Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective randomized controlled study

Novel approach of single-port laparoscopic appendectomy as a solo surgery: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Recent advances in medical equipment and surgical techniques have enabled solo surgery, wherein a surgeon operates alone without the participation of other surgical members. However, the application of solo surgery in single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) has been rarely reported.

METHODS

Prospectively collected databases of 60 patients who underwent solo-SPLS for appendicitis between March 2013 and June 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Making a transumbilical incision into the peritoneal cavity was facilitated by using a Lone Star self-retaining retractor. After the establishment of a single port through the umbilicus, we installed a mechanical adjustable camera holder (Endoworld®LAP53 Holding Systems). It was anchored to the operating table rail and firmly held the laparoscope with a possibility to adjust the same as required by the operator. The operative method was identical to the SPLS appendectomy, except for the use of these instruments.

RESULTS

The median operation time was 50 min (25-120). None of the patients required open conversion, insertion of an additional port or help of a human assistant. The median length of hospital stay for all patients was 1.0 day (range: 1-3 days). The median dosage of required intravenous analgesics (ketorolac, 0.1 mg/kg of body weight) was 0.0 ampoule (0-4). The median interval to initiation of solid diet was 1 day (1-2). The incidence of postoperative complications was 8.3% (5/60).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results shows that solo-SPLS appendectomy could be performed without increasing operation time or postoperative complications when performed by a surgeon competent in performing SPLS appendectomy.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy in children

BACKGROUND

Increasing evidence has indicated that single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) is a safe procedure that has a comparable clinical outcome to conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) in adult patients. Nevertheless, the use of SILA in pediatric patients is still controversial, and systematic reviews that compare SILA and CLA in children are lacking in the current literature.

METHODS

A literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed to identify eligible studies that were conducted between January 1998 and September 2014. Primary outcome measures were total postoperative complications, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, ileus, and wound hematoma. Secondary outcome measures were operative time, length of hospital stay and the frequency of use of additional analgesics. The random effect model was used for the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 2 randomized clinical trials and 12 nonrandomized clinical trials that met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. These studies included a total of 2249 patients: 744 who underwent SILA and 1505 who underwent CLA. No significant differences were observed between the groups with respect to the incidence of total postoperative complications, intraabdominal abscess, ileus, wound hematoma, length of hospital stay, or the frequency of use of additional analgesics. However, SILA was associated with a higher incidence of wound infection (OR=2.25; 95%=1.21-4.17; P=0.01) compared with CLA and required a longer operative time (WMD=5.73 minutes; 95% CI=4.17-7.28; P<0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

SILA seems to be a relatively feasible and safe procedure without any superiority to CLA. Thus, SILA may not be a better approach for pediatric patients.

Single-port and multi-port laparoscopic left lateral liver sectionectomy for treating benign liver diseases: a prospective, randomized, controlled study

BACKGROUND

The use of single-port laparoscopy for left-lateral liver sectionectomy (LLLS) has been reported in the literature, but the effectiveness and safety of LLLS has not been validated in randomized, controlled trials. This prospective randomized controlled trial compared the effectiveness and safety of single-port and multi-port laparoscopic LLLS for the surgical treatment of benign liver disease.

METHODS

Altogether, 38 patients aged 17-65 years (16 men, 22 women) with benign liver diseases were hospitalized for elective laparoscopic LLLS between January 2010 and December 2012. Patients were randomly assigned to either single-port (n = 19) or multi-port (n = 19) laparoscopic LLLS. Main outcome measures were operative time, volume of intraoperative blood loss, complication rates, and postoperative hospitalization.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. Single-port and multi-port laparoscopies were successfully completed in all but one patient (1/19, 5.3 %) who required conversion from a single-port to a multi-port procedure. The two groups had similar mean operative times and volumes of intraoperative blood loss. There were no clinically significant postoperative complications or deaths. The single-port group had a significantly shorter postoperative hospitalization than the multi-port group (2.5 ± 1.7 vs. 4.0 ± 2.1 days; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Single-port laparoscopic LLLS is a technically feasible, effective, safe alternative to multi-port laparoscopy for the treatment of benign liver diseases in cautiously selected patients.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing single incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy

BACKGROUND

Single incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) has been proposed as an alternative to conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of SILA when compared with CLA through a systematic review.

METHODS

We performed an electronic search of EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared SILA with CLA were included.

RESULTS

Six RCTs met eligibility criteria, which included a total of 800 patients, 401 in the SILA group and 399 in the CLA group. There were no significant differences in terms of overall complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-1.47; p = 0.77). SILA had a higher technical failure rate (OR 3.30; 95% CI 1.26-8.65; p = 0.01) and required a longer operative time (mean difference [MD] 4.67; 95% CI 1.76-7.57; p = 0.002). SILA was associated with better cosmetic results (standardized MD -0.4; 95% CI -0.64 to -0.16; p = 0.001) and earlier return to normal activity (MD -0.64; 95% CI -1.09 to -0.20; p = 0.005), although these advantages should be taken with caution due to the small number of studies reporting these two items and the short follow-up in the evaluation of cosmetic results. There were no significant differences in terms of postoperative pain or length of hospital stay between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SILA is comparable to CLA in selected patients, although it is associated with a higher technical failure rate and longer operative time. Further randomized trials are needed to determine if SILA really offers benefits over CLA.

[Drainage of amoebic liver abscess by single incision laparoscopic surgery. Report of a case]

BACKGROUND

Single incision laparoscopic surgery has increased recently due to successful results, achieved in several procedures. The aim of the present work is to present the first case in which single incision laparoscopy is used for the drainage of an amoebic liver abscess.

CLINICAL CASE

A 44-year-old man presented with intense right upper quadrant pain, generalised jaundice, tachycardia, fever, hepatomegaly and a positive Murphy's sign. Laboratory results revealed an increased plasma bilirubin, elevated alkaline phosphatase and transaminases, leucocytosis, negative viral panel for hepatitis, and positive antibodies against Entamoeba histolytica. On an abdominal computed tomography a 15 × 12.1 cm hypodense lesion was observed in the patient's liver, identified as an amoebic liver abscess. Analgesics and antibiotics were started and subsequently the patient was submitted to laparoscopic drainage of the abscess using a single port approach. Drainage and irrigation of the abscess was performed. Four days later the patient was discharged without complications.

CONCLUSION

Management of amoebic liver abscess is focused on the elimination of the infectious agent and obliteration of the abscess cavity in order to prevent its complications, especially rupture. Laparoscopic surgery has proved to be a safe and effective way to manage this entity.

Gasless transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy as a safe and cost-effective alternative surgical procedure for mild acute appendicitis

PURPOSE

Several reports have demonstrated the effectiveness and feasibility of single incisional transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy (TULAA). We developed a modified TULAA technique, gasless-TULAA, which involves lifting the abdominal wall with a retractor, without pneumoperitoneum or another incision.

METHODS

We assessed the surgical outcomes of 257 patients treated for appendicitis in our hospital between 2005 and 2013. In a preoperative comprehensive evaluation, appendicitis without abscess was defined as mild appendicitis (mild appendicitis group: MAG), and appendicitis with abscess was defined as severe appendicitis (severe appendicitis group: SAG). The clinical outcomes were compared with those in other published reports. The cost-effectiveness of gasless-TULAA was compared with that of conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (CMLA) in our hospital.

RESULTS

In MAG (n = 228), the operation time and postoperative hospital stay were 46.9 ± 22.7 min and 2.6 ± 1.2 days, respectively. The gasless-TULAA was completed without trocars in 91.2 % of patients. The surgical outcomes of SAG were significantly worse than those of MAG (p < 0.001). The surgical cost of gasless-TULAA was significantly lower than that of CMLA (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Gasless-TULAA is a cost-effective, safe, and readily available surgical technique for mild appendicitis, which can obviate the need for specialized equipment.

Cosmetic outcomes following appendectomy in children: a comparison of surgical techniques

BACKGROUND

Although cosmetic superiority is widely stated as an advantage of single-incision laparoscopy, there are limited studies looking at cosmetic outcome. We sought to determine patients' cosmetic satisfaction after undergoing appendectomy by the single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA), multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), or open appendectomy (OA) procedure.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Five hundred eighty pediatric patients who underwent appendectomy at a single institution between February 2010 and July 2011 were identified and asked to complete the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS), a validated evaluation tool for linear scars. In addition, patients were asked the "Ultimate Question" (UQ), which correlates with a patient's overall satisfaction. Linear regression models were used to examine differences between surgical approaches with statistical significance set at P<.05. Covariates for all models included patient demographics, length of stay, and surgeon.

RESULTS

In total, 212 surveys were returned (SILA, 122; LA, 41; OA, 49) for a response rate of 37%. Regression models demonstrated significantly higher mean total PSAS scores for patients who underwent SILA and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) appendectomy procedures compared with the open procedure (SILA, 8.70; LA, 8.86; OA, 8.01; β=-0.21, P<.05). Patients who experienced the SILA and LA procedures reported significantly higher mean UQ scores compared with OA (SILA, 9.79; LA, 9.75; OA, 9.39; β=-0.22, P<.05). SILA patients reported a 10 on the UQ significantly more often (91.1%) compared with either LA (81%) or OA (75.5%) (P<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

SILA or LA appendectomy was associated with significantly increased cosmetic satisfaction by patients and their families when compared with OA. This is the first study to show that pediatric patients value attempts to minimize scarring with laparoscopic surgery. Further studies are needed to determine if specific patient factors influence satisfaction with scars.

Single-port onlay mesh repair of recurrent inguinal hernias after failed anterior and laparoscopic repairs

Background and Objectives:

Despite the exponential increase in the use of laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy, overall recurrence rates have remained unchanged. Therefore, a growing number of patients are presenting with recurrent hernias after conventional anterior and laparoscopic repairs have failed. This study reports our experience with single-incision laparoscopic (SIL) intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair of these hernias.

Methods:

Patients referred with two or more recurrences of inguinal hernia underwent SIL-IPOM from November 1, 2009, to June 24, 2014. A 2.5-cm infraumbilical incision was made, and an SIL port was placed intraperitoneally. Modified dissection techniques were used: chopstick and inline dissection, 5.5-mm/52-cm/30° angled laparoscope, and conventional straight dissecting instruments. The peritoneum was incised above the pubic symphysis, and dissection was continued laterally and proximally, raising the inferior flap below the previous extraperitoneal mesh while reducing any direct, indirect, femoral, or cord lipoma before placement of antiadhesive mesh, which was fixed to the pubic ramus, as well as superiorly, with nonabsorbable tacks before the inferior border was fixed with fibrin sealant. The inferior peritoneal flap was then tacked back onto the mesh.

Results:

Nine male patients underwent SIL-IPOM. Their mean age was 53 years and mean body mass index was 26.8 kg/m². Mean mesh size was 275 cm². Mean operation time was 125 minutes, with a hospital stay of 1 day. The umbilical scar length was 23 mm at the 6-week follow-up. There were no intra-/postoperative complications, port-site hernias, chronic groin pain, or recurrence of the hernia during a mean follow-up of 24 months.

Conclusion:

Inguinal hernias recurring after two or more failed conventional anterior and laparoscopic repairs can be safely and efficiently treated with SIL-IPOM.

Acute appendicitis can be treated with single-incision laparoscopy: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

AIM

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has been proposed as the next step in minimally invasive surgery for appendicectomy. Previous reviews have summarized the results of low-evidence comparative studies, suggesting that the two approaches are comparable in terms of outcomes but showing the need for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This review offers a meta-analyses of RCTs on this topic to evaluate the safety and efficacy of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA).

METHOD

A comprehensive research of electronic databases was performed. Primary outcomes (overall and access-specific morbidity) were designated as safety issues. Secondary outcomes were pain, cosmesis, operative time, conversion rate and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

After exclusions, five RCTs satisfied the inclusion criteria. They included a total of 761 patients [379 SILA and 382 conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomies (CLA)]. No significant differences were found in overall morbidity, early wound morbidity or length of stay between SILA and CLA. Cosmesis and pain were not comparable due to different scales and time records. Conclusions on the incisional hernia rate were not reliable due to short follow-up periods.

CONCLUSION

SILA can be considered an acceptable alternative to CLA in the treatment of acute appendicitis, but an economic evaluation of the various techniques for single access must be performed before its widespread clinical introduction. Better-designed RCTs are necessary to define a population in which SILA could have major benefits.

Single-site laparoscopic appendectomy in children using conventional instruments: a prospective, randomized, control trial

PURPOSE

Single-site laparoscopic surgery (SSLS) is still only used in limited situations to treat children with appendicitis. Using conventional laparoscopic (CL) equipment to perform SSLS appendectomy is considered a valuable application in China. This prospective randomized trial aims to evaluate the surgical outcome of SSLS and CL appendectomy using CL equipment.

METHODS

Sixty patients were recruited and randomly assigned to receive SSLS or 3-port CL appendectomy between February 2011 and June 2013. Each case of SSLS appendectomy was performed using CL instruments. Surgery outcomes, including operative time, conversion rates, postoperative complications, hospital stays, and hospital costs were evaluated.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were similar between groups. The SSLS using CL instruments was successful in all the 30 patients and no conversions occurred. Mean operative time was longer in the SSLS group than the CL group (64.3 ± 3.1 vs 53.0 ± 2.9 min, respectively; p = 0.000). Complication rates, lengths of hospital stay, and hospital costs were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study demonstrate that using conventional instruments to perform SSLS is technically feasible and safe in children. Although SSLS appendectomy does increase the operative time, it does not increase the complication rate and hospital cost.

Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy versus conventional 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy for appendicitis: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and safety of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) and conventional 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy (3-port LA) for appendectomy.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Springer link, and the Cochrane library databases up to April, 2014, for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data were pooled by weighted mean differences (WMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

We found 11 RCTs, with a collective total of 731 patients treated with SILA and 725 patients treated with 3-point LA. Results indicated no significant differences between SILA and 3-port LA in primary outcomes, including wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus, and total postoperative complications, and some secondary outcomes, including postoperative pain scores and length of hospital stay. However, SILA was associated with significantly longer operative times (WMD = 6.78, 95% CI = 3.78-9.79, P < 0.00001) and higher doses of analgesia (WMD = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.45-1.47, P = 0.0002) than the 3-port LA.

CONCLUSION

Although there was no significant difference in the safety of SILA vs. that of 3-port LA, our findings do not support the application of SILA because of its significantly longer operative times and the higher doses of analgesia required compared with those for 3-point LA.

Single incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of single incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) in comparison with conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (CMLA) has not been conclusively determined.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (Medline, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) was performed. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SILA with CMLA were carried out by RevMan 5.0 software.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs comparing SILA and CMLA were included. Overall, 1,216 patients were operated on: 611 cases by SILA versus 605 cases by CMLA. Compared with CMLA, SILA was associated with increased procedural difficulty, prolonged procedural duration, shorter length of hospital stay, earlier return to normal activity and better cosmesis. There were no significant differences in postoperative pain scores and complication rates between SILA and CMLA.

CONCLUSION

The current best evidence shows SILA holds the promise of improving postoperative recovery and cosmetic result with equal efficacy and safety, whereas it is associated with higher surgical difficulty with longer surgical time when compared with CMLA.

Effectiveness and safety of single-incision vs conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy: A meta-analysis

AIM: To evaluate the safety and clinical effectiveness of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA).

METHODS: We electronically searched The Cochrane Library (Issue 5, 2014), EMbase, PubMed, China Academic Journal, Chinese Science and Technology Journal Full-text database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, VIP and Wanfang Data until June 1, 2014. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) describing SILA and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (CTLA) were included. The quality of included studies was assessed and analyzed using RevMan 5 software (version 5.2).

RESULTS: A total of 12 RCTs involving 1577 patients were included. Meta-analysis indicated that compared with CTLA, there were significant differences in cosmetic result score (SMD = 0.52, 95%CI: 0.21-0.83, P = 0.001) and operative time (MD = 7.10, 95%CI: 4.31-9.89, P < 0.00001) in the SILA group. However, no differences were found in postoperative pain score (VAS), postoperative complications, postoperative abdominal abscess and hospital stay between the two groups.

CONCLUSION: SILA is a safe and effective technique for the treatment of uncomplicated benign appendix disease, and it has certain advantages over the CTLA.

Underweight body mass index as a predictive factor for surgical site infections after laparoscopic appendectomy

PURPOSE

Analyses of risk factors associated with surgical site infections (SSIs) after laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) have been limited. Especially, the association of an underweight body mass index (BMI) with SSIs has not been clearly defined. This study aimed to identify the impact of underweight BMI in predicting SSIs after LA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The records of a total of 101 consecutive patients aged ≥16 years who underwent LA by a single surgeon between March 2011 and December 2012 were retrieved from a prospectively collected database. The rate of SSIs was compared among the underweight, normal and overweight and obese groups. Also, univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the factors associated with SSIs.

RESULTS

The overall rate of SSIs was 12.8%. The superficial incisional SSI rate was highest in the underweight group (44.4% in the underweight group, 11.0% in the normal group, and 0% in the overweight and obese group, p=0.006). In univariate analysis, open conversion and being underweight were determined to be risk factors for SSIs. Underweight BMI was also found to be a significant predictor for SSIs in multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 10.0; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-49.5; p=0.005).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated underweight BMI as being associated with SSIs after LA. Surgeons should be more cautious to prevent SSIs in patients that are underweight when performing LA.

Single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic appendectomy: a case-matched comparative analysis

BACKGROUND

The multiport technique is the gold standard for laparoscopic appendectomy, but the use of single-incision laparoscopy is on the increase. The aim of the present study was to compare case-matched cohorts of patients who had undergone single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) with those who had undergone conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (MLA).

METHODS

In a case-matched analysis, all single-incision laparoscopic appendectomies performed between July 2009 and December 2013 at one institution were reviewed and compared to multiport laparoscopic appendectomies performed during the same period. Patients who had undergone SILA were matched in terms of age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores with the same number of patients who had undergone MLA. Statistical evaluation included the description and comparison of demographic factors, details of surgery, and histological data. A univariate analysis was performed to assess potential risk factors for morbidity after SILA.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-six patients who had undergone SILA were reviewed, matched, and compared to the same number of patients who had undergone MLA. No significant difference was noted in mean operating times (50.83 vs. 50.61 min for SILA and MLA, respectively; p = 0.924) and the length of hospital stay (3.60 vs. 3.66 days; p = 0.704). No patient in either group required conversion to the open procedure while 6 (3.8 %) SILA patients were converted to multiport laparoscopy. SILA was not associated with significantly higher postoperative morbidity compared to MLA (9.6 % vs. 5.8 %; p = 0.288). Postoperative wound infection rates were higher after SILA (3.2 % vs. 0.6 %), but did not achieve statistical significance (p = 0.214). Statistical analysis revealed no risk factors for developing postoperative complications after the single-incision procedure.

CONCLUSION

SILA is a technically feasible and safe alternative to conventional MLA. The two procedures did not differ in terms of operating times, length of hospital stay, and postoperative outcomes.

Single-incision versus three-port laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (TPLA) has been shown superior to open appendectomy for acute appendicitis (AA); alternatively, single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) is gaining popularity. The choice between SILA and traditional TPLA remains controversial. This meta-analysis of high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aims to compare efficacy and safety of SILA with TPLA for AA.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for RCTs comparing SILA with TPLA. Reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, conference proceedings, and ongoing trial databases were also searched. Primary outcomes were operative time, postoperative complications, hospital duration, and days back to normal activities. Meta-analysis was conducted where possible comparing items using weighted mean differences (WMDs) and relative risks (RRs) according to type of data. Methodological quality was evaluated to assess bias risk.

RESULTS

A total of 8 distinct RCTs comparing SILA (n = 616) with TPLA (n = 618) published from 2010 to 2013 were identified in our analysis. SILA took longer to conduct than TPLA (43 vs 38, WMD: 5.96, 95 % CI 2.54-9.38, P = 0.0006). Patients undergoing SILA needed more extra trocars addressed during operation (7 % vs 0 %, RR: 12.36, 95 % CI 3.83-39.90, P < 0.0001), but could return to full activities earlier (6 vs 7, WMD: -0.68, 95 % CI -1.10 to -0.26, P = 0.001). However, these differences were not clinically significant. All other parameters were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

These results provide level 1a support for the clinical similarity that SILA is basically as feasible, effective and safe as TPLA when dealing with AA, although statistically, SILA takes longer to perform, requires more extra trocars, and benefits patients with faster recovery compared with TPLA. Further RCTs are needed to update our finding with advancement of surgical techniques and skills.

Meta-analysis of randomized trials on single-incision laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy has emerged as a less invasive alternative to conventional laparoscopic surgery. High-quality relevant evidence is limited.

METHODS

A systematic review of electronic information sources was undertaken, with the objective of identifying randomized trials that compared single-incision with conventional laparoscopic appendectomy. Outcome measures included 30-day morbidity, abdominal abscess, wound infection, open conversion, reoperation, operative time, length of hospital stay, and postoperative pain. Fixed-effects and random-effects models were used to calculate combined overall effect sizes of pooled data. Data are presented as odds ratios or weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Five randomized trials were identified, with a total of 746 patients. Thirty-day morbidity (9.6% vs 8.6%; odds ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, .69 to 1.89) and wound infection rates were similar between single-incision and conventional laparoscopy (4.0% vs 4.8%; odds ratio, .83; 95% CI, .41 to 1.68), whereas the duration of surgery was longer in the single-incision group (46.3 vs 40.7 minutes; weighted mean difference, 6.01; 95% CI, 2.26 to 9.76). Available data were not adequately robust to reach conclusions regarding the remaining outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar postoperative morbidity and wound infection rates for single-incision and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy are supported by the current literature, but single-incision surgery requires longer operative time.

Outcomes of a single-port laparoscopic appendectomy using a glove port with a percutaneous organ-holding device and commercially-available multichannel single-port device

Purpose

A laparoscopic appendectomy is now commonly performed. The push in recent years toward reducing the number of ports required to perform this surgery has led to the development of a single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SPA). We compared postoperative pain after an SPA using a glove port with a percutaneous organ-holding device (group 1) with that of an SPA using a commercially-available multichannel single-port device (group 2).

Methods

Between March 2010 and July 2011, a retrospective study was conducted of a total of 77 patients who underwent an SPA by three surgeons at department of surgery, Kangbuk Samsung Medical Center. Thirty-eight patients received an SPA using a glove port with a percutaneous organ-holding device. The other 39 patients received an SPA using a commercially-available multichannel single port (Octo-Port or SILS Port). Operative details and postoperative outcomes were collected and evaluated.

Results

There were no differences in the mean operative times, times to pass gas, postoperative hospital stays, or cosmetic satisfaction scores between the two groups. The pain score in the first 24 hours after surgery was higher in group 2 than group 1 patients (P < 0.001). Furthermore, the trocar used in group 2 was more expensive than that used in group 1.

Conclusion

An SPA using a glove port with a percutaneous organ-holding device was associated with a lower pain score during the first 24 hours after surgery because of the shorter fascia incision length and a cheaper cost than an SPA using a commercially-available multichannel single-port device.

Prospective, randomized comparative study between single-port laparoscopic appendectomy and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic appendectomy is probably the technique of choice in acute appendicitis. Single port laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has been proposed as an alternative technique. The objective of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of SILS against conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (LA).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From January 2011 to September 2012, 120 patients with acute appendicitis were prospectively randomized; 60 for SILS and 60 for LA. Patients between 15 to 65 years were selected, with onset of symptoms less than 48h. We compared BMI, surgery time, start of oral intake, hospital stay, postoperative pain, pathology and costs.

RESULTS

The median age, BMI, sex and time of onset of symptoms to diagnosis were similar. There were no statistically significant differences in the operative time, start of oral intake or hospital stay. There was a significant difference in postoperative pain being higher in SILS (4±1.3) than in LA (3.3±0.5) with a P=.004. Flemonous appendicitis predominated in both groups in a similar percentage. A total of 3 cases with intra-abdominal abscess (SILS 2, LA 1) required readmission and resolved spontaneously with intravenous antibiotic treatment. One case of SILS required assistance by a 5mm trocar in the RLC for drainage placement. The cost was higher in SILS due the single port device.

CONCLUSION

SILS appendectomy is safe, effective and has similar results to LA in selected patients, and although the cost is greater, the long term results will determine the future of this technique.

Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) has gained enormous popularity worldwide. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess feasibility, safety, and benefits of SILA as compared with conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA).

METHODS

A literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library was performed to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Primary outcome measures were total postoperative complications, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, and ileus. Secondary outcome measures were operative time, length of hospital stay, pain scores, conversion rate, reoperation rate, and time to return to normal activity.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs, totaling 1,211 patients (604 for SILA and 607 for CLA), met the inclusion criteria. The incidences of total postoperative complications, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, and ileus were statistically similar between the SILA and CLA groups. Compared with CLA, SILA was associated with a significantly longer operative time (weighted mean difference = 5.28 min; 95 % confidence interval = 3.61 to 6.94). Time to return to normal activity was shorter in the SILA group (by 0.69 days). Length of hospital stay, pain scores, conversion rate, and reoperation rate were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

SILA is feasible and safe with no obvious advantages over CLA. Therefore, it may be considered as an alternative to CLA.

Laparoscopic appendectomy: State of the art. Tailored approach to the application of laparoscopic appendectomy?

Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency in developed countries. The treatment of acute appendicitis is either open or laparoscopic appendectomy. The latter has gained wide acceptance in the past years, although the debate on the true merits of laparoscopic appendectomy is still on going. Some authors prefer this approach as the gold standard for all patients, but in our opinion a tailored approach is warranted for specific patient groups. In addition, a standardised guideline on the technical aspects is still lacking. In the current article, open versus laparoscopic appendectomy and several technical aspects, such as stump closure, appendix extraction and single incision are discussed laparoscopic appendectomy are being addressed. In the future perspectives we will briefly discuss the third 'newly' introduced antibiotic treatment.

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

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare clinical outcomes following single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy (SILA) and conventional multiport laparoscopic appendicectomy (CLA) for the treatment of acute appendicitis.

METHODS

An electronic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases was performed. Publications were included if they were clinical trials randomizing patients with appendicitis to SILA or CLA. Outcome measures evaluated included operating time, length of hospital stay, total postoperative complications, and, specifically, wound infection, intra-abdominal collection and ileus. Weighted mean difference was calculated for the effect size of SILA on continuous variables, and pooled odds ratios were calculated for discrete variables.

RESULTS

The literature search identified seven randomized clinical trials that met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. In total, 1108 appendicectomies were included, 555 SILA and 553 CLA procedures. There were no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of total postoperative complications, wound infection, intra-abdominal collection, ileus or length of hospital stay. However, SILA was associated with a significantly longer operating time compared with CLA (weighted mean difference 6·96 (95 per cent confidence interval 3·79 to 10·12) min; P < 0·001). Insertion of an additional port was required in 7·6 per cent of patients undergoing SILA.

CONCLUSION

SILA is a safe procedure for the treatment of acute appendicitis, with comparable clinical outcome to CLA when undertaken by experienced laparoscopic surgeons.

Patient and parental scar assessment after single incision versus standard 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy: long-term follow-up from a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Single site laparoscopy for appendectomy is a technique with several case series suggesting a cosmetic advantage, but without prospective comparative data. We conducted a prospective, randomized trial comparing single site laparoscopic appendectomy to the standard 3-port approach, including scar assessment at early and long-term follow-up.

METHODS

Enrolled patients over 12years old and parents of patients less than 12years old were asked to complete the validated Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire (PSAQ) at early follow-up around 6weeks and by phone after 18months. The PSAQ consists of 4 scored subscales: Appearance, Consciousness, Appearance Satisfaction, and Symptom Satisfaction. Each subscale has a set of questions with a 4-point categorical response (1=most favorable, 4=least favorable). The sum of the scores quantifies each subscale.

RESULTS

Early questionnaires were obtained from 98 3-port and 100 single-site patients with the single-site approach producing superior overall scar assessment (P=0.003). By telephone follow-up, questionnaires were completed by 49 3-port and 56 single-site patients at a median of 25 (18-32) months. In this longer-term follow-up, overall scar assessment was not significantly different between groups (P=0.06).

CONCLUSION

Patients or parents express superior scar assessment with the single site approach at early follow-up, but this difference disappears in the long-term.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of open, laparoscopic and single port appendicectomies

INTRODUCTION

Appendicectomy is the most common surgical procedure performed in general surgery. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of open appendicectomy (OA), laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) and single port laparoscopic appendicectomy (SPLA).

METHODS

Fifty consecutive patients with suspected acute appendicitis were studied (OA: n=20, LA: n=20, SPLA: n=10). Clinical outcomes were compared between the three groups in terms of operative time, blood loss, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay and cost.

RESULTS

Patient demographics were similar among groups (p>0.05). SPLA was characterised by longer operative time (88.1 minutes vs 35.6 minutes in OA and 33.4 minutes in LA) and higher costs (12.84 thousand Chinese yuan [RMB] vs 8.41 thousand RMB in LA and 4.99 thousand RMB in OA). OA was characterised by more blood loss (9.8ml vs 7.5ml in SPLA and 6.8ml in LA), longer hospital stay (7.5 days vs 3.5 days in LA and 3.4 days in SPLA) and lower costs. The total number of complications was higher for OA (n=2) than for LA and SPLA (n=0) although this was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Where feasible, LA should be undertaken as the initial treatment of choice for most cases of suspected appendicitis.

Comparison of various methods of mesoappendix dissection in laparoscopic appendectomy

PURPOSE

Although laparoscopic appendectomy is one of the most commonly performed operations, operation procedures vary widely according to the surgeon. In particular, various methods using different instruments have been used for mesoappendix dissection, such as endostapler, endoclip (EC), Harmonic(®) (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati, OH) scalpel (HS), electrocautery, and LigaSure™ (Covidien, Mansfield, MA). Here we compared the results of mesoappendix dissection by EC, HS, and monopolar electrocautery (ME).

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

The study was performed on 1178 patients who received laparoscopic appendectomy at the Armed Forces Capital Hospital, Seongnam, Korea, from January 2003 to April 2013. Patients receiving mesoappendix dissection involving EC, HS, or ME were enrolled. Patient demographics, pathology of appendix, and perioperative data including operation time, hospital stay, and complications were analyzed. A theoretical model of disposable cost was constructed for each method to compare cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

The average operation time for the 1178 patients was 58.0±24.9 minutes for the EC group, 51.4±25.5 minutes for the HS group, and 57.7±25.7 minutes for the ME group. The time for the HS group was significantly shorter. Hospital stay and complication rates did not differ. Disposable costs were 620,350 South Korean won (KRW) (571 U.S. dollars) for the EC group, 1,041,230 KRW (959 U.S. dollars) for the HS group, and 491,230 KRW (452 U.S. dollars) for the ME group.

CONCLUSIONS

The operation time of ME was similar to that of EC. Although HS had a significantly shorter operation time, the operation time of all three methods was under 60 minutes. All three methods had acceptable complication rates. ME was the most cost-effective method and, given the other similarities, can be recommended for mesoappendix dissection in laparoscopic appendectomy.

Patient scar assessment after single-incision versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: long-term follow-up from a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The single-incision laparoscopic approach for cholecystectomy has been reported to be cosmetically superior in the traditional four-port technique in several case series; however, prospective comparative data are lacking. We conducted a 60-patient, prospective, randomized trial comparing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with standard four-port cholecystectomy, including validated scar assessment evaluation around 6 weeks and 18 months after the operation in an effort to determine if a cosmetic advantage existed.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients over 12 years of age and parents of patients under 12 years of age enrolled in the trial were asked to complete the validated Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire (PSAQ). The PSAQ consists of four subscales: Appearance, Consciousness, Satisfaction with Appearance, and Satisfaction with Symptoms. The Symptoms subscale is omitted from analysis per PSAQ instructions because of insufficient reliability. Each subscale is a set of items with 4-point categorical responses (from 1=most favorable to 4=least favorable). The sum of the questions quantifies each subscale. Data are expressed as mean±standard deviation values.

RESULTS

Eighteen single-site patients and 8 four-port patients completed early questionnaires, in which there was no difference in overall scar assessment (P=.17). Telephone follow-up was accomplished for 17 single-site patients and 24 four-port patients and revealed that the overall scar assessment significantly favored the single-site approach (P=.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients or parents of patients do not identify an overall superior scar assessment at early follow-up after single-site laparoscopic versus four-port cholecystectomy. However, they do perceive a superior scar assessment at long-term follow-up, suggesting that there is a cosmetic benefit favoring the single-site approach.

Comparison between single-incision and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy: a meta-analysis from eight RCTs

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy and safety of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA), we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (CTLA).

METHODS

RCTs comparing the effects of SILA and CTLA were searched for in PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase. Operative time, the pain visual analogue scales scores (VAS scores), dose of analgesics, postoperative complications, hospital charges, and duration of postoperative hospitalization in SILA and CTLA were pooled and compared by meta-analysis. Odds ratios and weighted mean differences (WMDs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to evaluate the effect of SILA.

RESULT

Eight original RCTs investigating 760 adults and 684 children, 1,444 patients in total, of whom 721 received SILA only and 723 received CTLA only, met the inclusion criteria. Both in adults and children, the mean operative time was significantly longer in SILA than CTLA (WMD5.45, 95% CI 2.15 to 8.75, p = 0.01). Compared with CTLA, in children, SILA have higher analgesic consumption (WMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.3, p = 0.03) and greater hospital charges (WMD 0.87, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.48, p = 0.005), which was not statistically different in adults (p > 0.05). Pooling the results for SILA and CTLA revealed no significant difference in VAS scores, wound infection rate, overall complications, and postoperative hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

SILA failed to show any obvious advantages over CTLA in perioperative and postoperative outcomes. Therefore, it represents a possible alternative to conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy.

Reduced port surgery for appendectomy: Early experience and surgical technique

AIM: To evaluate our experience and surgical technique of laparoscopic appendectomy via reduced port surgery (LARPS).

METHODS: Sixteen patients (8 men and 8 women; median age: 31.0 years) who underwent LARPS between November 2009 and May 2012 were included in the present study. We performed LARPS, in which access devices were inserted through an umbilical skin incision with 1 additional skin incision in the left lower abdomen. After setting access devices, pneumoperitoneum was maintained at 10 mmHg using CO₂ and a 3 mm trocar was positioned (or direct puncture was performed by the Endo Relief system) under laparoscopic guidance. The mesoappendix was dissected using an ultrasonically activated device. After mesoappendix dissection, ligation was performed near the appendix base and the appendix was dissected using an ultrasonically activated device. The appendix was then removed. At the end of surgery, we administered local anesthesia with ropivacaine 1% (10 mL) for the skin incisions. The outcomes were evaluated in terms of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, length of postoperative hospital stay and surgical complications.

RESULTS: Our surgical procedure allowed operators to use instruments as in conventional laparoscopic appendectomy. The basic principle of triangulation of instrumentation was maintained to some degree. LARPS was performed in 9 patients with catarrhal appendicitis, 5 with phlegmonous appendicitis, and 2 with gangrenous appendicitis. The median surgery time was 60 min and the median intraoperative blood loss was 1.2 mL. The median length of postoperative hospitalization was 4 d. There were no conversions to open surgery, no operation-related complications or mortality.

CONCLUSION: Our experience and surgical technique suggest that LARPS is a safe and feasible procedure for patients with appendicitis.