Single-access transumbilical laparoscopic appendectomy and cholecystectomy using new curved reusable instruments: a pilot feasibility study

Single-incision versus conventional multi-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy for suspected uncomplicated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Appendicectomy is a well-established surgical procedure to manage acute appendicitis. The operation was historically performed as an open procedure and is currently performed using minimally invasive surgical techniques. A recent development in appendicectomy technique is the introduction of single-incision laparoscopic surgery. This incorporates all working ports (either one multi-luminal port or multiple mono-luminal ports) through a single skin incision; the procedure is known as single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy or SILA. Unanswered questions remain regarding the efficacy of this novel technique, including its effects on patient benefit and satisfaction, complications, and long-term outcomes, when compared to multi-incision conventional laparoscopy (CLA). This is an update of a review published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy compared with multi-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy, on benefits, complications, and short-term outcomes, in patients with acute appendicitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library 2018 Issue 2), Ovid MEDLINE (1983 to January 2024), Ovid Embase (1983 to January 2024), the WHO International Clinical Trial Register (January 2024), and Clinicaltrials.gov (January 2024). We also searched reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, conference proceedings, and ongoing trial databases. The searches were carried out on 20 January 2024.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the single-incision procedure SILA against CLA for patients (male and female) over the age of 10 years, diagnosed with appendicitis, or symptoms of appendicitis, and undergoing laparoscopic appendicectomy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data into a standardised form, and assessed the risk of bias in the studies. We extracted data relevant to the predetermined outcome measures. Where appropriate, we calculated a summary statistic: odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous data. We used Review Manager Web for our statistical analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

This review was first published in 2011, when there was no RCT evidence available. For this update, we identified 11 RCTs involving 1373 participants (689 in the SILA groups and 684 in the CLA groups). The participants were similar at baseline in terms of age (mean 31.7 (SILA) versus 30.9 years (CLA)) and sex (female: 53.0% (SILA) versus 50.3% (CLA)). Diagnosis of appendicitis was based on clinical assessment; none of the studies used a diagnosis confirmed by imaging as part of their inclusion criteria. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate, and the outcomes were predominately reported in the short term. Pain scores at 24 hours after surgery may be similar between the SILA and CLA groups (mean score SILA 2.53 versus CLA 2.65; mean difference (MD) in pain score -0.12, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.28; 294 participants, 4 RCTs; low-certainty evidence). SILA probably had superior cosmetic results as indicated by patients using the Body Image questionnaire (5 to 20) (mean score SILA 14.9 versus CLA 12.4; cosmesis score MD 1.97, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.33; 266 participants, 3 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). The rate of visceral and vascular injury was probably similar with both techniques (SILA 0/168 versus 4/169; OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.79; 337 participants, 3 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). The conversion rate to CLA or open surgery may be higher for SILA procedures than the conversion rate from CLA to open surgery (SILA 32/574 versus CLA 7/569; OR 2.95, 95% CI 1.36 to 6.42; 1143 participants, 9 RCTs; low-certainty evidence). Use of an additional port site was probably more likely with SILA compared to CLA (SILA 28/328 versus CLA 4/336; OR 3.80, 95% CI 1.13 to 12.72; 664 participants, 5 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). The recovery time was probably similar for both interventions for hospital stay (mean length of stay in hospital for SILA 2.25 days versus 2.29 days for CLA patients; MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.03; 1241 participants, 10 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) and time to return to normal activities (SILA 9.28 days versus CLA 10.0 days; MD -0.59, 95% CI -1.99 to 0.81; 451 participants, 4 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). We have low-to-moderate confidence in our findings due to differences in the measurement of certain outcomes, and lack of blinding in the studies, which makes them prone to performance bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-to-moderate certainty evidence that single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy is comparable to conventional laparoscopic appendicectomy in terms of complications, length of hospital stay, return to normal activities, and postoperative pain in the first 24 hours. The disadvantage of SILA may be a higher conversion rate, but SILA is probably associated with better patient cosmetic satisfaction.

Single Incision Laparoscopic Surgery: Feasibility of the Direct Fascial Puncture Technique Without Working Trocars

Introduction

As single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) became popular, many access platforms and techniques emerged. When we initially described the direct fascial puncture (DFP) technique, many suggested it was not practical for three reasons: (1) increased hernia formation, (2) inability to complete operations without instrument changes and (3) insurmountable instrument drag. This study sought to determine whether the technique was a feasible approach by evaluating the outcomes with DFP-SILS in a single surgeon unit.

Methods

This was a retrospective audit of all consecutive patients who had unselected SILS operations by a single surgeon. For the DFP-SILS operation, a single optical trocar was used at the umbilicus, a second was rail-roaded beside the optical trocar and a third was directly passed across the fascia at the left-lateral extent of the skin wound. We recorded the number of conversions or failed operations and examined the patients routinely after operation to evaluate for incisional herniae.

Results

There were 50 DFP-SILS operations performed: 37 cholecystectomies, 12 appendectomies and one jejunal resection. The operations were successful in all cases with no conversions or mortality recorded. One patient (2%) developed a superficial surgical site infection after SILS-DFP appendectomy. The therapeutic outcomes were comparable to existing series of multi-port laparoscopy. There were no incisional herniae detected.

Conclusion

Even in the resource-poor setting, SILS operations are feasible and safe using the DFP technique. The theoretic concerns have not been realized in clinical practice.

Single incision laparoscopic surgery from a caribbean perspective

Conventional laparoscopy with multiple ports has recently gained a strong foothold in the Caribbean, but single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has lagged behind. In this paper, we compare the data on SILS and conventional multi-port laparoscopy in the English-speaking Caribbean.

Single port laparoscopic orchidopexy in children using surgical glove port and conventional rigid instruments

PURPOSE

We review the literature and describe our technique for laparoendoscopic single-site orchidopexy using a glove port and rigid instruments. We assessed the feasibility and outcomes of this procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the case records of all children who had undergone laparoendoscopic single-site orchidopexy by use of a surgical glove port and conventional rigid instruments for a nonpalpable intraabdominal testis between January 2013 and September 2014.

RESULTS

Data from a total of 20 patients were collected. The patients' mean age was 18 months. All cases had a nonpalpable unilateral undescended testis. Fourteen patients (70%) had an undescended testis on the right side and six patients (30%) had an undescended testis on the left side. Seventeen patients underwent primary orchidopexy. Three patients underwent single-port laparoscopic Fowler-Stephens orchidopexy for the first and the second stage. Average operating time was 57 minutes (range, 40 to 80 minutes). No patient was lost to follow-up. At follow-up, 2 testes were found to have retracted out of the scrotum and these were successfully dealt with in a second operation. One testis was hypoplastic in the scrotal pouch. There were no signs of umbilical hernia.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-port laparoscopic orchidopexy using a glove port and rigid instruments is technically feasible and safe for various nonpalpable intraabdominal testes. However, surgical experience and long-term follow-up are needed to confirm the superiority of this technique.

Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy vs conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM: To assess the differences in clinical benefits and disadvantages of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA).

METHODS: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database were electronically searched up through January 2013 to identify randomized controlled trails (RCTs) comparing SILA with CLA. Data was extracted from eligible studies to evaluate the pooled outcome effects for the total of 1068 patients. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.2.0. For dichotomous data and continuous data, the risk ratio (RR) and the mean difference (MD) were calculated, respectively, with 95%CI for both. For continuous outcomes with different measurement scales in different RCTs, the standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated with 95%CI. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed when necessary.

RESULTS: Six RCTs were identified that compared SILA (n = 535) with CLA (n = 533). Five RCTs had a high risk of bias and one RCT had a low risk of bias. SILA was associated with longer operative time (MD = 5.68, 95%CI: 3.91-7.46, P < 0.00001), higher conversion rate (RR = 5.14, 95%CI: 1.25-21.10, P = 0.03) and better cosmetic satisfaction score (MD = 0.52, 95%CI: 0.30-0.73, P < 0.00001) compared with CLA. No significant differences were found for total complications (RR = 1.15, 95%CI: 0.76-1.75, P = 0.51), drain insertion (RR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.41-1.25, P = 0.24), or length of hospital stay (SMD = 0.04, 95%CI: -0.08-0.16, P = 0.57). Because there was not enough data among the analyzed RCTs, postoperative pain was not calculated.

CONCLUSION: The benefit of SILA is cosmetic satisfaction, while the disadvantages of SILA are longer operative time and higher conversion rate.

A review of minimally invasive single-port/incision laparoscopic appendectomy

INTRODUCTION

Single-port/incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SPILA) is a modern advancement toward stealth surgery, using a single point of entry. Despite the paucity of clinical data, it is increasingly being used to minimize scarring and, potentially, pain associated with the multiple entry points. We aimed to summarize and present available data on this new approach.

METHODOLOGY

All available databases until December 2010 including the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched and cross-referenced for studies describing single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy. Case and experimental reports, series with fewer than 5 patients, and non-English articles were excluded. Outcome measures were operative time, postoperative hospital stay, pain scores, complications, conversion, and mortality, stratified according to type of SPILA approach. SPSS version 18.0.0 software was used for data collection.

RESULTS

Database query yielded 79 articles; 45 were included (1 randomized controlled trial, 44 case series). Total cases were 2806, with mean patient age for studies ranging from 7.0 to 37.5 years. No mortality was reported. The overall complication rate was 4.13%. The overall weighted mean operating time was 41.3 minutes (range, 15.0-95.9 minutes). The weighted mean hospital stay was 2.79 days (range, 1.0-6.6 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the incidence of complications with SPILA remains low and operating times between new and traditional approaches are comparable in case-based literature, adequately powered randomized trials are required to assess its effectiveness. Occurrence of long-term complication types remains unexplored.

Single incision versus standard 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy through a single umbilical incision is an emerging technique supported by case series, but prospective comparative data are lacking. Therefore, we conducted a prospective, randomized trial comparing single site umbilical laparoscopic cholecystectomy to 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

After IRB approval, patients were randomized to laparoscopic cholecystectomy via a single umbilical incision or standard 4-port access. The primary outcome variable was operative time. Utilizing a power of 0.8 and an alpha of 0.05, 30 patients were calculated for each arm. Patients with complicated disease or weight over 100 kg were excluded. Post-operative management was controlled. Surgeons subjectively scored degree of technical difficulty from 1=easy to 5=difficult.

RESULTS

From 8/2009 through 7/2011, 60 patients were enrolled. There were no differences in patient characteristics. Operative time and degree of difficulty were greater with the single site approach. There were more doses of analgesics used and greater hospital charges in the single site group that trended toward significance.

CONCLUSION

Single site laparoscopic cholecystectomy produces longer operative times with a greater degree of difficulty as assessed by the surgeon. There was a trend toward more doses of post-operative analgesics and greater hospital charges with the single site approach.

Modified transumbilical laparoscopic cholecystectomy: double-incision, triple-port access

Transumbilical laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been increasingly performed in recent years, using special access devices and instruments through one incision in the umbilicus. We have modified the technique by using a two-incision triple-port access approach and conventional laparoscopic instruments. A total of 52 patients accepted the modified transumbilical laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and all the procedures were completed successfully. The operative time was 150 minutes for the first case, 100 minutes and 90 minutes for the second and third cases, and an average of 50 ± 14 minutes for the following 49 cases. All patients were discharged on post-operative day 3. No complications were observed during a follow-up of at least three months. The umbilical incisions were nearly invisible, and all patients were satisfied with the abdominal cosmetic results.In conclusion, transumbilical laparoscopic cholecystectomy using a double-incision triple-port access approach and conventional laparoscopic instruments as described in this study is safe and feasible, and it reduces the conflict of instruments without using special devices.

Single port versus multiple port laparoscopic cholecystectomy-a comparative study

Single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) was introduced to minimize postoperative morbidity and improve cosmesis. We performed a comparative study to assess feasibility, safety and perceived benefits of SPLC. Two groups of patients (104 each) with comparable demographic characteristics were selected for SPLC and multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MPLC) between May 2010 to March 2011. SPLC was performed using X cone® with 5 mm extra long telescope and 3 ports for hand instruments. MPLC was performed with traditional 4 port technique. A large window was always created during dissection to obtain the critical view of safety. Data collection was prospective. The primary end points were post-operative pain and surgical complications. Secondary end points were patient assessed cosmesis and satisfaction scores and operating time. The mean VAS scores for pain in SPLC group were higher on day 0 (SPLC 3.37 versus MPLC 2.72, p = 0.03) and equivalent to MPLC group on day 1(SPLC 1.90 versus MPLC 1.79, p = 0.06). Number of patients requiring analgesia for breakthrough pain (SPLC 21.1 % versus MPLC 26.9 %, p = 0.31) was similar. Number and nature of surgical complications was similar (SPLC 17.3 % versus MPLC 21.2 %, p =0.59). Mean patient assessed cosmesis scores (SPLC 7.96 versus MPLC 7.16, p = 0.003) and mean patient satisfaction scores (SPLC 8.66 versus MPLC 8.16, p = 0.004) were higher in SPLC group indicating better cosmesis and greater patient satisfaction. SPLC took longer to perform (61 min versus 26 min, p = 0.00). Conversion was required in 5 patients in SPLC group. SPLC appears to be feasible and safe with cosmetic benefits in selected patients. However, challenges remain to improve operative ergonomics. SPLC needs to be proven efficacious with a high safety profile to be accepted as standard laparoscopic technique.

Transumbilical single-access laparoscopic perforated gastric ulcer repair

INTRODUCTION

In patients presenting with peritonitis, laparoscopy offers the possibility of diagnosis as well as treatment, with less abdominal trauma, reduced postoperative pain, and shorter hospital stay.

CASE REPORT

A 30-year-old woman, presenting with diffuse abdominal pain and free pneumoperitoneum, was submitted to transumbilical single-access laparoscopy. The procedure was performed using a standard 11-mm reusable trocar in the umbilicus and curved reusable instruments inserted transumbilically without trocars. The cavity exploration showed a perforated gastric ulcer at the anterior surface of the prepyloric area. A gastric suture repair, omentoplasty, and lavage of the cavity were performed.

RESULTS

The umbilical incision was 15 mm and laparoscopy lasted 86 minutes. Use of painkillers was minimal, and the patient was discharged on the fifth postoperative day. After 6 months, the umbilical scar was no visible.

CONCLUSIONS

Transumbilical single-access laparoscopy can be proposed in selected patients presenting perforated gastric ulcer, with the main advantage of improved cosmetic results.

From 3-port to new laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) cholecystectomy: a critical analysis of available evidence

In recent years, laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) has gained greater interest and diffusion for the treatment of gallstones. This critical review aims to evaluate the feasibility and safety of LESS cholecystectomy versus the 3-port technique (TPT) through a comparative analysis of 5 parameters: mean operative time, intraoperative and postoperative complications, conversion to open, conversion to the 4-trocar technique and postoperative hospital stay. The authors performed a systematic search of the medical literature through a search of PubMed and Ovid EMBASE. Inclusion criteria were as follows: publication date between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2010; English or Italian language; human participants and series of 20 operations or more. There were 5 manuscripts meeting the inclusion criteria for TPT and 23 for LESS. Only one prospective randomized controlled trial comparing TPT and LESS was identified. Operative time is significantly longer in the single-incision group. Complications and conversion rates to the 4-port technique are higher in LESS. Postoperative hospital stay is similar in the 2 groups. Rate of conversion to open is higher in TPT. Despite the number of publications on LESS cholecystectomy, the vast majority of data available in the literature are from small case series without any comparative data. Although LESS cholecystectomy is a fashionable technique there are few data available for an evidence-based determination as to the real benefits of this technique. Well-designed comparative studies are suggested to validate the clinical benefits and ensure that there are no new complications or added costs associated with the new technique.

Are natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and single-incision surgery viable techniques for cholecystectomy?

BACKGROUND

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and single-incision surgery (SIS) are less invasive alternatives to traditional laparoscopic techniques. Concerns exist over the safety of these new approaches, and randomized controlled trials have yet to confirm a net benefit. If NOTES and SIS techniques are to become standard practice, then they should be shown to be safe and hold clear benefits to patients. We aim at comparing the available results by using these techniques in a standard laparoscopic operation (cholecystectomy).

METHODS

A systematic review using available databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register) and the published English language medical literature was performed. All the archived articles were cross-referenced. Outcome data obtained from a Cochrane review of laparoscopic cholecystectomy were used as the control group. All the operations performed via a single incision were grouped under SIS, and operations in which a natural orifice (alone or as a hybrid technique) was analyzed, under NOTES group. Mortality and complications were the primary outcome measures.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-five papers including 4703 patients (714 NOTES, 3989 SIS) were selected for analysis. Overall complication rate was 4.2% in the NOTES group versus 4.3% in the SIS group, with a distinct complication profile. No mortality was reported in either group. NOTES procedures had a longer mean operative time than SIS techniques (107 versus 79 minutes). The conversion rate between NOTES and SILS was similar (3.4% versus 3.3%, respectively).

DISCUSSION

No difference in the incidence of complications was observed with the newer techniques. Adequately powered randomized control trials are needed to clarify whether SIS/NOTES cholecystectomy has a similar length of hospital stay to traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The increased occurrence of specific types of complications and their use in acute pathology needs further investigation to warrant further use in routine surgical practice.

Technical approaches to single port/incision laparoscopic appendicectomy: a literature review

INTRODUCTION

Single port/incision laparoscopic surgery (SPILS) is a modern advancement toward stealth surgery. Despite the paucity of high-quality scientific studies assessing its effectiveness, this procedure is being used increasingly. This review aims to describe commonly used techniques for SPILS appendicectomies (SPILA), to summarise complication rates in the literature and to provide discussion on indications and implementation.

METHODS

All available databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE(®) and Embase™ were searched in February 2011 and cross-referenced for available English literature describing SPILA in patients of any age.

RESULTS

Three broad technical approaches are described: procedures using laparoscopic instruments through a single skin incision in the abdominal wall, regardless of the number of fascial incisions, with or without the additional use of percutaneous sutures or wires to 'assist' the operation, and hybrid procedures, in which the appendix is exteriorised using a single incision laparoscopically assisted operation but subsequently divided using a conventional 'open' appendicectomy technique. Complication rates seem to be highest in SPILA procedures unassisted by sutures or wires.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research assessing the efficacy of single incision laparoscopic procedures should consider variation in technique as a possible factor affecting outcome.

Single incision versus conventional multi-incision appendicectomy for suspected appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Appendicectomy is a well established surgical procedure used in the management of acute appendicitis.  The operation can be performed with minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic) or as an open procedure. A recent development in appendicectomy has been the introduction of less invasive single incision laparoscopic surgery, using a single multi-luminal port or multiple mono-luminal ports, through a single skin incision. There are yet unanswered questions regarding the efficacy of this new and novel technique including: patient benefit and satisfaction, complications, long-term outcomes, and survival.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to perform meta-analysis using data from available trials comparing single incision with conventional multi-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendicitis, in order to ascertain any differences in outcome.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the electronic databases including MEDLINE/PubMed (from 1980 to December 2010), EMBASE/Ovid (from 1980 to December 2010) and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 11) with pre-specified terms. We also searched reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, conference proceedings and ongoing trial databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of patients with appendicitis, or symptoms of appendicitis, undergoing laparoscopic appendicectomy, in which at least one arm involves single incision procedures and another multi-incision procedures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

There were no RCTs or prospectively controlled trials found that met the inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Three authors performed study selection independently.No studies that met the inclusion criteria of this review were identified. Current evidence exists only the form of case-series.This review has been authored as 'empty' pending the results of 5 ongoing trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No RCTs comparing single incision laparoscopic appendectomy with multi-incision surgery could be identified. No definitive conclusions can be made at this time. Well designed prospective RCTs are required in order to evaluate benefit or harm from laparoscopic surgical approaches for appendicectomy. Until appropriate data has been reported, the institutional polices of healthcare providers must be based on the clinical judgement of experts in the field.