Randomized clinical trial of single-port, minilaparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Versus Conventional Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

The present systematic review compares single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) with the aim of assessing early postoperative pain and morbidity. The secondary outcomes assessed were the duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, and conversion to open surgery. A systematic search for medical records was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4. A total of 14 randomized control trials met the eligibility criteria, involving a total of 1762 patients. Early postoperative pain (four to six hours) (mean difference (MD): -0.86; 95%; confidence interval (CI): -1.16 to -0.55) showed significantly better results in the SILC group but showed no difference on the first or second postoperative day. There were significantly fewer complications (relative risk (RR): 1.7; 95%; CI: 1.16-2.50) recorded in the CLC group as compared to the SILC group. Operative time (MD: 19.66; 95% CI: 13.21-26.11) was significantly longer in the SILC group, while the duration of hospital stay (MD: -0.01; 95% CI: -0.28-0.26) and conversion to open surgery (RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.20-4.82) showed no significant difference. SILC had a significantly longer operative time and more complications as compared to CLC. However, it was associated with significantly lower early post-operative pain.

Single-Incision Pediatric Laparoscopic Surgery: Surgical Outcomes, Feasibility Indication, and the Systematic Review

Background: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILs) has reported the evidence in basic and advanced pediatric laparoscopy. The objective was to review the feasibility and outcomes between basic and advanced procedures of the conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLs) and the SILs at our institute, and to compare the results with the published studies in a systematic review and meta-analysis. Patients and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted from January 2017 to March 2020. Demographic data, operations, conversion rate, and complications were collected and analyzed. The MEDLINE and PubMed were searched in relation to the pediatric SILs and the pediatric CLs in the published series from 1985 to 2021. We combined our retrospective study with a systematic review for meta-analysis. Results: Two hundred twenty-seven patients underwent pediatric laparoscopic surgery during the study period. The procedures included 199 (87.7%) for basic laparoscopy (appendectomy, cholecystectomy, testicular vessel ligation, closure of indirect inguinal hernia, and hydrocele) and 28 (13.3%) for advanced laparoscopy (Meckel diverticulectomy, pull-through operation for Hirschsprung's disease, choledochal cyst excision, and Nissen fundoplication). There was no statistical significance in operative time, length of stay (LOS), conversion rate, recurrence, and complication. The systematic review demonstrated 19 studies and, combined with our present study, produced 2865 patients for analysis. The meta-analysis reported increased LOS in the SILs group in cholecystectomy (mean difference [MD] 0.23 day, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.02-0.43 day, P = .03 and I² = 0%) and choledochal cyst excision (MD 0.18 day, 95% CI 0.02-0.33 day, P = .03 and I² = 0%). There was no statistical difference in operative time, LOS, conversion, and complication in other procedures. Conclusion: The SILs is a feasible indication and safe for surgical pediatric laparoscopy including basic to advanced procedure laparoscopy. It is demonstrated that there were no statistical differences in the operative time, LOS, and the complication. However, LOS in some procedures seems to be different due to the complexity and guideline.

Minilaparoscopic over conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy and appendectomy: is it worth it? A case series and review of literature

Minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy was proposed with the aim to improve the cosmesis and reduce the impact on the abdominal wall. Our aim was to analyze the knowledge currently available on this topic with a review of literature and with our experience to suggest patient-centered approach over the use of minilaparoscopic cholecystectomies and appendectomies. From January 2021 to October 2021, we performed 21 minilaparoscopic cholecystectomies and 12 minilaparoscopic appendectomies. Within the established 1-month and 3-month follow-up intervals, clinical examination and scar evaluation were assessed and a satisfaction questionnaire was completed by all the patients. No intraoperative or postoperative complications were recorded. Patients' pain decreases significantly during hospital stay and 30 patients (90,1%) were discharged with VAS 0. The same happened with aesthetic score, that was 2,23 the postoperative-day-1, decrease to 1,87 1 week later and was 1,12 at 1- and 3-month follow-up.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

Healthcare requires patient feedback to improve outcomes and experience. This study undertook a systematic review of the depth, variability, and digital suitability of current patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods

A PROSPERO-registered (registration number CRD42021261707) systematic review was undertaken for all relevant English language articles using PubMed version of MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science electronic databases in June 2021. The search used Boolean operators and wildcards and included the keywords: laparoscopic cholecystectomy AND patient outcome OR patient-reported outcome OR patient-reported outcome measure OR PRO OR PROM. Medical Subjects Heading terms were used to search PubMed and Scopus. Articles published from 1 January 2011 to 2 June 2021 were included.

Results

A total of 4960 individual articles were reviewed in this study, of which 44 were found to evaluate PROMs in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and underwent methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) grading. Twenty-one articles spanning 19 countries and four continents met all inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative data synthesis. There was significant heterogeneity in PROMs identified with eight different comprehensive PROM tools used in the 21 studies. There was wide variation in the time points at which PROMs were recorded. Fourteen of 21 studies recorded PROMs before and after surgery, and 7 of 21 recorded PROMs only after surgery. Follow-up intervals ranged from 3 days to 2 years after surgery.

Conclusions

This study identified that while post-laparoscopic cholecystectomy PROMs are infrequently measured currently, tools are widely available to achieve this in clinical practice. PROMs may not capture all the outcomes but should be incorporated into future cholecystectomy outcome research. The EQ-5D™ (EuroQoL Group, Rotterdam, the Netherlands) provides a simple platform for the modern digital era.

Minimally invasive gastrointestinal surgery: From past to the future

The improvement of the science and art of surgery began over 150 years ago. Surgical core tasks, “cutting and sewing” with hand and direct contact with the organs, have remained the same. However, in the 21st century, there has been a shifting paradigm in the methodology of surgery. The joint union between innovators, engineers, industry, and patient demands resulted in minimally invasive surgery (MIS). This method has influenced the techniques in every aspect of abdominal surgery, such as surgeons are not required to direct contact or see the structures on which they operate. Advances in the endoscope, imaging, and improved instrumentations convert the essential open surgery into the endoscopic method. Furthermore, computers and robotics show a promising future to facilitate complex procedures, enhance accuracy in microscale operations, and develop a simulation to improve the ability to face sophisticated approaches. MIS has been replacing open surgery due to improved survival, fewer complications, and rapid recoveries in recent years. Minimally invasive surgery's further research in diagnostic and therapeutic modalities is under investigation to achieve genuinely “noninvasive” surgery. Thus, MIS has gained interest in recent days and has been improving with promising outcomes.

•

Minimally invasive surgery has interfered with multiple aspects of the surgical approach.

•

Advancement in the endoscope, imaging, and other instrumentations shifting the current methodological conventional surgery.

•

The benefit over risk is the promising primary outcome to achieve an exceptional quality of life.

Comparative outcomes of needlescopic, single-incision laparoscopic, standard laparoscopic, mini-laparotomy, and open cholecystectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of 96 randomized controlled trials with 11,083 patients

BACKGROUND

Most randomized trials on minimally invasive cholecystectomy have been conducted with standard (3/4-port) laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy serving as the control group. However, there exists a dearth of head-to-head trials that directly compare different minimally invasive techniques for cholecystectomy (eg, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus needlescopic cholecystectomy). Hence, it remains largely unknown how the different minimally invasive cholecystectomy techniques fare up against one another.

METHODS

To minimize selection and confounding biases, only randomized controlled trials were considered for inclusion. Perioperative outcomes were compared using frequentist network meta-analyses. The interpretation of the results was driven by treatment effects and surface under the cumulative ranking curve values. A sensitivity analysis was also undertaken focusing on a subgroup of randomized controlled trials, which recruited patients with only uncomplicated cholecystitis.

RESULTS

Ninety-six eligible randomized controlled trials comprising 11,083 patients were identified. Risk of intra-abdominal infection or abscess, bile duct injury, bile leak, and open conversion did not differ significantly between minimally invasive techniques. Needlescopic cholecystectomy was associated with the lowest rates of wound infection (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.977) with an odds ratio of 0.095 (95% confidence interval: 0.023-0.39), 0.32 (95% confidence interval: 0.11-0.98), 0.33 (95% confidence interval: 0.11-0.99), 0.36 (95% confidence interval: 0.14-0.98) compared to open cholecystectomy, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, mini-laparotomy, and standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy, respectively. Mini-laparotomy was associated with the shortest operative time (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.981) by a mean difference of 22.20 (95% confidence interval: 13.79-30.62), 12.17 (95% confidence interval: 1.80-22.54), 9.07 (95% confidence interval: 1.59-16.54), and 8.36 (95% confidence interval: -1.79 to 18.52) minutes when compared to single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, needlescopic cholecystectomy, standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and open cholecystectomy, respectively. Needlescopic cholecystectomy appeared to be associated with the shortest hospitalization (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.717) and lowest postoperative pain (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.928).

CONCLUSION

Perioperative outcomes differed across minimally invasive techniques and, in some instances, afforded superior outcomes compared to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. These findings suggest that there may be equipoise for exploring further the utility of novel minimally invasive techniques and potentially incorporating them into the general surgery training curriculum.

Identification and categorisation of relevant outcomes for symptomatic uncomplicated gallstone disease: in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set

BACKGROUND

Many completed trials of interventions for uncomplicated gallstone disease are not as helpful as they could be due to lack of standardisation across studies, outcome definition, collection and reporting. This heterogeneity of outcomes across studies hampers useful synthesis of primary studies and ultimately negatively impacts on decision making by all stakeholders. Core outcome sets offer a potential solution to this problem of heterogeneity and concerns over whether the 'right' outcomes are being measured. One of the first steps in core outcome set generation is to identify the range of outcomes reported (in the literature or by patients directly) that are considered important.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a systematic map that examines the variation in outcome reporting of interventions for uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease, and to identify other outcomes of importance to patients with gallstones not previously measured or reported in interventional studies.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 794 potentially relevant titles and abstracts of which 137 were deemed eligible for inclusion. A total of 129 randomised controlled trials, 4 gallstone disease specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and 8 qualitative studies were included. This was supplemented with data from 6 individual interviews, 1 focus group (n=5 participants) and analysis of 20 consultations. A total of 386 individual recorded outcomes were identified across the combined evidence: 330 outcomes (which were reported 1147 times) from trials evaluating interventions, 22 outcomes from PROMs, 17 outcomes from existing qualitative studies and 17 outcomes from primary qualitative research. Areas of overlap between the evidence sources existed but also the primary research contributed new, unreported in this context, outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study took a rigorous approach to catalogue and map the outcomes of importance in gallstone disease to enhance the development of the COS 'long' list. A COS for uncomplicated gallstone disease that considers the views of all relevant stakeholders is needed.

Minilaparoscopic Cholecystectomy Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: An Endless Debate

Background: Our systematic review and meta-analysis examine the impact of minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). Some authors previously compared these surgical approaches without reaching any clear conclusion, since then, further trials have been performed, but an update was needed. Materials and Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and the CENTRAL were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing MLC versus CLC up to August 2019. The outcome measures used for comparison were operative time (OT), overall morbidity, intra- and postoperative complications, conversion and reintervention rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), postoperative pain (POP), and cosmetic results. A meta-analysis of relevant studies was performed using RevMan 5.3. Results: Fifteen studies, including 863 patients, were considered eligible to collect data and entered the meta-analysis. A total of 415 patients in the MLC group versus 448 in the CLC group were compared. No statistical difference as for overall morbidity, intra- and postoperative complications, conversion and reintervention rate, LOS, and cosmetic results were retrieved among the groups. CLC results faster and MLC shows to be the least painful. Conclusions: According to the available high-level evidence, both surgical approaches resulted substantially equivalent to perform LC, with some advantages of CLC as for OT and of MLC concerning POP. As a consequence, we can conclude that either procedure is superior or inferior to the other one; actually, we are not able to suggest the adoption of any of the two on a routine basis.

Randomized controlled trial of single incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy with long-term follow-up

Background

Within the last years, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) emerged as an alternative to multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC). SLC has advantages in cosmetic results, and postoperative pain seems lower. Overall complications are comparable between SLC and MLC. However, long-term results of randomized trials are lacking, notably to answer questions about incisional hernia rates, long-term cosmetic impact and chronic pain.

Methods

A randomized trial of SLC versus MLC with a total of 193 patients between December 2009 and June 2011 was performed. The primary endpoint was postoperative pain on the first day after surgery. Secondary endpoints were conversion rate, operative time, intraoperative and postoperative morbidity, technical feasibility and hospital stay. A long-term follow-up after surgery was added.

Results

Ninety-eight patients (50.8%) underwent SLC, and 95 patients (49.2%) had MLC. Pain on the first postoperative day showed no difference between the operative procedures (SLC vs. MLC, 3.4 ± 1.8 vs. 3.7 ± 1.9, respectively; p = 0.317). No significant differences were observed in operating time or the overall rate of postoperative complications (4.1% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.731). SLC exhibited better cosmetic results in the short term. In the long term, after a mean of 70.4 months, there were no differences in incisional hernia rate, cosmetic results or pain at the incision between the two groups.

Conclusions

Taking into account a follow-up rate of 68%, the early postoperative advantages of SLC in relation to cosmetic appearance and pain did not persist in the long term. In the present trial, there was no difference in incisional hernia rates between SLC and MLC, but the sample size is too small for a final conclusion regarding hernia rates.

Trial registration

German Registry of Clinical Trials DRKS00012447

Safety and feasibility of prolonged versus early laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a single-center retrospective study

Background

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the standard treatment for acute cholecystitis (AC), and it should be performed within 72 h of symptoms onset if possible. In many undesired situations, LC was performed beyond the golden 72 h. However, the safety and feasibility of prolonged LC (i.e., performed more than 72 h after symptoms onset) are largely unknown, and therefore were investigated in this study.

Methods

We retrospectively enrolled the adult patients who were diagnosed as AC and were treated with LC at the same admission between January 2015 and October 2018 in an emergency department of a tertiary academic medical center in China. The primary outcome was the rate and severity of adverse events, while the secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay and costs.

Results

Among the 104 qualified patients, 70 (67.3%) underwent prolonged LC and 34 (32.7%) underwent early LC (< 72 h of symptom onset). There were no differences between the two groups in mortality rate (none for both), conversion rates (prolonged LC 5.4%, and early LC 8.8%, P = 0.68), intraoperative and postoperative complications (prolonged LC 5.7% and early LC 2.9%, P ≥ 0.99), operation time (prolonged LC 193.5 min and early LC 198.0 min, P = 0.81), and operation costs (prolonged LC 8,700 Yuan, and early LC 8,500 Yuan, P = 0.86). However, the prolonged LC was associated with longer postoperative hospitalization (7.0 days versus 6.0 days, P = 0.03), longer total hospital stay (11.0 days versus 8.0 days, P < 0.01), and subsequently higher total costs (40,400 Yuan versus 31,100 Yuan, P < 0.01).

Conclusions

Prolonged LC is safe and feasible for patients with AC for having similar rates and severity of adverse events as early LC, but it is also associated with longer hospital stay and subsequently higher total cost.

Single-port versus multiport laparoscopic surgery comparing long-term patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcome

Introduction

Several studies and meta-analysis showed Single-port or Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SPL) to be superior over Multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPL) mainly in terms of postoperative pain and cosmetic result. But very little is known whether these results are only a short-term effect or are persistent on the long run after SPL. We therefore evaluated and compared long-term outcomes regarding cosmesis and chronic pain after SPL and MPL.

Methods

We conducted a comparative study with propensity score matching of all patients undergoing SPL or MPL between October 2008 and December 2013 in terms of postoperative cosmetic results and chronic pain. Follow-up data were obtained from mailed patient questionnaires and telephone interviews. Postoperative cosmesis was assessed using the patients overall scar opinion on a 10-point scale and the Patients scale of the standardized Patient and Observer Scar assessment scale (POSAS). Chronic pain was assessed by 10-point scales for abdominal and umbilical scar pain.

Results

A total of 280 patients were included in the study with 188 patients (67.1%) after SPL and 92 patients (32.9%) following MPL. 141 patients (50.4%) underwent a cholecystectomy and 139 patients (49.6%) underwent an appendectomy. The mean follow-up time was 61.1 ± 19.1 months. The mean wound satisfaction assed by the overall scar and the PSOAS Patients scale score of the patients showed no significant difference between MPL and SPL. Patients after SPL reported more overall complains than after MPL (8.7% vs. 2.5%, respectively), but without statistical significance (p = 0.321). Umbilical pain scores were comparable between the two groups (1.4 ± 1.0 vs. 1.4 ± 1.0, p = 0.831).

Conclusion

We found no difference in long-term cosmetic outcomes after SPL and MPL. Chronic pain at the umbilical incision site was comparable on the long run.

Single-Port Laparoscopic Surgery Is Feasible and Safe for Hepatic Left Lateral Sectionectomy for Benign Liver Lesions

Background and Objectives

The feasibility and safety of single-port laparoscopic surgery for left lateral liver lobectomy are largely unknown. This study is aimed at comparing the effectiveness and safety between single-port laparoscopic (SPL) and conventional multiport laparoscopic (CL) surgeries for hepatic left lateral sectionectomy.

Methods

A total of 65 patients receiving laparoscopic hepatic left lateral sectionectomy between January 2008 and July 2015 were included and divided into the SPL group (n = 40) and the CL group (n = 25).

Results

There was no significant difference in the operative time, estimated intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, and incidences of postoperative complications (biliary leakage, hemorrhage, and contusion at incision) between groups (all P > 0.05). However, the SPL group had a significantly lower VAS pain score (at 24 h but not 7 days postoperation) and higher cosmetic satisfaction scores (at both 2 months and 6 months postoperation) than the CL group (all P < 0.01). Moreover, multivariate linear regression analysis further confirmed the superior pain score and cosmetic outcome in the SPL group.

Conclusions

Single-port laparoscopic hepatic left lateral sectionectomy is a safe and feasible treatment for patients with lesions in the left hepatic lobe. Patients with benign lesions in the left hepatic lobe are more suitable to receive single-port laparoscopic hepatic left lateral sectionectomy than those with malignancies.

A systematic review of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and quality of life reporting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide a valuable means of measuring outcomes subjectively from a patient's perspective, facilitating the assessment of service quality across healthcare providers, and assisting patients and clinicians in shared decision making. The primary aim of this systematic review was to critically appraise all historic studies evaluating patient reported quality of life, in adult patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstones. The secondary aim was to perform a quality assessment of cholecystectomy-specific PROM-validation studies. A literature review was performed in PubMed, Google ScholarTM, the Cochrane Library, Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsychINFO databases up to September 2017. Study characteristics, PROM-specific details and a bias assessment were summarised for non-validation studies. A COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) analysis was performed to assess the methodological quality of identified PROM-validation studies. Fifty one studies were found to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Although 94.1% of these studies included PROMs as a primary outcome measure, <20% provided level 1 evidence through randomised controlled trials (RCTs). There was significant variation in the selection and reporting of PROMs, with no studies declaring patient involvement in PROM selection, and 88.2% of studies failing to document the management of missing data points, or non-returned surveys (33.3%). In the 6 PROM-validation studies identified, only 5 psychometric properties were evaluated, the findings of which were limited due to the small number of studies. This systematic review identifies a lack in consistency of study design and PRO reporting in clinical trials. Whilst an increasing number of studies are being performed to evaluate PROs, a lack of adherence to existing PRO administration and reporting guidelines is continuing to negatively affect study quality. We recommend that future clinical trials utilizing PROs should adhere to established comprehensive guidelines as described.

European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery changed the management of numerous surgical conditions. It was associated with many advantages over open surgery, such as decreased postoperative pain, faster recovery, shorter hospital stay and excellent cosmesis. Since two decades single-incision endoscopic surgery (SIES) was introduced to the surgical community. SIES could possibly result in even better postoperative outcomes than multi-port laparoscopic surgery, especially concerning cosmetic outcomes and pain. However, the single-incision surgical procedure is associated with quite some challenges.

METHODS

An expert panel of surgeons has been selected and invited to participate in the preparation of the material for a consensus meeting on the topic SIES, which was held during the EAES congress in Frankfurt, June 16, 2017. The material presented during the consensus meeting was based on evidence identified through a systematic search of literature according to a pre-specified protocol. Three main topics with respect to SIES have been identified by the panel: (1) General, (2) Organ specific, (3) New development. Within each of these topics, subcategories have been defined. Evidence was graded according to the Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Recommendations were made according to the GRADE criteria.

RESULTS

In general, there is a lack of high level evidence and a lack of long-term follow-up in the field of single-incision endoscopic surgery. In selected patients, the single-incision approach seems to be safe and effective in terms of perioperative morbidity. Satisfaction with cosmesis has been established to be the main advantage of the single-incision approach. Less pain after single-incision approach compared to conventional laparoscopy seems to be considered an advantage, although it has not been consistently demonstrated across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the increased direct costs (devices, instruments and operating time) of the SIES procedure and the prolonged learning curve, wider acceptance of the procedure should be supported only after demonstration of clear benefits.

Quality of life after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized, clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Controversy continues as to whether single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, with the somewhat larger incision at the umbilicus, may lead to a worse postoperative quality of life and more pain compared with the more classic 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The aim of this study was to compare single-incision and 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy from the perspective of quality of life.

METHODS

This study was a multicenter, parallel-group, open-label, randomized clinical trial. A total of 120 patients who were scheduled to undergo elective cholecystectomy were randomly assigned 1:1 into the single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy or the 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy group and then assessed continuously for 2 weeks during the postoperative period. The primary outcome was quality of life, defined as the time to resume normal daily activities. Postoperative pain was also assessed. To explore the heterogeneity of treatment effects, we assessed the interactions of sex, age, and working status on recovery time.

RESULTS

A total of 58 patients in the single-incision group and 53 in the 4-port group (n = 111, 47 male, mean age 57 years) were analyzed. The mean time to resume daily activities was 10.2 days and 8.8 days, respectively, for single-incision and 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (95% confidence interval -0.4 to 3.2, P = .12). Similarly, the time to relief from postoperative pain did not differ significantly between the groups. Statistically insignificant but qualitative interactions were noted; in the subgroups of women, full-time workers, and patients younger than 60 years, recovery tended to be slower after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative quality of life did not differ substantially between single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients younger than 60 years, women, and full-time workers tended to have a somewhat slower recovery after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Analysis of post-operative complication in single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A retrospective analysis in 817 cases from a surgeon

BACKGROUND

Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) is a new advanced technique in laparoscopic surgery which has many benefits according to previous reports. The purpose of this study was to present personal experiences with SPLC in >800 cases performed by a surgeon to evaluate the safety and feasibility of this procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of 817 cases of SPLC was conducted. All patients had received elective SPLC by a surgeon in our centre during March 2009-August 2015. Our review suggests patients' character, peri-operative data and post-operative outcome.

RESULTS

Three hundred and ninety-eight men (48.7%) and 419 women (51.3%) with an average age of 48.3 years had received SPLC. Their mean body mass index (BMI) was 23.75 kg/m2. The mean operating time took 46.9 min (19-130). Seventy-nine cases (9.7%) needed additional port during operation. BMI, age and previous abdominal surgical history did not affect conversion to multiport surgery. Bile spillage during operation occurred in 73 cases (8.9%). There were 4 cases of open conversion because of bleeding (2 cases, 0.2%) and common bile duct (CBD) injury (2 cases, 0.2%). Mean duration of hospital stay was 2.36 days. We have experienced 38 cases (4.7%) of post-operative complication: 8 cases (1.0%) of major one and 30 cases (3.7%) of minor one. Major complication occurred in 3 cases (0.4%) of retained CBD stone, 3 cases (0.4%) of cystic duct leakage needed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and 2 cases (0.2%) of CBD injury needed reoperation. Most minor complications were wound infections that have healed after conservative treatment. There were no post-operative mortalities.

CONCLUSION

SPLC is a safe and practicable technique. With surgical experience, criteria and area of SPLC can be broadened. SPLC is occupying a greater domain of a laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Reporting of complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Consistent measurement and reporting of outcomes, including adequately defined complications, is important for the evaluation of surgical care and the appraisal of new surgical techniques. The range of complications reported after LC has not been evaluated. This study aimed to identify the range of complications currently reported for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), and the adequacy of their definitions.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for prospective studies reporting clinical outcomes of LC, between 2013 and 2016.

RESULTS

In total 233 studies were included, reporting 967 complications, of which 204 (21%) were defined. One hundred and twenty-two studies (52%) did not provide definitions for any of the complications reported. Conversion to open cholecystectomy was the most commonly reported complication, reported in 135 (58%) studies, followed by bile leak in 89 (38%) and bile duct injury in 75 (32%). Mortality was reported in 89 studies (38%).

CONCLUSION

Considerable variation was identified between studies in the choice of measures used to evaluate the complications of LC, and in their definitions. A standardised set of core outcomes of LC should be developed for use in clinical trials and in evaluating the performance of surgical units.

ALTERNATIVE TECHNIQUE FOR CHOLECYSTECTOMY COMPARABLE TO SINGLE PORT

Background:

With the advancement of laparoscopic surgery, new techniques have been proposed and disseminated in order to reduce the surgical aggression and get better cosmetic results.

Aim:

To present alternative technique for videocholecystectomy comparable to single port technique using conventional material for laparoscopic surgery.

Method:

Introduction of laparoscopic devices using two incisions; gallbladder traction with thread, exposition of Calot triangle, and ligature of cystic pedicle with polymer clips.

Results:

Nine operations were carried out with this method, without complications and no increase in operative time, being compared to conventional videocholecistectomy, however vastly superior in aesthetic results.

Conclusion:

The technique is feasible, reproducible, showing benefits to patient´s safety

Low-impact laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with decreased postoperative morbidity in patients with sickle cell disease

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is one of the most frequent surgeries performed in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD). LC in SCD patients is associated with a particularly high postoperative morbidity. The aim of the present study is to assess the safety and feasibility of cholecystectomy performed by mini-laparoscopy with low- and stable-pressure pneumoperitoneum (MLC + LSPP) and to compare the rate of postoperative SCD-related morbidity with standard LC.

METHODS

Thirty-five consecutive SCD patients admitted between November 2015 and March 2017 for cholelithiasis requiring surgery were compared with an historical cohort of 126 SCD patients who underwent LC for the same indication. Operative variables, postoperative outcomes, patient and surgeon satisfaction, and costs were evaluated.

RESULTS

MLC + LSPP exhibited a mean operative time comparable to LC (p = 0.169). Operative blood loss was significantly reduced in the MLC + LSPP group, and the suction device was rarely used (p = 0.036). SCD-related morbidity (including acute chest syndrome) was significantly higher in the LC group compared with the MLC + LSPP group (18.3 vs. 2.9%; p = 0.029). The mean times to resume ambulation (p = 0.018) and regular diet (p = 0.045) were significantly reduced in the MLC + LSPP group. The mean incision length (all trocars combined) was 28.22 mm for MLC + LSPP and 49.64 mm for LC patients (p < 0.0001). Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that the only significant predictor of postoperative SCD-related morbidity was the surgical approach (odds ratio: 9.24). Patient and surgeon satisfaction were very high for MLC + LSPP. The mean total cost per patient (surgery and hospitalization) was not different between groups (p = 0.084).

CONCLUSION

MLC + LSPP in SCD patients appears to be safe and feasible. Compared with LC, MLC + LSPP in SCD patients is associated with a significantly reduced incidence of postoperative SCD-related morbidity and more rapid ambulation and return to regular diet without increasing the total costs per patient.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is responsible for increased adverse events: results of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) has gained popularity, although it is not evident if benefits of this procedure overcome the potential increased risk. Aim of the study is to compare the outcome of SLC with conventional multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) in a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials only.

METHODS

A systematic Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials literature search of articles on SLC and MLC for any indication was performed in June 2017. The main outcomes measured were overall adverse events, pain score (VAS), cosmetic results, quality of life, and incisional hernias. Linear regression was used to model the effect of each procedure on the different outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-six trials were included and data from 5141 participants were analysed; 2444 underwent SLC and 2697 MLC, respectively. Mortality reported was nil in both treatment groups. Overall adverse events were higher in the SLC group (RR 1.41; p < 0.001) compared to MLC group, as well severe adverse events (RR 2.06; p < 0.001) and even mild adverse events (RR 1.23; p = 0.041). This was confirmed also when only trials including 4-port techniques (RR 1.37, p = 0.004) or 3-port techniques were considered (RR 1.89, p = 0.020). The pain score showed a standardized mean difference (SMD) of - 0.36 (p < 0.001) in favour of SLC. Cosmetic outcome by time point scored a SMD of 1.49 (p < 0.001) in favour of SLC. Incisional hernias occurred more frequently (RR 2.97, p = 0.005) in the SLC group.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite SLC offers a better cosmetic outcome and reduction of pain, the consistent higher rate of adverse events, both severe and mild, together with the higher rate of incisional hernias, should suggest to reconsider the application of single incision techniques when performing cholecystectomy with the existing technology.

Two-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Reducing Scars in a Simple Way

BACKGROUND

About 20% of the population has cholelithiasis and this is the main abdominal cause of hospitalization in developed countries. Considering that only in the United States about 700,000 cholecystectomies are done each year, it is possible to estimate the importance of the problem for public health.

OBJECTIVE

To describe a two-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TILC) technique using only conventional material, without increasing complications or operative time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A consecutive and prospective case series compared to another historical operated by conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The TILC was performed with three trocars in two incisions, two trocars in umbilical incision, and one in epigastrium.

RESULTS

A total of 72 patients were operated on by the same surgeon (36 in each group). There were no significant differences between groups for gender, mean age, body mass index, or length of hospital stay. The procedures were classified by the surgeon according to surgical difficulty and 58.3% (n = 42) were considered low grade, 9.7% (n = 7) difficult, and the other were intermediaries, with no difference between the series (P < .05). There were minor complications in 6.94% (n = 5) procedures. There were no differences between mean operative time (P = .989), which was 49 (95% confidence interval [CI] 42-56) minutes in LC and 40 (95% CI 35-44) min in TILC. There was no need for additional trocars in any case or for conversion to open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

TILC is feasible, safe, and with good aesthetic result, using the same instruments of LC, without increasing operative time.

Higher cost of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy due to longer operating time. A study of opportunity cost based on meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to calculate the opportunity cost of the operating time to demonstrate that single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is more expensive than classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC).

METHODS

We identified studies comparing use of both techniques during the period 2008-2016, and to calculate the opportunity cost, we performed another search in the same period of time with an economic evaluation of classic laparoscopy. We performed a meta-analysis of the items selected in the first review considering the cost of surgery and surgical time, and we analyzed their differences. We subsequently calculated the opportunity cost of these time differences based on the design of a cost/time variable using the data from the second literature review.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven articles were selected from the first review: 26 for operating time (3.138 patients) and 3 for the cost of surgery (831 patients), and 3 articles from the second review. Both echniques have similar operating costs. Single incision laparoscopy surgery takes longer (16.90min) to perform (p <0.00001) and this difference represents an opportunity cost of 755.97 € (cost/time unit factor of 44.73 €/min).

CONCLUSIONS

SILC costs the same as CLC, but the surgery takes longer to perform, and this difference involves an opportunity cost that increases the total cost of SILC. The value of the opportunity cost of the operating time can vary the total cost of a surgical technique and it should be included in the economic evaluation to support the decision to adopt a new surgical technique.

Minilaparoscopic versus single incision cholecystectomy for the treatment of cholecystolithiasis: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Background

Over the past decade, mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) and single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) have been the two main successful mini-invasive surgical interventions for the treatment of cholecystolithiasis since the advent of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the two treatment alternatives.

Methods

We searched PubMed, CNKI and the Cochrane library for trials that compared MLC and SILC. Risk difference (RD) and mean difference (MD) were calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 2 non-randomized comparative studies (nRCSs) involving 2764 patients were identified. A longer operating time (MD -10.49; 95% CI -18.10, −2.88; P = 0.007) and a shorter wound length (MD 3.65; 95% CI 0.51, 6.78; P = 0.02) were found to be associated with SILC compared with MLC. No significant differences were revealed in conversion, hospital stay, pain relief and cosmetic results. Although a lower incidence of complications was observed with MLC (8.2%) compared with SILC (15.9%), but the difference was not statistically significant (RD -0.06; 95% CI -0.12, 0.00; P = 0.07).

Conclusions

MLC has an advantage over SILC in terms of operating time rather than hospital stay, pain relief, cosmetic results. Though conversion and complication rates were higher with SILC, there existed no statistically differences in the two measures between the two procedures. Whether MLC confers any benefits in terms of conversion or complications still warrants further studies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12893-017-0287-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Meta-analysis of single-port versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy comparing body image and cosmesis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate improvements in cosmetic results and postoperative morbidity for single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) in comparison with multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC).

METHODS

A literature search was undertaken for RCTs comparing SILC with MLC in adult patients with benign gallbladder disease. Primary outcomes were body image and cosmesis scores at different time points. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative and postoperative complications, postoperative pain and frequency of port-site hernia.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven RCTs were included, with a total of 3051 patients. The body image score favoured SILC at all time points (short term: mean difference (MD) -2·09, P < 0·001; mid term: MD -1·33, P < 0·001), as did the cosmesis score (short term: MD 3·20, P < 0·001; mid term: MD 4·03, P < 0·001; long-term: MD 4·87, P = 0·05) and the wound satisfaction score (short term: MD 1·19, P = 0·03; mid term: MD 1·38, P < 0·001; long-term: MD 1·19, P = 0·02). Duration of operation was longer for SILC (MD 13·56 min; P < 0·001) and SILC required more additional ports (odds ratio (OR) 6·78; P < 0·001). Postoperative pain assessed by a visual analogue scale (VAS) was lower for SILC at 12 h after operation (MD in VAS score -0·80; P = 0·007). The incisional hernia rate was higher after SILC (OR 2·50, P = 0·03). All other outcomes were similar for both groups.

CONCLUSION

SILC is associated with better outcomes in terms of cosmesis, body image and postoperative pain. The risk of incisional hernia is four times higher after SILC than after MLC.

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

BACKGROUND

Conventional three-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (CTLA) is considered the new golden standard for the treatment of acute appendicitis. However, single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) can further reduce the number of abdominal incisions and visible scars.

METHODS

Major databases were researched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing SILA and CTLA for acute appendicitis from January 1983 and to March 2015. The technical feasibility, effectiveness, and safety between SILA and CTLA were compared. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models.

RESULTS

In total, 11 RCTs with 1489 patients were analyzed. The patients in the SILA group had a significantly shorter hospital duration (WMD: -0.63; 95% CI: -1.04, -0.21; P = 0.003) and return to activity (WMD: -2.91; 95% CI: -5.45, -0.37; P = 0.02) but experienced a longer operating time (WMD: 6.56; 95% CI: 3.55, 9.58; P < 0.0001) and higher rate of conversion (OR: 6.82; 95% CI: 3.14, 14.79; P < 0.00001). There were no differences between the two groups in visual analog pain scores, doses of analgesics, overall complication rates, wound infection, or cosmesis (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

SILA is a safer and more effective than CTLA in both pediatric and adult patients.

The use of expanding ports in laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery may cause more pain: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses on the clinical outcome after laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) have not revealed any major differences in postoperative pain between the two procedures. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the difference in postoperative pain between the two procedures, focusing on whether LESS was conducted with a non-expanding port (LESSnonex) or a port expanding (LESSex) within the incision.

METHOD

EMBASE, Medline, PubMed, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on LESS versus CLS for general abdominal procedures. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 29 RCTs with 2999 procedures were included. Pain (VAS 0-10) 6 h after surgery was significantly lower in the group where LESS was conducted with LESSnonex compared to CLS, WMD=-0.72 (- 1.10 to - 0.33). Pain 18-24 h was significantly higher in the group where LESS was conducted with LESSex compared to CLS, WMD = 0.38 (0.01-0.75). Wound-related complications were significantly more frequent in LESSex procedures compared to CLS, OR = 1.94 (1.03-3.63).

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis indirectly indicates that the type of access device that is used for an abdominal LESS procedure may contribute to the development of early postoperative pain as the use of a non-expanding model was associated with a more advantageous outcome. Direct randomized comparison of LESSnonex and LESSex is warranted to confirm if the use of expanding access devices generates more pain and wound complications.

Is There a Cosmetic Advantage to Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgical Techniques Over Standard Laparoscopic Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery represents an evolution of minimally invasive techniques, but has been a controversial development. A cosmetic advantage is stated by many authors, but has not been found to be universally present or even of considerable importance by patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that there is a cosmetic advantage of the technique regardless of the operation type. The treatment effect in terms of cosmetic improvement is of the order of 0.63.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) might maximize the advantages of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) by reducing postoperative pain and improving cosmesis. However, the safety and feasibility of SILC has not yet been established. This study assesses safety, patient reported outcome measures and feasibility of SILC versus conventional LC.

Methods

Literature search for RCT’s comparing SILC with conventional LC in gallstone-related disease was performed in PubMed and Embase. The conventional LC was defined as two 10-mm and two 5-mm ports. Study selection was done according to predefined criteria. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias. Pooled outcomes were calculated for adverse events, pain, cosmesis, quality of life and feasibility using fixed-effect and random-effects models.

Results

Nine RCT’s were included with total of 860 patients. No mortality was observed. More mild adverse events (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.99–2.42) and significantly more serious adverse events (RR 3.00; 95% CI 1.05–8.58) occurred in the SILC group. Postoperative pain (MD -0.46; 95% CI -0.74 to -0.18) and cosmesis (SMD 2.38; 95% CI 1.50–3.26) showed significantly better results for the SILC group, but no differences were observed in quality of life. Operating time (MD 23.12; 95% CI 11.59–34.65) and the need for additional ports (RR 11.43; 95% CI 3.48–37.50) were significantly higher in the SILC group. No difference was observed in conversion to open cholecystectomy or hospital stay longer than 24 h.

Conclusions

SILC does not provide any clear advantages over conventional LC except for less postoperative pain and improved cosmesis. It is questionable whether these advantages outweigh the higher occurrence of adverse events and shortcomings in feasibility. Considering considerable heterogeneity and low methodological quality of the studies it is advisable to perform well-designed RCT’s in the future to address the safety and clinical benefits of SILC.

Impact of miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy on recovery of physical activity: a randomized trial

INTRODUCTION

We conducted a randomized trial comparing minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) to determine whether MLC accelerated recovery of physical activity after elective surgery (NCT01397565).

METHODS

A total of 115 patients scheduled for elective cholecystectomy were randomized to either CLC or MLC. Both procedures used a 10-mm umbilical port, but the three upper abdominal ports were 5 mm in CLC and 3 mm in MLC. Primary outcome was self-reported physical activity 1 month after surgery as estimated by Community Health Activities Model Program for Seniors questionnaire (kcal/kg/week). Secondary outcomes were umbilical pain, abdominal pain, nausea and fatigue (VAS, 1-10), and cosmetic result at one and 3 months. Patients received identical surgical dressings for 1 week, and assessors were blinded to group allocation.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients randomized to CLC group and 33 patients randomized to MLC remained in the trial and were analyzed. Both groups were similar at baseline characteristics. In the MLC group, at least one 5-mm port was used in 17 (51.5 %) mainly due to unavailability of ML equipment. Median (IQR) physical activity for the CLC and MLC groups was similar at baseline (23.4 [13.1, 44.6] vs 23.6 [14.2, 66.9] kcal/kg/week, p = 0.35) and at 1 month (20 [7.9, 52.5] vs 16.8 [11.8, 28.6] kcal/kg/week, p = 0.90). One month post-op, umbilical pain and abdominal pain were similar, but the CLC group reported higher fatigue (4 [1-5] vs 1 [0-4], p = 0.05) and worse scar appearance scores (4 [3, 4] vs 4.5 [4, 5], p = 0.009). At 3 months, the CLC group had worse scar appearance (4 [3-5] vs 5 [4-5], p = 0.02) and lower scar satisfaction scores (4 [3, 4] vs 4 [3.5-4], p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Recovery of physical activity was similar after MLC and CLC. MLC resulted in less fatigue and better scar appearance and satisfaction. These benefits were seen despite the need to upsize one or more ports in more than half of patients related to availability of the miniature instruments.

Routine mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Outcome in 200 patients

INTRODUCTION

In order to improve the outcome of classical laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC), surgeons have attempted to minimize tissue trauma. The aim of this study is to describe the technique of mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) and to report the outcome of this approach when used as a routine procedure.

METHODS

Since January 2012, all consecutive patients undergoing MLC were included in this study. Operative and perioperative data were prospectively collected. Additionally, cost analysis was performed.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2015, 200 MLC were performed (F/M: 132/68, mean age 45±16 years). Mean operative duration was 97±32min for the first 50 patients and 75±25min for the subsequent 150 patients (P<0.0001). Modifications in the number or size of trocars were necessary in nine of the first 50 procedures and in seven of the subsequent 150 procedures (P=0.003). Perioperative morbidity included gallbladder perforation (n=28) or moderate (<50mL) bleeding (n=6). Postoperative morbidity was 4%. The mean global cost for a MLC procedure was 1757±1855 euros. This cost decreased from 2946±3115 euros in the first 50 patients to 1390±1278 euros in the subsequent 150 patients (P=0.001).

CONCLUSION

Mini-laparoscopy can be used for routine elective cholecystectomy. This approach is associated with low morbidity and good cosmetic results.

Minilaparoscopy-assisted transumbilical laparoscopic cholecystectomy

The role of laparoscopy in the modern surgery era is well established. With the prospect of being able to improve the already privileged current situation, new alternatives have been proposed, such as natural orifice endoscopic surgery (NOTES), the method for single transumbilical access (LESS - Laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery) and minilaparoscopy (MINI). The technique proposed by the authors uses a laparoscope with an operative channel like the flexible endoscope used in NOTES. All operative times are carried out through the umbilical trocar as in LESS, and assisted by a minilaparoscopy grasper. This new technic combines, and results from, the rationalization of technical particularities and synergy of these three approaches, seeking to join their advantages and minimize their disadvantages. RESUMO O papel da videolaparoscopia na era moderna da cirurgia encontra-se bem estabelecido. Com a perspectiva de ser possível melhorar a já privilegiada situação atual, novas alternativas têm sido propostas, como a cirurgia por orifícios naturais (NOTES), o método por acesso único transumbilical (LESS - Laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery) e a minilaparoscopia (MINI). A técnica proposta pelos autores utiliza-se de óptica com canal de trabalho como o endoscópio flexível do NOTES, executa-se todos os tempos operatórios pelo trocarte umbilical, como no LESS, e é assistido por pinça de minilaparoscopia. Esta nova técnica combina e resulta da racionalização de particularidades técnicas e do sinergismo destas três abordagens, buscando agregar suas vantagens e minimizar as suas desvantagens.

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.

Robotic Single-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Is Safe but Faces Technical Challenges

BACKGROUND

For cholecystectomy, multiport laparoscopy is the recommended surgical approach. Single-port laparoscopy (SPL) was introduced to reduce postoperative pain and provide better cosmetic results, but has technical disadvantages. Robotic SPL (RSPL) was developed to overcome these disadvantages. In this prospective study, we aim to describe intraoperative results and postoperative outcomes of RSPL cholecystectomies and evaluate technical aspects of the technique.

METHODS

A prospective database of all patients who underwent a RSPL cholecystectomy between January 2012 and December 2014 was analyzed. Intraoperative results and postoperative complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 27 patients underwent RSPL cholecystectomy. Median age was 59 (20-78) years and median body mass index was 25 (19-35) kg/m². The majority of patients had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) II classification (67%) and 89% underwent surgery for cholecystolithiasis or cholecystitis. The median operating time was 81 (41-115) minutes. Conversion to a multiport procedure occurred in 2; one due to insufficient length of the robotic instruments. In the second and third patients, conversion to an open procedure was necessary due to inadequate exposure caused by liver cirrhosis and purulent ascites, respectively. In seven procedures, spill occurred due to rupture of the gallbladder. Postoperative complications occurred in 4 patients, including 1 bleeding (no reintervention), 1 peritonitis, and 2 wound infections. After a median follow-up of 33 (10-44) months, 5 (19%) trocar-site hernias were seen.

CONCLUSION

RSPL cholecystectomy is feasible, however, encountered by technical challenges due to inadequate length of the nonwristed robotic instruments. A high incidence of gallbladder rupture and trocar-site hernias may limit its application.

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.

MINILAPAROSCOPIC APPENDECTOMY

Background :

Minilaparoscopy is considered one of the minimally invasive options available for acute appendicitis treatment, although not always employed in less complexity public health services.

Aim :

Report surgical outcomes of minilaparoscopy use in acute appendicitis treatment.

Method:

The study included 21 patients undergoing minilaparoscopic appendectomy with instrumental of 3 mm. The following variables were analyzed: sex, age, body mass index, stage of appendicitis, surgical time, hospital stay, surgical complications, conversion rate to conventional laparoscopy or laparotomy, pain after surgery and aesthetic result.

Results :

Twelve men and nine women underwent minilaparoscopic appendectomy. The average age was 27,8 years, the mean BMI was 24,8 kg/m². The operative time ranged from 33 to 160 min and the average of hospital stay was three days. Among the 21 patients, 20 reported mild pain or no pain in the first postoperative day. The aesthetic result was considered "satisfactory" and "very satisfactory" by 95% of the patients.

Conclusions :

The minilaparoscopy is viable technique for treating acute appendicitis with a satisfactory recovery. It combines the benefits of minimally invasive procedures with results similar to conventional techniques.

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.

Low-Friction Minilaparoscopy Outperforms Regular 5-mm and 3-mm Instruments for Precise Tasks

Background and Objectives:

Therapeutic laparoscopy was incorporated into surgical practice more than 25 y ago. Several modifications have since been developed to further minimize surgical trauma and improve results. Minilaparoscopy, performed with 2- to 3-mm instruments was introduced in the mid 1990s but failed to attain mainstream use, mostly because of the limitations of the early devices. Buoyed by a renewed interest, new generations of mini instruments are being developed with improved functionality and durability. This study is an objective evaluation of a new set of mini instruments with a novel low-friction design.

Method:

Twenty-two medical students and 22 surgical residents served as study participants. Three designs of laparoscopic instruments were evaluated: conventional 5 mm, traditional 3 mm, and low-friction 3 mm. The instruments were evaluated with a standard surgical simulator, emulating 4 exercises of various complexities, testing grasping, precise 2-handed movements, and suturing. The metric measured was time to task completion, with 5 replicates for every combination of instrument–exercise–participant.

Results:

For all 4 tasks, the instrument design that performed the best was the same in both the medical student and surgical resident groups. For the gross-grasping task, the 5-mm conventional instruments performed best, followed by the low-friction mini instruments. For the 3 more complex and precise tasks, the low-friction mini instruments outperformed both of the other instrument designs.

Conclusion:

In standard surgical simulator exercises, low-friction minilaparoscopic instruments outperformed both conventional 3- and 5-mm laparoscopic instruments for precise tasks.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for biliary tract disease

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), or laparoendoscopic single-site surgery, has been employed in various fields to minimize traumatic effects over the last two decades. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has been the most frequently studied SILS to date. Hundreds of studies on SILC have failed to present conclusive results. Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been small in scale and have been conducted under ideal operative conditions. The role of SILC in complicated scenarios remains uncertain. As common bile duct exploration (CBDE) methods have been used for more than one hundred years, laparoscopic CBDE (LCBDE) has emerged as an effective, demanding, and infrequent technique employed during the laparoscopic era. Likewise, laparoscopic biliary-enteric anastomosis is difficult to carry out, with only a few studies have been published on the approach. The application of SILS to CBDE and biliary-enteric anastomosis is extremely rare, and such innovative procedures are only carried out by a number of specialized groups across the globe. Herein we present a thorough and detailed analysis of SILC in terms of operative techniques, training and learning curves, safety and efficacy levels, recovery trends, and costs by reviewing RCTs conducted over the past three years and two recently updated meta-analyses. All existing literature on single-incision LCBDE and single-incision laparoscopic hepaticojejunostomy has been reviewed to describe these two demanding techniques.

Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Less scar, less pain

CONTEXT AND AIMS:

Our study aims to evaluate the post-operative pain and cosmesis of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) in comparison with the standard, 3-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) with respect to the length of incision, cosmetic scores, post-operative pain scores and duration of hospital stay.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN:

This comparative randomised study was conducted in a tertiary care centre teaching hospital between September 2012 and 2014. One hundred and fifty consecutive patients, who qualified as per inclusion criteria, were included in the study.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS:

Seventy-five patients were included in the SLC arm and 75 in the SILC arm. SILC procedure was carried out as transumbilical multiport technique and SLC as 3-port technique utilizing - 5, 5, 10 mm ports.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED:

The data for the primary observations (post-operative pain scores, cosmetic score and incision length) and secondary observation (post-operative hospital stay) were noted. Weighted mean difference was used for calculation of quantitative variables, and odds ratios were used for pooling qualitative variables.

RESULTS:

Pain scores at 4 and 24 h were significantly better for SILC arm than SLC arm (at 4 h - 4.84 ± 0.95 vs. 6.17 ± 0.98, P < 0.05 and at 24 h - 3.84 ± 0.96 vs. 5.17 ± 0.09, P < 0.05). Length of incision was significantly smaller (SILC - 2.631 ± 0.44 cm vs. SLC - 5.11 ± 0.44 cm), P < 0.05 and cosmetic score was significantly better in SILC arm (6.25 ± 1.24) than SLC arm (4.71 ± 1.04), P < 0.05. Difference between the hospital stay is insignificant for two arms SILC (2.12 ± 0.34) and SLC (2.13 ± 0.35), P > 0.05.

DISCUSSION:

Significant difference was found in duration and intensity of pain between two procedures at 4 and 24 h. Cosmesis was significantly better in SILC than SLC group, the sample size in our study was small to arrive at a definite conclusion. The procedure can be selectively and judiciously performed by surgeons trained in regular laparoscopic surgery. Furthermore, the threshold for conversion should be low in learning phase. Widespread application must await Level 1 evidence from prospective trials.

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.