurred in the two groups at any time point nor for any of the abdominal sites. Nineteen (63 %) SIRC patients reported early postoperative pain in extra-umbilical sites. Intraoperative complications which might influence postoperative pain, such as minor bleeding and bile spillage, were similar in both groups and no conversions occurred. The cosmetic score 1 month postoperatively was higher for SIRC (p < 0.001). Two SIRC patients had wound infection, one of which developed an incisional hernia.

CONCLUSIONS

SIRC does not offer any significant reduction of postoperative pain compared to CLC. SIRC patients unaware of their type of operation still report pain in extra-umbilical sites like after CLC. The cosmetic advantage of SIRC should be balanced against an increased risk of incisional hernias and higher costs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12614000119695 ( http://www.anzctr.org.au ).

Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Performed via the “Marionette” Technique Shows Equivalence in Outcome and Cost to Standard Four Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in a Selected Patient Population

The aim of our study is to compare single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) performed using the “marionette” technique (m-SILC), to the standard four-port technique [four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (4PLC)]. Patient information was extracted from a prospectively maintained database (n = 188). Our primary endpoint was operative costs (determined by operating time and instruments used). Secondary endpoints were length of stay, operative time, blood loss, and postoperative complication rates. Univariate and adjusted multivariate analysis was used to compare the outcomes. There were a total of 188 patients for this study. Gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, and resident participation were similar. Patients undergoing m-SILC were younger (43.8 vs 49.8 years old), less likely to have cholangiogram (32% vs 54%), and were more likely to undergo cholecystectomy for chronic cholecystitis (73.3% vs 52%). In univariate analysis, cholecystectomy performed by the “marionette method” as compared with the 4PLC was associated with shorter operative time (67 vs 59 minutes respectively) and shorter hospital stay (1.2 vs 2.08 days respectively). In multivariate analysis, SILC was associated with shorter hospital stay and comparable operative time, blood loss, and postoperative complications. Instrumentation cost was less in SILC (by $94). SILC done by an experienced surgeon with the “marionette” technique on a carefully selected population shows a statistically significant cost benefit while maintaining clinically comparable outcomes to the standard 4PLC.

Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A non-randomized, age-matched single center trial

AIM: To compare the safety of single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomies with standard four-port cholecystectomies.

METHODS: Between January 2011 and December 2012 datas were gathered from 100 consecutive patients who received a single-port cholecystectomy. Patient baseline characteristics of all 100 single-port cholecystectomies were collected (body mass index, age, etc.) in a database. This group was compared with 100 age-matched patients who underwent a conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the same period. Retrospectively, per- and postoperative data were added. The two groups were compared to each other using independent t-tests and χ²-tests, P values below 0.05 were considered significantly different.

RESULTS: No differences were found between both groups regarding baseline characteristics. Operating time was significantly shorter in the total single-port group (42 min vs 62 min, P < 0.05); in procedures performed by surgeons the same trend was seen (45 min vs 59 min, P < 0.05). Peroperative complications between both groups were equal (3 in the single-port group vs 5 in the multiport group; P = 0.42). Although not significant less postoperative complications were seen in the single-port group compared with the multiport group (3 vs 9; P = 0.07). No statistically significant differences were found between both groups with regard to length of hospital stay, readmissions and mortality.

CONCLUSION: Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy has the potential to be a safe technique with a low complication rate, short in-hospital stay and comparable operating time. Single-port cholecystectomy provides the patient an almost non-visible scar while preserving optimal quality of surgery. Further prospective studies are needed to prove the safety of the single-port technique.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with curved versus linear instruments assessed by systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery poses significant ergonomic limitations. Curved instruments have been developed in order to address the issue of lack of triangulation. Direct comparison between single-incision laparoscopic surgeries with conventional linear and curved instruments has not been performed to date.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CENTRAL and OpenGrey were searched to identify relevant randomized trials. A network meta-analysis was applied to compare operative risks, conversion, duration of surgery and the need for placement of an adjunct trocar in single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with linear and curved instruments. The random-effects model was applied for two sets of comparisons, with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy as the reference treatment. Odds ratios, mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

Twenty-three randomized trials encompassing 1737 patients were included. The use of curved instruments was associated with increased operative time (mean difference 32.53 min, 95% CI 24.23-40.83) and higher odds for the use of an adjunct trocar (odds ratio 22.81, 95% CI 16.69-28.94) compared to the use of linear instruments. Perioperative risks could not be comparatively assessed due to the low number of events.

CONCLUSION

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with curved instruments may be associated with an increased level of operative difficulty, as reflected by the need for auxiliary measures for exposure and increased operative time as compared to the use of linear instruments. Current instrumentation requires further improvement, tailored to the features of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (CRD42015015721).

Systematic review of intervention design and delivery in pragmatic and explanatory surgical randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Surgical interventions are complex, with multiple components that require consideration in trial reporting. This review examines the reporting of details of surgical interventions in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) within the context of explanatory and pragmatic study designs.

METHODS

Systematic searches identified RCTs of surgical interventions published in 2010 and 2011. Included studies were categorized as predominantly explanatory or pragmatic. The extent of intervention details in the reports were compared with the CONSORT statement for reporting trials of non-pharmacological treatments (CONSORT-NPT). CONSORT-NPT recommends reporting the descriptions of surgical interventions, whether they were standardized and adhered to (items 4a, 4b and 4c). Reporting of the context of intervention delivery (items 3 and 15) and operator expertise (item 15) were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 4541 abstracts and 131 full-text articles, 80 were included (of which 39 were classified as predominantly pragmatic), reporting 160 interventions. Descriptions of 129 interventions (80.6 per cent) were provided. Standardization was mentioned for 47 (29.4 per cent) of the 160 interventions, and 22 articles (28 per cent) reported measurement of adherence to at least one aspect of the intervention. Seventy-one papers (89 per cent) provided some information about context. For one-third of interventions (55, 34.4 per cent), some data were provided regarding the expertise of personnel involved. Reporting standards were similar in trials classified as pragmatic or explanatory.

CONCLUSION

The lack of detail in trial reports about surgical interventions creates difficulties in understanding which operations were actually evaluated. Methods for designing and reporting surgical interventions in RCTs, contributing to the quality of the overall study design, are required. This should allow better implementation of trial results into practice.

PROMIS for Laparoscopy

INTRODUCTION

We tested the responsiveness of the National Institutes of Health-sponsored Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures Information System (PROMIS) global health short form and a linear analog self-assessment for laparoscopy.

METHODS

From May 2011 through December 2013, patients undergoing laparoscopy responded to patient reported outcome questionnaires perioperatively. Composite and single item scores were compared.

RESULTS

One hundred fifteen patients, mean age 55 years, 58 % female, were enrolled. Visual analog pain scores differed significantly from baseline (mean 1.7 ± 2.3) to postoperative day 1 (mean 4.8 ± 2.6) and 7 (mean 2.5 ± 2.1) (p<0.0001). PROMIS physical subscale and total physical component subscore differed significantly from baseline (14.4 ± 3.0/47.4 ± 8.3) to postoperative day 1 (12.7 ± 3.2/42.1 ± 8.8) (p=0.0007/0.0003), due to everyday physical activities (p=0.0001). Linear analog self-assessment scores differed from baseline for pain frequency (p<0.0001), pain severity (p<0.0001), and social activity (p=0.0052); 40 % of subjects reported worsening in PROMIS physical T-score to postoperative day 1 and 25 % to postoperative day 7. Linear analog self-assessment mental well-being scores were worse in 32 % of patients at postoperative day 7, emotional well-being in 28 %, social activity in 24 %, and fatigue in 20 % of patients.

CONCLUSION

Single items and change from baseline are responsive perioperative quality of life assessments for laparoscopy.

Laparoscopy assisted distal gastrectomy for T1 to T2 stage gastric cancer: a pilot study of three ports technique

Laparoscopy assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) was first reported in 1994. Since then, it has gradually gained maturity. This procedure is less invasive than conventional open gastrectomy, and the oncologic outcomes are comparable. Recently, single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has been developed, which seems to be less invasive than conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, SILS technique is characterized by a limited working area, crowding and crossing of instruments which make it difficult to be applied for oncologic gastrectomy. In a trial to overcome SILS difficulties, the authors report their initial clinical experience of LADG with D1 lymphadenectomy using a novel 3-ports technique. Twenty-one patients have been enrolled for 3-ports laparoscopic gastrectomy. The patient's demographic and perioperative data have been collected prospectively. The mean operative time in the first ten cases was 170 min and for the last eleven cases was 140 min (P = 0.01). The mean estimated blood loss was 65 ml. There was no use for additional ports or conversion to open surgery. There were no intra-operative major complications. The mean time for hospital stay was 9 days. One case of pneumonia and one death were the postoperative complications. The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was 21 and all the cases had free surgical margin. Three-ports LADG with D1 lymphadenectomy could be a safe and oncologically feasible procedure; however, a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing three ports LADG with conventional multi-ports LADG is required. It is a step towards three-port total laparoscopic distal gastrectomy.

No difference in incidence of port-site hernia and chronic pain after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a nationwide prospective, matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

Conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) is regarded as the gold standard for cholecystectomy. However, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) has been suggested to replace CLC. This study aimed at comparing long-term incidences of port-site hernia and chronic pain after SLC versus CLC.

METHODS

We conducted a matched cohort study based on prospective data (Jan 1, 2009-June 1, 2011) from the Danish Cholecystectomy Database with perioperative information and clinical follow-up. Consecutive patients undergoing elective SLC during the study period were included and matched 1:2 with patients subjected to CLC using pre-defined criteria. Follow-up data were obtained from the Danish National Patient Registry, mailed patient questionnaires, and clinical examination. A port-site hernia was defined as a repair for a port-site hernia or clinical hernia located at one or more port sites.

RESULTS

In total, 699 patients were eligible and 147 patients were excluded from the analysis due to pre-defined criteria. The rate of returned questionnaires was 83%. Thus, 552 (SLC, n = 185; CLC, n = 367) patients were analyzed. The median observation time was 48 months (range 1-65) after SLC and 48 months (1-64) after CLC (P = 0.940). The total cumulated port-site hernia rate was 4 % and 6 % for SLC and CLC, respectively (P = 0.560). Incidences of moderate/severe chronic pain were 4 % and 5 % after SLC and CLC, respectively (P = 0.661).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no difference in long-term incidence of port-site hernia or chronic pain after SLC versus CLC.

New trends in colorectal surgery: Single port and natural orifice techniques

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) have rapidly gained pace worldwide, potentially replacing conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) as the preferred colorectal surgery technique. Currently available data mainly consist of retrospective series analyzed in four meta-analyses. Despite conflicting results and lack of an objective comparison, SILS appears to offer cosmetic advantages over CLS. However, due to conflicting results and marked heterogeneity, present data fail to show significant differences in terms of operative time, postoperative morbidity profiles, port-site complications rates, oncological appropriateness, duration of hospitalization or cost when comparing SILS with conventional laparoscopy for colorectal procedures. The application of “pure” NOTES in humans remains limited to case reports because of unresolved issues concerning the ideal access site, distant organ reach, spatial orientation and viscera closure. Alternatively, minilaparoscopy-assisted natural orifice surgery techniques are being developed. The transanal “down-to-up” total mesorectum excision has been derived for transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and represents the most encouraging NOTES-derived technique. Preliminary experiences demonstrate good oncological and functional short-term outcomes. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are now mandatory to confirm the long-term SILS results and validate transanal TEM for the application of NOTES in humans.

[Quality of life and visceral surgery]

Quality of life (QOL) is becoming more and more relevant in clinical research. An increasing number of publications each year confirmed this. The aim of this review is to summarize current data of QOL after surgical procedures. The results are represented by two examples each of malignant and benign diseases. The evaluation of QOL for patients with cancer is only possible with respect to the prognosis. Prospective randomized trials comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for early gastric cancer are only available from Asia. Data from the USA show that the QOL after gastrectomy was worse regardless of the surgical procedure. During the next 6 months the QOL improved but about one third of the patients had severe impairment during longer follow-up periods. Patients with R1 resection of pancreatic cancer showed only a slightly better prognosis but significantly better QOL compared to patients without resection. The results for the various procedures of cholecystectomy or hernia repair are not always consistent.

Therapeutic advances: Single incision laparoscopic hepatopancreatobiliary surgery

Single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) is proposed to be a step towards minimizing the invasiveness of surgery, and has since gained popularity in several surgical sub-specialties including hepatopancreatobiliary surgery. SPLS has since been applied to cholecystectomy, liver resection as well as pancreatectomy for a multitude of pathologies. Benefits of SPLS over conventional multi-incision laparoscopic surgery include improved cosmesis and potentially post-operative pain at specific time periods and extra-umbilical sites. However, it is also associated with longer operating time, increased rate of complications, and increased rate of port-site hernia. There is no significant difference between length of hospital stay. SPLS has a significant learning curve that affects operating time, rate of conversion and rate of complications. In this article, we review the literature on SPLS in hepatobiliary surgery - cholecystectomy, hepatectomy and pancreatectomy, and offer tips on overcoming potential technical obstacles and minimizing the complications when performing SPLS - surgeon position, position of port and instruments, instrument crossing position, standard hand grip vs reverse hand grip, snooker cue guide position, prevention of incisional hernia. SPLS is a promising direction in laparoscopic surgery, and we recommend step-wise progression of applications of SPLS to various hepatopancreatobiliary surgeries to ensure safe adoption of the surgical technique.

The real-world application of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

OBJECTIVES

Most previous studies that have investigated single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) are case series with limited sample sizes. We have reviewed the outcome of 500 consecutive cases of SILC performed by a single surgeon at our center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From April 2009 to October 2012, a single surgeon performed 1250 laparoscopic cholecystectomies for various gallbladder (GB) diseases. SILC was chosen as the surgical modality unless there was evidence of acute cholecystitis or GB empyema, the patient had a prior history of upper abdominal surgery, endoscopic sphincterotomy, or had comorbidities with an ASA score of III or higher. The clinicopathologic features and perioperative data of patients were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

The mean age and BMI of included patients were 42.7 years and 23.6 kg/m(2), respectively. The mean operating time was 52 min. Patients stayed in the hospital for an average of 1.3 days postoperatively. In 55 patients, an additional 2 mm trocar was inserted for retraction of the GB. One patient was converted to an open cholecystectomy because of Mirizzi syndrome. There were no observed complications including incisional hernias in this patient population.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC is a safe, effective procedure for cholecystectomy that may be considered the main surgical strategy in select patients.

Quality of life after single-port laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for benign gynecologic disease

BACKGROUND

The aim of current study was to determine whether single-port laparoscopic surgery (SP-LS) improves the health-related quality of life (QoL) compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (conventional LS) in women with benign gynecologic disease.

METHODS

We performed a prospective case-control study from October 2010 to December 2012. A total of 273 women with benign gynecologic disease participated in this study, and 135 of them were in the SP-LS group and 138 in the conventional LS. We evaluated QoL after SP-LS or conventional LS. All patients were asked to complete short-form 36 (SF-36) QoL health surveys preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Clinical characteristics and operative outcomes showed no significant differences between both groups. SP-LS had no benefits in QoL compared with conventional LS in the main categories, even though SP-LS showed statistically significant higher scores than conventional LS for the role of physical domain at 1 month postoperatively and for social function at 3 months postoperatively. In contrast to this, conventional LS had statistically significant higher scores than SP-LS for role function, bodily pain, general health, vitality, and emotional well-being at 6 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

With a 6-month follow-up, SP-LS does not offer a QoL benefit over conventional LS in women with benign gynecologic disease. However, a larger prospective randomized study would be required to confirm this.

Single incision versus standard multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: up-dated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We aimed to compare single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) to the standard multiport technique (MLC) for clinically relevant outcomes in adults.

METHODS

Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of randomized trials.

RESULTS

We identified 30 trials (SILC N = 1209, MLC N = 1202) mostly of moderate to low quality. Operating time (30 trials): longer with SILC (WMD = 12.4 min, 95% CI 9.3, 15.5; p < 0.001), but difference reduced with experience - in 10 large trials (1321 patients) WMD = 5.9 (-1.3, 13.1; p = 0.105). Intra-operative blood loss (12 trials, 1201 patients): greater with SILC, but difference practically irrelevant (WMD = 1.29 mL, 0.24-2.35; p = 0.017). Procedure failure (27 trials, 2277 patients): more common with SILC (OR = 13.9, 4.34-44.7; p < 0.001), but overall infrequent (SILC pooled incidence 4.39%) and almost exclusively addition of a trocar. Post-operative pain (29 trials) and hospital stay (22 trials): no difference. Complications (30 trials): infrequent (SILC pooled incidence 5.35%) with no overall SILC vs. MLC difference. Incisional hernia (19 trials, 1676 patients): very rare (15 vs. 4 cases), but odds significantly higher with SILC (OR = 4.94, 1.26-19.4; p = 0.025). Cosmetic satisfaction (16 trials, 11 with data at 1-3 months): in 5 trials with non-blinded patients (N = 513) in favour of SILC (SMD = 1.83, 0.13, 3.52; p = 0.037), but in 6 trials with blinded patients (N = 719) difference small and insignificant (SMD = 0.42, -1.12, 1.96; p = 0.548).

DISCUSSION

SILC outcomes largely depend on surgeon's skill, but regardless of it, when compared to MLC, SILC requires somewhat longer operating time, risk of incisional hernia is higher (but overall very low) and early cosmetic benefit is modest.

CONCLUSION

From the (in)convenience and safety standpoint, SILC is an acceptable alternative to MLC with a modest cosmetic benefit.

Transumbilical single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with conventional instruments: A continuing study

INTRODUCTION

The feasibility of the single incision, multiport transumbilical approach(SILC) for the treatment of symptomatic gallbladder calculus disease has been established.

AIMS

The study examines both short and long term morbidity of the SILC approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All the 1338 patients were operated by the same surgeon through a transversely placed umbilical incision in the upper third of the umbilicus. Three conventional ports,10,5 and 5 mm were introduced through the same skin incision but through separate transfascial punctures. The instruments were those used for standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy(SLC).Patients with acute cholecystitis and calculous pancreatitis were included,while those with choledocholithiasis were excluded. Results were compared with those of SLC.

RESULTS

Forty patients had difficult gall bladders, 214 had acute cholecystitis, and 16 had calculous pancreatitis. The mean operating time was 24.7 mins as compared to 18.4 mins in SLC. Intracorporeal knotting was required in four patients. Conversion to SLC was required in 12 patients. Morrisons pouch drain was left in 3 patients. Injectable analgesics were required in 85% vs 90% (SILC vs SLC) on day 1 and 25% vs 45% on day 2 and infection was seen in 6(0. 45%) patients. Port site hernia was seen in 2 patients. The data was compared with that of SLC and significance calculated by the student 't' test. A p value less than 0.05 was considered as significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Trans umbilical SILC gives comparable results to SLC, and is a superior alternative when cosmesis and postoperative pain are considered, but the operative time is significantly more.

Single-incision versus standard multiple-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of experimental and observational studies

OBJECTIVE

The advantages of single-incision surgery for the treatment of gallstone disease is debated. Previous meta-analyses comparing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and standard laparoscopic multiport cholecystectomy (SLMC) included few and underpowered trials. To overcome this limitation, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized studies.

METHODS

A MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library literature search of studies published in and comparing SILC with SLMC was performed. The primary outcome was safety of SILC as measured by the overall rate of postoperative complications and biliary spillage. Feasibility was another primary outcome as measured by the conversion and operative time. Postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, perioperative blood loss, time to return to normal activity, and cosmetic satisfaction were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 43 studies of which 30 were observational reports and 13 experimental trials, for a total of 7489 patients (2090 SILC and 5389 SLMC). The overall rate of complications was comparable between groups (relative risk [RR] = 1.08; 95% CI = 0.87-1.35; P = .46), as were the rates of biliary spillage (RR = 1.16; 95% CI = 0.73-1.84; P = .53) and conversion rate (RR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.53-1.46; P = .62). Operative time was in favor of SLMC (weighted mean difference = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.67-0.79; P < .0001). Secondary outcomes favored SILC, but with marginal advantages.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC is a feasible technique but without any significant advantage over SLMC for relevant end points. Although secondary outcomes favored SILC, the small magnitude of the advantage and the low quality of assessment methods question the clinical significance of these benefits.

Single-site robotic cholecystectomy in a broadly inclusive patient population: a prospective study

OBJECTIVES

To describe our initial experience with single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) and its applicability to a broad segment of patients.

BACKGROUND

At the initiation of our study, there were only 3 published reports on SSRC. These initial studies had limited inclusion criteria. We present our experience with the technical aspects and patient outcomes of SSRC in a broadly inclusive patient population.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study from January 2012 to January 2013, in which 95 patients underwent SSRC. Procedural times, postoperative complications, delayed hospital discharges, and re-admissions were evaluated.

RESULTS

Patients were predominantly female (71.6%) had mean age of 45.2 ± 6.1 years and mean body mass index (BMI) of 30.1 ± 7.1 kg/m. Overall, mean total operative time (TOT) for all patients (n = 95) was 88.63 ± 32.0 (range: 49-220) minutes. SSRC was not completed in 8 (8.42%) patients: 6 conversions to laparoscopy, 1 conversion to open, and 1 aborted case. The group of patients who were able to complete SSRC (n = 87) had a mean TOT of 83.5 ± 24.5 minutes and mean operative robotic time (RT) of 39.6 ± 15.2 minutes. RT was longer in patients with intra-abdominal adhesions (P = 0.0139) and higher BMI (P = 0.03). A minority of patients required hospital admission (11.6%), readmission (6.3%), or reoperation (1.1%). No bile duct injury or death occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

SSRC is safe and has a manageable learning curve. Patient factors, such as obesity, did not significantly affect conversion rates or TOTs. SSRC is a promising new technique, which can be offered to a wide array of patients.

A novel locally operated master-slave robot system for single-incision laparoscopic surgery

PURPOSE

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) provides more cosmetic benefits than conventional laparoscopic surgery but presents operational difficulties. To overcome this technical problem, we have developed a locally operated master-slave robot system that provides operability and a visual field similar to conventional laparoscopic surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A surgeon grasps the master device with the left hand, which is placed above the abdominal wall, and holds a normal instrument with the right hand. A laparoscope, a slave robot, and the right-sided instrument are inserted through one incision. The slave robot is bent in the body cavity and its length, pose, and tip angle are changed by manipulating the master device; thus the surgeon has almost the same operability as with normal laparoscopic surgery. To evaluate our proposed system, we conducted a basic task and an ex vivo experiment.

RESULTS

In basic task experiments, the average object-passing task time was 9.50 sec (SILS cross), 22.25 sec (SILS parallel), and 7.23 sec (proposed SILS). The average number of instrument collisions was 3.67 (SILS cross), 14 (SILS parallel), and 0.33 (proposed SILS). In the ex vivo experiment, we confirmed the applicability of our system for single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated that our proposed robot system is useful for single-incision laparoscopic surgery.

Two-port cholecystectomy maintains safety and feasibility in benign gallbladder diseases: a comparative study

PURPOSE

In an effort to overcome the limitations of single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) while preserving the cosmetic benefits of reduced ports cholecystectomy, we have developed a 2-port LC that allows for the full, unrestricted use of 4 laparoscopic instruments.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data of patients who had undergone either 4-port LC or 2-port LC for benign gallbladder diseases between March 2007 and March 2013. Two incisions of 2-port LC were composed of an umbilical incision as the manner of single-port laparoscopic surgery and a 5-mm epigastric incision. These two incisions were utilized for comfortable bimanual manipulation under the liver-elevated vision provided by a liver retractor.

RESULTS

During the study period, 766 patients underwent LC; 263 (34.3%) started with 4-port LC, and 503 (65.7%) started with 2-port LC. Of patients started with 2-port LC, 486 patients (96.6%) was ended up with 2-port without open conversion or addition of port(s). The two groups had similar operative time, open conversion rate, incidence of complications, analgesic requirement, and length of postoperative hospital stay. Multivariate analyses revealed that the independent factors related to prolonged operative time (≥ 90 th percentile) in 2-port LC were the presence of cholecystitis (odds ratio [OR] 2.412, 95% CI 1.246-4.668, p = 0.009) and admission through the emergency department (OR 2.132, 95% CI 1.135-4.004, p = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that 2-port LC for benign gallbladder diseases is as safe and feasible as 4-port LC when it is performed by surgeons trained in conventional laparoscopic techniques.

Can single incision laproscopic cholecystectomy replace the traditional four port laproscopic approach: a review

The major aim of surgeons has always been a minimalist approach towards surgery, thereby reducing the complications associated with the surgery. The gold standard treatment for cholelithiasis with cholecystitis is currently the four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (4 PLC). Recently, a newer technique has been introduced which uses a single port, rather than the four ports, for the removal of the gall bladder laparoscopically; it is known as Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (SILC). This is a comparatively minimal approach towards surgery. Therefore the purpose of this review is to compare the advantages and the disadvantages of SILC versus 4PLC, and hence, to give an idea of whether SILC is ready to replace the traditional approach as the new treatment of choice.

Single-port versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies

BACKGROUND

Although current guidelines recommend performing cholecystectomy via laparoscopy, consensus on the application of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for cholecystectomy is still lacking. The aim of the current study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized comparative studies (NRCSs), comparing single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) and conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CMLC) for benign gallbladder diseases.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies published between January 1997 and December 2012 comparing SPLC and CMLC. Operative outcomes, postoperative parameters, complications, cosmetic results, and quality of life were evaluated.

RESULTS

Forty studies were included in the analyses (16 RCTs, 24 NRCSs) that included 3711 patients (1865 SPLCs, 1846 CMLCs). SPLC had higher conversion rates (odds ratio [OR], 4.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.71-6.56; P<.001), longer operating time (mean difference [MD], 16.1; 95% CI, 9.93-22.26 minutes; P<.001), and shorter hospital stay (MD, 0.16; 95% CI, -0.28 to -0.04 day; P=.01) than CMLC. There were no significant differences between the two procedures for early (MD, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.44 to 0.24; P=.57) or late (MD, -0.13; 95% CI, -0.45 to 0.19; P=.42) visual analog scale pain scores and overall complications (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.92-1.61; P=.18). Cosmetic outcomes favored SILC at 2 weeks (MD, -1.39; 95% CI, -2.66 to -0.12; P=.03) and 1 month (MD, -0.13, 95% CI, -2.05 to 0.55; P=.0007) after surgery (index score, 0-10).

CONCLUSIONS

SPLC can be performed safely and effectively with better cosmetic results than with the CMLC technique for benign gallbladder diseases.

Randomized clinical trial of single- versus multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

There are no randomized studies that compare outcomes after single-incision (SLC) and conventional multi-incision (MLC) laparoscopic cholecystectomy under an optimized perioperative analgesic regimen.

METHODS

This patient- and assessor-blinded randomized three-centre clinical trial compared SLC and MLC in women admitted electively with cholecystolithiasis. Outcomes were registered on the day of operation (day 0), on postoperative days 1, 2, 3 and 30, and 12 months after surgery. Blinding of the patients was maintained until day 3. The primary endpoint was pain on movement measured on a visual analogue scale, reported repeatedly by the patient until day 3.

RESULTS

The intention-to-treat population comprised 59 patients in the SLC and 58 in the MLC group. There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to any of the pain-related outcomes, on-demand administration of opioids or general discomfort. Median duration of surgery was 32·5 min longer in the SLC group (P < 0·001). SLC was associated with a reduced incidence of vomiting on day 0 (7 versus 22 per cent; P = 0·019). The incidences of wound-related problems were comparable. One patient in the SLC group experienced a biliary leak requiring endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The rates of incisional hernia at 12-month follow-up were 2 per cent in both groups. Cosmetic rating was significantly improved after SLC at 1 and 12 months (P < 0·001).

CONCLUSION

SLC did not significantly diminish early pain in a setting with optimized perioperative analgesic patient care. SLC may reduce postoperative vomiting.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01268748 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Single-port laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery for a gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor: report of a case

We herein report a case of single-port laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) for a gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). A 75-year-old female with an endoluminal GIST located near the esophagogastric junction underwent LECS. Both the mucosal and submucosal layers around the tumor were circumferentially dissected using endoscopic submucosal dissection via intraluminal endoscopy. The endoluminal GIST was exteriorized to the abdominal cavity. The tumor and the edge of the incision line were closed using an endoscopic linear stapler. The LECS was successfully accomplished without the need for any skin incisions or additional ports. The length of the operation was 120 min and blood loss was 5 ml. Oral intake was resumed on the second day and the length of hospital stay was 5 days. No complications were noted and the patient had an excellent cosmetic result. In our experience, single-port LECS is feasible and safe for gastric GIST when performed by a surgeon experienced in laparoscopic and gastric surgery.

The efficacy and safety of different kinds of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a network meta analysis of 43 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

We conducted a network meta analysis (NMA) to compare different kinds of laparoscopic cholecystectomy [LC] (single port [SPLC], two ports [2PLC], three ports [3PLC], and four ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy [4PLC], and four ports mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy [mini-4PLC]).

METHODS

PubMed, the Cochrane library, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Knowledge were searched to find randomized controlled trials [RCTs]. Direct pair-wise meta analysis (DMA), indirect treatment comparison meta analysis (ITC) and NMA were conducted to compare different kinds of LC.

RESULTS

We included 43 RCTs. The risk of bias of included studies was high. DMA showed that SPLC was associated with more postoperative complications, longer operative time, and higher cosmetic score than 4PLC, longer operative time and higher cosmetic score than 3PLC, more postoperative complications than mini-4PLC. Mini-4PLC was associated with longer operative time than 4PLC. ITC showed that 3PLC was associated with shorter operative time than mini-4PLC, and lower postoperative pain level than 2PLC. 2PLC was associated with fewer postoperative complications and longer hospital stay than SPLC. NMA showed that SPLC was associated with more postoperative complications than mini-4PLC, and longer operative time than 4PLC.

CONCLUSION

The rank probability plot suggested 4PLC might be the worst due to the highest level of postoperative pain, longest hospital stay, and lowest level of cosmetic score. The best one might be mini-4PLC because of highest level of cosmetic score, and fewest postoperative complications, or SPLC because of lowest level of postoperative pain and shortest hospital stay. But more studies are needed to determine which will be better between mini-4PLC and SPLC.

Fewer-than-four ports versus four ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, laparoscopic cholecystectomy is performed using two 10-mm ports and two 5-mm ports. Recently, a reduction in the number of ports has been suggested as a modification of the standard technique with a view to decreasing pain and improving cosmesis. The safety and effectiveness of using fewer-than-four ports has not yet been established.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits (such as improvement in cosmesis and earlier return to activity) and harms (such as increased complications) of using fewer-than-four ports (fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy) versus four ports in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for any reason (symptomatic gallstones, acalculous cholecystitis, gallbladder polyp, or any other condition).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 8, 2013), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal to September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing fewer-than-four ports versus four ports, that is, with standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy that is performed with two ports of at least 10-mm incision and two ports of at least 5-mm incision.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials and extracted the data. We analysed the data using both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis, whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We found nine trials with 855 participants that randomised participants to fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 427) versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 428). Most trials included low anaesthetic risk participants undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Seven of the nine trials used a single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the remaining two trials used three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy as the experimental intervention. Only one trial including 70 participants had low risk of bias. Fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy could be completed successfully in more than 90% of participants in most trials. The remaining participants were mostly converted to four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy but some participants had to undergo open cholecystectomy.There was no mortality in either group in the seven trials that reported mortality (318 participants in fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy group and 316 participants in four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy group). The proportion of participants with serious adverse events was low in both treatment groups and the estimated RR was compatible with a reduction and substantial increased risk with the fewer-than-four-ports group (6/318 (1.9%)) and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy group (0/316 (0%)) (RR 3.93; 95% CI 0.86 to 18.04; 7 trials; 634 participants; very low quality evidence). The estimated difference in the quality of life (measured between 10 and 30 days) was imprecise (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.18; 95% CI -0.05 to 0.42; 4 trials; 510 participants; very low quality evidence), as was the proportion of participants in whom the laparoscopic cholecystectomy had to be converted to open cholecystectomy between the groups (fewer-than-four ports 3/289 (adjusted proportion 1.2%) versus four port: 5/292 (1.7%); RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.35; 5 trials; 581 participants; very low quality evidence). The fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy took 14 minutes longer to complete (MD 14.44 minutes; 95% CI 5.95 to 22.93; 9 trials; 855 participants; very low quality evidence). There was no clear difference in hospital stay between the groups (MD -0.01 days; 95% CI -0.28 to 0.26; 6 trials; 731 participants) or in the proportion of participants discharged as day surgery (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.22; 1 trial; 50 participants; very low quality evidence) between the two groups. The times taken to return to normal activity and work were shorter by two days in the fewer-than-four-ports group compared with four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (return to normal activity: MD -1.20 days; 95% CI -1.58 to -0.81; 2 trials; 325 participants; very low quality evidence; return to work: MD -2.00 days; 95% CI -3.31 to -0.69; 1 trial; 150 participants; very low quality evidence). There was no significant difference in cosmesis scores at 6 to 12 months between the two groups (SMD 0.37; 95% CI -0.10 to 0.84; 2 trials; 317 participants; very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low quality evidence that is insufficient to determine whether there is any significant clinical benefit in using fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared with four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety profile of using fewer-than-four ports is yet to be established and fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be reserved for well-designed randomised clinical trials.

Single-access laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery has been proposed as a minimally invasive technique with the advantages of fewer scars and reduced pain. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized clinical trials of single-access laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SALC) versus classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC).

METHODS

All randomized controlled trials were identified through electronic searches (MEDLINE, PubMed, SAGES, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) up to October 2011. Methodologically appropriate clinical trials identified in the search process were included in a meta-analysis to provide a pooled estimate of effect.

RESULTS

Nine true randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis and reported a total of 695 patients, divided into the SALC group of 362 patients and the CLC group of 333 patients. Median operating time was longer with 57 minutes in SALC versus 45 minutes in CLC (P=0.00001). There was no significant difference in length of stay (SALC 1.36 d vs. CLC 1.15 d, P=0.18). Conversion to laparotomy in either group was similar; however, in 18 of 66 SALC patients an additional instrument was used, compared with 1 of 67 CLC patients (P=0.0003). Complications were not significant different [16% in SALC vs. 12% in the CLC group (P=0.74)]. Median postoperative pain with the visual analog scale score was 3.8 points in SALC versus 3.15 points in the CLC group (P=0.48). Cosmetic satisfaction was significantly more satisfying with 9 points favoring SALC versus 0 points favoring CLC (P=0.0005) in contrast to the quality-of-life questionnaire where there was no significant difference in patient overall satisfaction between SALC and CLC groups (P=0.0515).

CONCLUSIONS

SALC required longer operative times than CLC without significant benefits in patient overall satisfaction, postoperative pain, and hospital stay. Only satisfaction with the cosmetic result showed a significantly higher preference towards SALC.