Single-access laparoscopic low anterior resection with vertical suspension of the rectum

Reduced port laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is safe and feasible in terms of short-term outcomes: comparative study with conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery

Purpose

Laparoscopic surgery was previously accepted as an alternative surgical option in treatment for colorectal cancer. Nowadays, single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) is introduced as a method to maximize advantages of minimally invasive surgery. However, SPLS has several limitations compared to conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery (CMLS). To overcome those limitations of SPLS, reduced port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) was introduced. This study aimed at evaluating the short-term outcomes of RPLS.

Methods

Patients who underwent CMLS and RPLS of colon cancer between August 2011 and December 2013 were included in this study. Short-term clinical and pathological outcome were compared between the 2 groups.

Results

Thirty-two patients underwent RPLS and 217 patients underwent CMLS. Shorter operation time, less blood loss, and faster bowel movement were shown in RPLS group in this study. In terms of postoperative pain, numeric rating scale (NRS) of RPLS was lower than that of CMLS. Significant differences were shown in terms of tumor size, harvested lymph node, perineural invasion, and pathological stage. No significant differences were confirmed in terms of other surgical outcomes.

Conclusion

In this study, RPLS was technically feasible and safe. Especially in terms of postoperative pain, RPLS was comparable to CMLS. RPLS may be a feasible alternative option in selected patients with colon cancer.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Reduction in operative trauma along with an improvement in endoscopic access has undoubtedly occupied surgical minds for at least the past 3 decades. It is not at all surprising that minimally invasive colon surgery has come a long way since the first laparoscopic appendectomy by Semm in 1981. It is common knowledge that the recent developments in video and robotic technologies have significantly furthered advancements in laparoscopic and minimally invasive surgery. This has led to the overall acceptance of the treatment of benign colorectal pathology via the endoscopic route. Malignant disease, however, is still primarily treated by conventional approaches.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This review article is based on a literature search pertaining to advances in minimally invasive colorectal surgery for the treatment of malignant pathology, as well as on personal experience in the field over the same period of time. Our search was limited to level I and II clinical papers only, according to the evidence-based medicine guidelines. We attempted to present our unbiased view on the subject relying only on the evidence available.

CONCLUSION

Focusing on advances in colorectal minimally invasive surgery, it has to be stated that there are still a number of unanswered questions regarding the surgical management of malignant diseases with this approach. These questions do not only relate to the area of boundaries set for the use of minimally invasive techniques in this field but also to the exact modality best suited to the treatment of every particular case whilst maintaining state-of-the-art oncological principles.

Comparison between the perioperative results of single-access and conventional laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has low rates of morbidity and mortality and achieves comparable pathologic outcomes. With improved instruments and surgical techniques, many surgeons have recently begun using single-access laparoscopic surgery (SALS) to minimize scars and pain. Since 2011, most reports of SALS for rectal cancer have shown comparable pathologic outcomes to those of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). However, SALS is said to be superior to CLS in reducing complications, producing less discomfort, and faster recovery rates. This study aimed to compare the technical feasibility and early postoperative outcomes of these approaches.

METHODS

From January 2011 to January 2014, 78 cases of adenocarcinoma of the rectum and anal canal were enrolled in the study. Anterior, low anterior, intersphincteric, and abdominoperineal resections were performed. Data collected included technical feasibility and outcomes of operation, such as morbidity, mortality, severity of pain, analgesic usage, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

SALS was performed on 35 patients, and CLS was performed in 36 cases. Demographic data, including age, sex, BMI, ASA classification and clinical staging, were similar between the groups. Operative time, blood loss, and conversion rate were similar (P > 0.05). Postoperatively, the only significant difference between the groups was pain score, which was significantly lower in the SALS group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

SALS and CLS for rectal and anal cancer had the same intraoperative, pathologic, and early postoperative results. However, SALS patients had slightly better pain scores in the first 24 and 48 h postoperatively.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: early results and medium-term oncological outcome

AIM

Conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer management is now widely accepted as an alternative to open surgery, bestowing specific advantages without causing detriment to oncological outcome. Evolving from this, single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has been successfully utilized for the removal of colonic tumours, but the literature lacks data analysing the suitability of SILS for rectal cancer resection, particularly on oncological outcome. We report the medium-term oncological outcome from a prospective observational study of SILS for rectal cancer, including high and low anterior resections.

METHOD

A prospective electronic database was collated of all patients undergoing SILS rectal cancer resection in our institution, between 2009 and 2014. In addition to patient, tumour and operative data, histopathological and medium-term oncological end-points were recorded. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to analyse survival.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients underwent SILS for rectal cancer by high anterior resection (n = 34), low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) (n = 24) and low anterior resection with TME and hand-sewn colo-anal anastomosis (n = 3). The median operation time was 105 (37-280) min and 92% of cases were completed by SILS. The mean interval to resuming oral feeding was 11 h and the median length of stay was 2 (1-8) days. The median number of lymph nodes found by the histopathologist in the resected specimen was 18 (6-44) and all operations completely removed the tumour (R0 resection). At a median follow-up of 46 (16-64) months, eight (13%) patients developed metastatic disease, of whom three had local recurrence. Overall, three patients have died, of whom all had metastatic disease.

CONCLUSION

Anterior resection with TME for rectal cancer can be safely performed using the SILS technique, with acceptable histopathological results and good oncological outcome.

Reduced-port laparoscopic surgery for a tumor-specific mesorectal excision in patients with colorectal cancer: initial experience with 20 consecutive cases

PURPOSE

Single-port plus one-port, reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) may decrease collisions between laparoscopic instruments and the camera in a narrow, bony, pelvic cavity while maintaining the cosmetic advantages of single-incision laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study is to describe our initial experience with and to assess the feasibility and safety of RPLS for tumor-specific mesorectal excisions (TSMEs) in patients with colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Between May 2010 and August 2012, RPLS for TSME was performed in 20 patients with colorectal cancer. A single port with four channels through an umbilical incision and an additional port in the right lower quadrant were used for RPLS.

RESULTS

The median operation time was 231 minutes (range, 160-347 minutes), and the estimated blood loss was 100 mL (range, 50-500 mL). We transected the rectum with one laparoscopic stapler in 17 cases (85%). The median time to soft diet was 4 days (range, 3-6 days), and the length of hospital stay was 7 days (range, 5-45 days). The median total number of lymph nodes harvested was 16 (range, 7-36), and circumferential resection margin involvement was found in 1 case (5%). Seven patients (35%) developed postoperative complications, and no mortalities occurred within 30 days. During the median follow-up period of 20 months (range, 12-40 months), liver metastasis occurred in 1 patient 10 months after surgery, and local recurrence was nonexistent.

CONCLUSION

RPLS for TSME in patients with colorectal cancer is technically feasible and safe without compromising oncologic safety. However, further studies comparing RPLS with a conventional, laparoscopic low-anterior resection are needed to prove the advantages of the RPLS procedure.

Hand suture versus stapler for closure of loop ileostomy--a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

The aims of this study are to compare the 30-day rate of bowel obstruction for stapled vs. handsewn closure of loop ileostomy, and to further assess efficacy and safety for each technique by secondary endpoints such as operative time, rates of anastomotic leakage, and other post-operative complications within 30 days.

METHODS

A systematic literature search (MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science) was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing stapled and handsewn closure of loop ileostomy after low anterior resection. Random effects meta-analyses were calculated and presented as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95 % confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Forty publications were retrieved and 4 RCTs (649 patients) were included. There was methodological and clinical heterogeneity of included trials, but statistical heterogeneity was low for most endpoints. Stapler use significantly reduced the rate of bowel obstruction compared to hand-sewn closure (RR 0.53 [0.32, 0.88]; P = 0.01). The operation time was significantly lower for stapling compared to hand suture (MD -15.5 min [-18.4, 12.6]; P < 0.001). All other secondary outcomes did not show significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis shows superiority of stapled closure of loop ileostomy compared to handsewn closure in terms of bowel obstruction rate and mean operation time. Other relevant complications such as anastomotic leakage are equivalent. Even so, both techniques are options with opposing advantages and disadvantages.

Single-access laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery using the glove technique

INTRODUCTION

Single-access laparoscopic surgery has been widely adopted in many kinds of surgery including laparoscopic cholecystectomy and laparoscopic colectomy. Performing single-access rectal surgery, however, has technical drawbacks such as instrument collision and endostaple application issues. The glove technique is likely to mitigate these problems.

METHODS

Fourteen patients with anal canal to mid-rectum cancers were recruited and underwent single-access laparoscopic surgery via the glove technique. An incision was made at the paraumbilicus to insert a wound protector with surgical gloves. The operation was medial to lateral and inferior mesenteric artery and inferior mesenteric vein were identified and controlled. Total mesorectal excision was performed while keeping traction and countertraction down to the pelvic floor.

RESULTS

Average operative time was 251.66 min (range, 180-300 min). Hospital stay ranged from 5 to 8 days (median, 7 days). No serious early postoperative surgical problems related to complications were observed. The pathologic results showed good mesorectal capsule grading. The mean lymph node harvest was 14 nodes (range, 7-26 nodes), and the mean wound length was 5 cm (range, 4-6 cm).

CONCLUSIONS

In rectal surgery, the glove technique for single-access laparoscopic surgery is feasible and is comparable to commercial single-port techniques in terms of oncologic results.

Single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer: State of art

A number of clinical trials have demonstrated that the laparoscopic approach for colorectal cancer resection provides the same oncologic results as open surgery along with all clinical benefits of minimally invasive surgery. During the last years, a great effort has been made to research for minimizing parietal trauma, yet for cosmetic reasons and in order to further reduce surgery-related pain and morbidity. New techniques, such as natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and single-incision laparoscopy (SIL) have been developed in order to reach the goal of “scarless” surgery. Although NOTES may seem not fully suitable or safe for advanced procedures, such as colectomies, SIL is currently regarded as the next major advance in the progress of minimally invasive surgical approaches to colorectal disease that is more feasible in generalized use. The small incision through the umbilicus allows surgeons to use familiar standard laparoscopic instruments and thus, perform even complex procedures which require extraction of large surgical specimens or intestinal anastomosis. The cosmetic result from SIL is also better because the only incision is made through the umbilicus which can hide the wound effectively after operation. However, SIL raises a number of specific new challenges compared with the laparoscopic conventional approach. A reduced capacity for triangulation, the repeated conflicts between the shafts of the instruments and the difficulties to achieve a correct exposure of the operative field are the most claimed issues. The use therefore of this new approach for complex colorectal procedures might understandingly be viewed as difficult to implement, especially for oncologic cases.

Successful total shift from multiport to single-port laparoscopic surgery in low anterior resection of colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess the possibility of using single-port low anterior resection (LAR) in place of conventional laparoscopic LAR.

BACKGROUND

Though single-port LS is gradually evolving, the application of single-port LS techniques in LAR have been viewed with skepticism due to technical difficulties.

METHODS

Data from patients who had undergone either conventional laparoscopic LAR (n = 49) or single-port LAR (n = 67) for colorectal cancers between March 2006 and March 2013 were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

In single-port LAR group, oncologic outcomes were satisfactory with respect to attainment of lymph nodes (23.4 ± 15.3) and surgical margins (proximal cut margin: 7.1 ± 4.6 cm, distal cut margin: 7.7 ± 5.7 cm). Single-port LAR showed acceptable clinical outcomes manifested by comparable outcomes of post-operative analgesics requirement and length of hospital stay, and by low incidence of post-operative complications (conventional laparoscopic LAR group: 30.6% vs. single-port LAR group: 14.9%; P < 0.01). Operative time was comparable between groups (conventional laparoscopic LAR group: 309 ± 93 min vs. single-port LAR group: 277 ± 106 min; P = 0.097). Throughout a series of 67 consecutive single-port LARs, no conversion to multiport or open surgery was occurred.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that single-port LAR is both safe and feasible for use in resection of colorectal cancer when performed by surgeons who are trained in conventional laparoscopic technique. If further and more extensive studies support our results, then single-port LAR can be an acceptable alternative to conventional laparoscopic LAR for treatment of colorectal cancer.

Objective analysis of surgeons' ergonomy during laparoendoscopic single-site surgery through the use of surface electromyography and a motion capture data glove

BACKGROUND

Adding to the ergonomic inconveniences already presented by traditional laparoscopy (LAP), laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery has been found to entail other more specific problems, including greater reduction in movement freedom, in-line vision with loss of triangulation, and greater proximity of instruments. The objective of this study was to evaluate surgeons' ergonomy during LESS surgery, through the study of muscular activity, wrist angle, and hand movements, and compare it with conventional laparoscopy.

METHODS

The study group was composed by 14 experienced laparoscopic surgeons, all right-handed. Each one performed dissection tasks on a physical simulator through LAP and LESS approaches. For LAP, straight laparoscopic scissors and dissector were used, whilst for LESS articulating tip scissors and dissector were chosen. During both tasks, muscular activity of biceps brachii, triceps brachii, forearm flexors and extensors, and trapezius muscles was registered through surface electromyography. Simultaneously right-hand movements and wrist angles were obtained through a motion capture data glove (CyberGlove(®)), which allowed for the use of a modified RULA test applied to the recorded angles with subsequent establishment of risk levels for the wrist joint.

RESULTS

Muscular activity for trapezius (LAP 6.94 ± 4.12 vs. LESS 11.32 ± 4.68; p ≤ 0.05) and forearm extensor muscles (LAP 9.2 ± 2.45 vs. LESS 37.07 ≤ 16.05; p ≤ 0.001) was significantly lower in conventional laparoscopy compared with LESS approach. No statistical significance was obtained between the different sensors, except in 3 of the 11 analyzed CyberGlove(®) sensors. The modified RULA test showed a score of 3 for laparoscopy (unacceptable), whereas for LESS a score of 2 was obtained (acceptable), with statistically significant differences between them (p ≤ 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The LESS approach entails greater level of muscular activity in the trapezius and forearm extensor muscles, but we have found evidences of a better wrist position during LESS compared with traditional laparoscopy.

Technique and short-term outcomes of single-port surgery for rectal cancer: A feasibility study of 25 patients

Background and Aims:

Although conventional laparoscopic surgery is less traumatic than open surgery, it does cause tissue trauma and multiple scar formation. The size and number of ports determine the extent of the trauma. Single-port laparoscopic surgery is assumed to minimize and perhaps eliminate the potential adverse effects of conventional laparoscopy. The aim of this study was to examine short-term outcomes of single-port laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

Material and Methods:

Prospectively collected data from 25 consecutive patients who underwent single-port laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer between January 2010 and March 2012. Perioperative data, oncological resections, and short-term outcomes were assessed.

Results:

Male:female ratio was 10:15. Of the 25 patients, 44% had previously undergone abdominal surgery. Median body mass index was 24 kg/m2 (range: 19–32 kg/m2). In all, four patients (16%) had neoadjuvant therapy. Median operating time was 260 min (range: 136–397 min). An additional port was needed in two patients, and one case was converted to hand-assisted approach. Median postoperative stay was 7 days (range: 4–39 days), and three patients (12%) were readmitted. Median lymph node harvest was 13 (range: 3–33). The surgical margins were clear in all patients. Complications were seen in six patients.

Conclusion:

Single-port laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer can be performed in selected patients with rectal cancer without compromising oncological safety and with acceptable morbidity and mortality rates.

Single-port laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with transanal resection (transabdominal transanal resection) for low rectal cancer: initial experience with 22 cases

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excisions (TME) with transanal resection and coloanal anastomosis (CAA) represent one of the standard surgical treatments for low rectal cancers. We report our initial experiences with trans-abdominal trans-anal resections (TATAR) with TME, performed using a single-port laparoscopic surgeries (SPLS) approach for low rectal cancers.

METHODS

Between June 2009 and April 2011, 22 low rectal cancer patients underwent SPLS TATAR with TME. SPLS was performed transumbilically or through predetermined stoma sites. Conventional laparoscopic instruments were used, and the intracorporeal procedures and range of operation did not differ. After a full laparoscopic TME to the pelvic floor muscles, the specimen was pulled through the anus. CAA was completed with transanal hand sewn sutures. Patient and tumor characteristics and operative, pathologic, and postoperative outcomes were studied.

RESULTS

SPLS TATAR with TME was successful in all patients. No additional incisions for trocars or conversions to open surgery were performed. The median incision length, operative time, and postoperative length of stay were 2.0 cm (range: 1.5-2.5), 260 min (range: 190-380), and 6 days (range: 4-16), respectively. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 22 (range: 9-42). The median distal margin from the tumor was 2.0 cm (range: 0.3-4.0). No intraoperative complications were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

SPLS TATAR with TME was safe and feasible. In addition to cosmetic advantages, oncologic requirements for specimens, including adequate margins and sufficient lymph node harvesting could be fulfilled entirely. However, the technique and oncologic safety warrant further evaluation and prospective randomized studies.

Retraction techniques in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a literature-based review

AIM

To systematically review the published literature and describe the various techniques of bowel and mesentery retraction available for use in laparoscopic colorectal resection.

METHOD

A comprehensive search of the literature was undertaken using MESH terms 'retraction', 'laparoscopic' and 'colorectal'. All articles describing methods of retraction in laparoscopic colorectal surgery were included.

RESULTS

Twelve methods of retraction in laparoscopic colorectal surgery were described. Five case-based series and three case studies were reported on 108 patients. Techniques were classified into those offering retraction of the small or large bowel or according to the mode of retraction.

CONCLUSION

Many retraction methods are available to the surgeon varying in cost, invasiveness and complexity. Adequate retraction remains a challenge for optimal exposure and dissection during laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Single-access laparoscopic rectal surgery is technically feasible

Introduction. Single-access laparoscopic surgery (SALS) has been successfully introduced for colectomy surgery; however, for mid to low rectum procedures such as total mesorectal excision, it can be technically complicated. In this study, we introduced a single-access technique for rectum cancer operations without the use of other instruments. Aims. To show the short-term results of single-access laparoscopic rectal surgery in terms of pathologic results and immediate complications. Settings and Design. Prospective study. Materials and Methods. We selected middle rectum to anal canal cancer patients to undergo single-access laparoscopic rectal resection for rectal cancer. All patients had total mesorectal excisions. An umbilical incision was made for the insertion of a single multichannel port, and a mesocolic window was created to identify the inferior mesenteric artery and vein. Total mesorectal excision was performed. There were no perioperative complications. The mean operative time was 269 minutes; the median hospital stay was 7 days; the mean wound size was 5.5 cm; the median number of harvested lymph nodes was 15; and all patients had intact mesorectal capsules. Statistical Analysis Used. Mean, minimum–maximum. Conclusion. Single-access laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is feasible while oncologic principles and patient safety are maintained.

Single-access laparoscopic colectomy utilizing gravity in the lateral decubitus position

BACKGROUND

Only a limited number of instruments can be used in single-access laparoscopic colectomy, and triangulation must be forfeited to avoid instrument collision. We investigated whether this problem could be overcome by performing laparoscopic colectomy by the use of the lateral decubitus position, making full use of gravity.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine whether single-access laparoscopic colectomy could be achieved while maintaining patients in the lateral decubitus position.

DESIGN

This was a prospective study.

SETTING

This single-center study was conducted in a hospital.

PATIENTS

Ten consecutive patients (4 men and 6 women) with stage II or III colon cancer were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Each patient was placed in the lateral decubitus position. Single-port access to the abdomen was provided by a 3.0-cm incision at the umbilicus. The roots of the supplying or draining vessels were isolated and divided for lymphadenectomy. Next, the colon was dissected from a lateral approach, without the help of the assistant. The specimen was extracted from the single-access incision. Extracorporeal or intracorporeal anastomosis was performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measured was the feasibility of single-access laparoscopic colectomy in the lateral decubitus position.

RESULTS

There were no intraoperative complications and no need for conversions to conventional laparoscopic surgery, open surgery, or the supine position. The median total surgical time was 154 minutes (interquartile range, 135-220 minutes). Surgical blood loss was slight (<20 mL) in all patients. No postoperative complications occurred. The median postoperative hospital stay was 7 days (interquartile range, 5-7 days).

LIMITATIONS

The sample size was small.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that single-access laparoscopic colectomy in the lateral decubitus position is safe and feasible.

Systematic review of single-incision laparoscopic colonic surgery

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have shown multiport laparoscopic surgery to be safe compared with open surgery in elective colonic disease. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) represents the latest advance in laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this systematic review was to establish the safety and complication profile of colonic SILS.

METHODS

The search was performed in October 2011 using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Search terms were 'colorectal', 'colon', 'colectomy', 'rectal' and single incision/port/trocar/site/scar. Only pure single-incision laparoscopic colonic surgery for benign and malignant colonic disease was included. Primary outcomes were the early postoperative complication profiles of colonic SILS. Secondary outcomes were duration of operation, lymph node yields, conversion rate and duration of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Colonic SILS data were compared with data from a Cochrane review on the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic colonic surgery and four main RCTs on laparoscopic colonic surgery. Median operating times and time to first bowel motion for colonic SILS were comparable with those for laparoscopic colonic surgery. The median lymph node retrieval for malignant disease achieved with SILS was acceptable. Evidence for a reduction in postoperative pain with SILS was conflicting. There was no significant reduction in length of hospital stay with SILS. Most patients selected for colonic SILS had a low body mass index, non-bulky tumours and were operated on by experienced laparoscopic surgeons. There was significant heterogeneity in study group characteristics, indications for surgery, research methodology, operative techniques and follow-up time.

CONCLUSION

Colonic SILS should be restricted to highly selected patients; operations should be performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons, with critical appraisal of clinical outcomes.

Single-incision laparoscopy for colorectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of more than a thousand procedures

AIM

Single-incision laparoscopy for colorectal surgery is of growing importance. The experience of colorectal resection through single-incision laparoscopic surgery was assessed, including the patient outcomes.

METHOD

A meta-analysis was performed of studies comparing single-incision laparoscopic with multiport laparoscopy. Endpoints included conversion to laparotomy, operation time, postoperative morbidity, length of skin incision and length of hospital stay. The MEDLINE database was searched and only comparative studies were included in the meta-analysis. Data were retrieved from full-text manuscripts. Meta-analysis was performed according to the Mantel-Haenszel method for random effects.

RESULTS

From October 2008 to December 2011, 1026 colorectal resections including 921 colonic and 105 rectal procedures using single-incision laparoscopic surgery were reported in 64 studies. Meta-analysis of the 15 comparative studies, including a total of 1075 procedures (494 single-incision and 581 multiport laparoscopies), showed no difference in conversion to open laparotomy [odds ratio (OR) 0.58 (0.24, 1.38); P=0.22], morbidity [OR 0.84 (0.61, 1.15); P=0.27] or operation time [weighted mean difference (WMD) -0.27 (-6.50, 5.95); P=0.93], but a significantly shorter total skin incision [WMD -0.52 (-0.79, -0.25); P<0.001] and a significantly shorter postoperative length of stay [WMD -0.75 (-1.30, -0.20); P=0.008] after single-incision laparoscopic surgery compared with a multiport laparoscopic approach.

CONCLUSION

Although only 15 nonrandomized comparative studies of varying methodology have been reported, this systematic review and meta-analysis of more than 1000 colorectal procedures suggest that single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery is feasible and safe.

Single-scar laparoscopic colectomy with intracorporeal attachable and detachable instruments

BACKGROUND

In single-access laparoscopic colectomy, the number of instruments that can be inserted through the single-access site is limited by instrument collision. To compensate, triangulation is necessary, but the operative field becomes inadequate. To overcome this problem, intracorporeal attachable and detachable instruments can broaden the field of visceral tissue by retracting from at least 2 points.

OBJECTIVE

We tested this new procedure for colon cancer surgery.

DESIGN

This is a prospective study.

SETTING

This study was conducted at a single-center hospital.

PATIENTS

Ten consecutive patients (3 male and 7 female) with stage II or III colon cancer underwent the procedure.

INTERVENTIONS

All patients received a 3.0-cm incision at the umbilicus or right iliac fossa. At least 2 clips and a suspending bar were inserted through a 12-mm port in a multiport access device. The clips grasped the mesocolon at different points and were retracted with either an extracorporeal magnet or fine-loop retractors; this broadened the operative field in the mesocolon by at least 2 points. The mesocolon was dissected with a medial to lateral approach. The suspended bar was tied to 2 fine-loop retractors and manipulated to enlarge the operative field in the mesocolon. The roots of the vascular pedicles were isolated and divided during lymph node dissection. After extracting the specimen, an anastomosis was performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Intra- and postoperative complications due to inadequate access were the primary outcomes measured.

RESULTS

There were no intraoperative complications and no need for conversions to open surgery or second access ports. The median total surgical time was 182 minutes (range, 122-245). Surgical blood loss was slight (range, 1-20 mL) in all patients. No postoperative complications occurred. The postoperative hospital stay was 5 to 7 days.

LIMITATIONS

The sample size was small.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that intracorporeal attachable and detachable instruments were safe and feasible for this procedure.

Minilaparoscopic colorectal resections: technical note

Laparoscopic colorectal resections have been shown to provide short-term advantages in terms of postoperative pain, general morbidity, recovery, and quality of life. To date, long-term results have been proved to be comparable to open surgery irrefutably only for colon cancer. Recently, new trends keep arising in the direction of minimal invasiveness to reduce surgical trauma after colorectal surgery in order to improve morbidity and cosmetic results. The few reports available in the literature on single-port technique show promising results. Natural orifices endoscopic techniques still have very limited application. We focused our efforts in standardising a minilaparoscopic technique (using 3 to 5 mm instruments) for colorectal resections since it can provide excellent cosmetic results without changing the laparoscopic approach significantly. Thus, there is no need for a new learning curve as minilaparoscopy maintains the principle of instrument triangulation. This determines an undoubted advantage in terms of feasibility and reproducibility of the procedure without increasing operative time. Some preliminary experiences confirm that minilaparoscopic colorectal surgery provides acceptable results, comparable to those reported for laparoscopic surgery with regard to operative time, morbidity, and hospital stay. Randomized controlled studies should be conducted to confirm these early encouraging results.