Assessment of treatment options for rectosigmoid cancer: single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery, single-incision laparoscopic surgery, and conventional laparoscopic surgery

Single-incision plus one-port laparoscopy surgery versus conventional multi-port laparoscopy surgery for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colorectal cancer treatment remains unclear. This study compares the short-term and long-term outcomes of SILS + 1 and CLS using a high-quality systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHOD

Literature search followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, drawing from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library until December 10, 2023. Statistical analysis was conducted using RevMan and Stata.

RESULT

The review and meta-analysis included seven studies with 1740 colorectal cancer patients. Compared to CLS, SILS + 1 showed significant improvements in operation time (WMD =  - 18.33, P < 0.00001), blood loss (WMD =  - 21.31, P < 0.00001), incision length (WMD =  - 2.07, P < 0.00001), time to first defecation (WMD =  - 14.91, P = 0.009), time to oral intake (WMD =  - 11.46, P = 0.04), and time to ambulation (WMD =  - 11.52, P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in lymph node harvest, resection margins, complications, anastomotic leakage, hospital stay, disease-free survival, overall survival, and postoperative recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to CLS, SILS + 1 demonstrates superiority in shortening the surgical incision and promoting postoperative recovery. SILS + 1 can provide a safe and feasible alternative to CLS.

Long-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectosigmoid cancer: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Though our previous study has demonstrated that the single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1) is safe and feasible for sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer and has better short-term outcomes compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS), the long-term outcomes of SILS + 1 remains uncertain and are needed to evaluated by an RCT.

METHODS

Patients with clinical stage T1-4aN0-2M0 rectosigmoid cancer were enrolled. The participants were randomly assigned to either SILS + 1 (n = 99) or CLS (n = 99). The 3-year DFS, 5-year OS, and recurrence patterns were analyzed.

RESULTS

Between April 2014 and July 2016, 198 patients were randomly assigned to either the SILS + 1 group (n = 99) or CLS group (n = 99). The median follow-up in the SILS + 1 group was 64.0 months and in CLS group was 65.0 months. The 3-year DFS was 87.8% (95% CI, 81.6-94.8%) in SILS + 1 group and 86.9% (95% CI, 81.3-94.5%) in CLS group (hazard ratio: 1.09 (95% CI, 0.48-2.47; P = 0.84)). The 5-year OS was 86.7% (95% CI,79.6-93.8%) in the SILS + 1 group and 80.5% (95% CI,72.5-88.5%) in the CLS group (hazard ratio: 1.53 (95% CI, 0.74-3.18; P = 0.25)). There were no significant differences in the recurrence patterns between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no significant difference in 3-year DFS and 5-year OS of patients with sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer treated with SILS + 1 vs. CLS. SILS + 1 is noninferior to CLS when performed by expert surgeons.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02117557 (registered on 21/04/2014).

Short-term and long-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a propensity-matched cohort study with conventional laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1) has been demonstrated to be minimally invasive while possessing better cosmesis and less pain compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). However, SILS + 1 as an alternative to CLS for colorectal cancer is still controversial.

METHODS

A total of 1071 patients who underwent curative laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer between 2015 and 2018 were included. Of these patients, 258 SILS + 1 cases and 516 CLS cases were analyzed using propensity score matching. The baseline characteristics, surgical outcomes, pathologic findings and recovery course, morbidity and mortality within postoperative 30 days and 3-year disease-free and overall survival were compared.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were balanced between the groups. The mean operating time was significantly shorter in SILS + 1 group, with less estimated blood loss. Tumor size, tumor differentiation, number of harvested lymph nodes, resection margin and pathologic T, N, TNM stage was similar between the groups. There was no significant difference in overall perioperative complications. Uni- and multivariate analyses revealed that SILS + 1 was not a risk factor for complications. Postoperatively, SILS + 1 group showed faster recovery than CLS group in terms of ambulation, bowel function, oral intake and discharge. The 3-year disease-free survival rates of SILS + 1 and CLS groups were 90.1% and 87.3%(p = 0.59), respectively and the 3-year overall survival rates were 93.3% vs. 89.8%(p = 0.172).

DISCUSSION

Our study revealed that SILS + 1 is safe, feasible, oncologically efficient, and may be considered as a surgical option for selected patients with colorectal cancer.

Clinical application of two-port laparoscopic surgery in sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer resection

Background

In the field of minimally invasive surgery, the two-port laparoscopic surgery is on the rise. This study investigated the safety and efficacy of two-port laparoscopic surgery (TLS) for resecting sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancers compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

Methods

The clinical data of patients undergoing laparoscopic sigmoid colon cancer and upper rectal cancer resection at the Department of General Surgery of the First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical College between July 2019 and January 2022 were retrospectively collected. Grouped according to different laparoscopic surgery. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria,A total of 81 patients were enrolled, of the 25 patients from the TLS group,and of the 56 patients from the CLS group. We mainly compared whether there were statistical differences between the two groups in terms of operative time, intraoperative bleeding, incision length, time to first ambulation, time to first flatus, time to first defecation, postoperative complication rate, and other surgical outcomes.

Results

There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of baseline clinical characteristics (P > 0.05). In terms of the surgical outcomes, there were statistical differences in the total incision length (TLS: 6.21 ± 0.67 cm, CLS: 8.64 ± 1.08 cm, P < 0.001)), time to first ambulation (TLS: 2.0 ± 0.7 d, CLS:3.1 ± 0.9 d, P < 0.001), time to first flatus (TLS: 2.5 ± 0.8 d, CLS: 3.0 ± 0.8 d, P = 0.028), time to first defecation (TLS: 3.8 ± 1.3 d, CLS: 5.1 ± 2.1 d, P = 0.010), and time for liquid diet (TLS: 4.3 ± 1.4 d, CLS: 5.3 ± 1.9 d, P = 0.021). There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of the pathology (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

In terms of safety, TLS in sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer resection is comparable to CLS. However, its incision is smaller and more aesthetic, and it causes lesser trauma than CLS. Additionally, it is also superior to CLS in postoperative recovery.

Initial experience of single-incision plus one port total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

The use of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (SILPD + 1) has been never reported, and its safety and efficacy remain unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the short-term outcomes of SILPD + 1 compared with those of conventional laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (CLPD).

METHOD

Fifty-seven cases of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) were performed between November 2021, and March 2022. Among them, 10 cases of LPD were performed using a single-incision plus one-port device. Based on the same inclusion and exclusion criteria, 47 cases of LPD performed using traditional 5-trocar were included as a control group. The patient's demographic characteristics, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Three men and seven women were included in the SILPD + 1 group. All baseline parameters of both groups were comparable, except for age. Patients were younger in the SILPD + 1 group (47.2 ± 18.3 years vs. 60.6 ± 11.7 years, P = 0.05) than that in the CLPD group. Compared with the CLPD group, median operation time (222.5 (208.8-245.0) vs. 305.0 (256.0-37.0) min, P < 0.001) was shorter, median postoperative VAS scores on days 1-3 were lower, and median cosmetic score (21.0 (19.0-23.5) vs. 17.0 (16.0-20.0), P = 0.026) was higher one month after the surgery in the SILPD + 1 group. The estimated blood loss, conversion rate, blood-transfusion rate, exhaust time, time of drainage tube removal, postoperative hospital stays, and perioperative complications were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In a high-volume LPD center, SILPD + 1 is safe and feasible for well-selected patients without increasing the operation time and complications. It even has the advantages of reduced postoperative pain and improved cosmetic results.

Comparison of robotic reduced-port and laparoscopic approaches for left-sided colorectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

The reduced-port approach can overcome the limitations of single-incision laparoscopic surgery while maintaining its advantages. Here, we compared the effects of robotic reduced-port surgery and conventional laparoscopic approaches for left-sided colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Between January 2015 and December 2016, the clinicopathological characteristics and treatment outcomes of 17 patients undergoing robotic reduced-port surgery and 49 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for left-sided colorectal cancer were compared.

RESULTS

The two groups were comparable in almost all outcome measures except for the distal resection margin, which was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.001). The between-group differences in reoperation, incisional hernia development, and overall and progression-free survival were nonsignificant; however, the total hospital cost was significantly higher in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (US$13779.6 ± US$3114.8 vs. US$8556.3 ± US$2056.7, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Robotic reduced-port surgery for left-sided colorectal cancer is safe and effective but more expensive with no additional benefit compared with the conventional laparoscopic approach. This observation warrants further evaluation.

Long-term Oncological Results After Laparoscopic Sigmoidectomy for Adenocarcinoma

Purpose: Sigmoidectomy is performed in most cases for benign pathologies and mainly in cases of diverticulitis. Few studies in the literature report oncological results after sigmoidectomy for adenocarcinoma. The aim of this study was to report the long-term oncological outcomes after elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (LS) for adenocarcinoma. Methods: This study is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. From January 2003 to February 2021, 173 patients underwent elective LS for adenocarcinoma. Twenty-four patients with a diagnosis of preoperative distant metastases were excluded (13.9%). Results: Seven postoperative complications were observed (7.1%). Of these, 2 (2%) anastomotic leakages were treated surgically by the Hartmann procedure (Clavien-Dindo grade III-b). The mean number of harvested lymph nodes with the specimen was 14.2 ± 7.1. At a median follow-up of 115 months (interquartile range 133.8), 2 (2%) and 9 patients (9.2%) had developed recurrence and metastases, respectively. During follow-up, 6 patients (6.1%) with metastases died due to disease progression and 6 other patients (6.1%) died due to causes other than cancer related. At the 5- and 10-year follow-ups, the overall survival rates were 90.5% ± 3.4% and 83.8% ± 4.5%, respectively, while the disease-free survival rates were 87.1% ± 4.1% and 83.5% ± 4.7%, respectively. Conclusion: LS is a safe and feasible technique both in terms of the number of harvested lymph nodes and oncological results. The possibility of sparing the colon without mobilizing the splenic flexure and dividing the left colic artery could reduce intra- and postoperative complications. Further studies with larger samples of patients are required to confirm these data.

Effect of single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery assisted with enhanced recovery after surgery on colorectal cancer: study protocol for a single-arm trial

Background

Studies have proved that the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol can significantly improve the recovery course of patients during the perioperative period. The application of minimally invasive surgery is a critical component of ERAS protocol. Single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery (SILS plus one) could achieve further minimally invasive surgical results than conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). The objective of this trial is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of SILS plus one with ERAS protocol in colorectal cancer.

Methods

This is a prospective, single-center, open-label, single-arm trial. A total of 120 eligible patients with colorectal cancer will receive SILS plus one followed by the ERAS management during the perioperative period. The primary endpoint is postoperative hospital stay. The secondary endpoints include rehabilitative rate of the fourth postoperative day, postoperative medical cost, postoperative pain score, postoperative recovery indexes, inflammatory immune response indexes, compliance with ERAS measures, 6 min postoperative walking test (6MWT), hospital readmissions, and early postoperative complications.

Discussion

This trial will be the first to evaluate the short-term outcomes of SILS plus one assisted with ERAS protocol for patients with colorectal cancer and will provide valuable clinical evidence on the benefit of the combination of these two techniques, hopefully, to provide patients with more safe, economic, feasible, and rapid surgery and perioperative strategies.

Trial Registration

Clinical Trial Registry, NCT0426829. Registered February 15, 2020 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04268290).

Application of Laparoscopy in Comprehensive Staging Operation of Ovarian Cancer Based on Electronic Medical Blockchain Technology

Ovarian cancer has always entangled most women. Studies have shown that the prevalence of ovarian cancer ranks third in female reproductive malignancies, and the mortality rate has always been the highest. The reason is mainly because the diagnosis and treatment of preovarian cancer has always been a big problem. However, the emergence of laparoscopy can well solve this problem, especially laparoscopy assisted by blockchain technology, which plays a huge role in the overall staging of ovarian cancer. This article proposes the application research of laparoscopy in the comprehensive staging of ovarian cancer based on electronic medical blockchain technology. First of all, this article uses the literature method to study the clinical characteristics and surgical classification of ovarian cancer, as well as the application status of blockchain technology and laparoscopic technology. Secondly, it designed an application experiment based on electronic medical blockchain technology to assist laparoscopy in the comprehensive staging of ovarian cancer and analyzed the comparison of the laparoscopic group and the control group in the comprehensive staging of ovarian cancer. The results of the study showed that the amount of bleeding in the laparoscopic group was 103.5 ml, while the amount of bleeding in the control group was 141.1 ml; the proportion of tertiary pain in the laparoscopic group was 11.37%, and the proportion of tertiary pain in the control group was 31.82%. From this, it can be seen that, in the comprehensive staging operation for ovarian cancer, the laparoscopic group has less intraoperative blood loss than the control group and lower pain, and the treatment effect is better.

A learning curve in using organ retractor for single-incision laparoscopic right colectomy

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has the potential to improve perioperative outcomes, including less postoperative pain, shorter operation time, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay. However, SILS is technically difficult and needs a longer learning curve. Between April 2016 and September 2019, a total of 198 patients with clinical stage I/II right colon cancer underwent curative resection. In the case of the SILS approach, an organ retractor was usually used to overcome SILS-specific restrictions. The patients were divided into two groups by surgical approach: the SILS with organ retractor group (SILS-O, n = 33) and the conventional laparoscopic surgery group (LAC, n = 165). Clinical T status was significantly higher in the LAC group (p = 0.016). Operation time was shorter and blood loss was lower in the SILS-O group compared to the LAC group (117 vs. 197 min, p = 0.027; 10 vs. 25 mL, p = 0.024, respectively). In the SILS-O group, surgical outcomes including operation time, blood loss, number of retrieved lymph nodes, and postoperative complications were not significantly different between those performed by experts and by non-experts. Longer operation time (p = 0.041) was significantly associated with complications on univariate and multivariate analyses (odds ratio 2.514, 95%CI 1.047-6.035, p = 0.039). SILS-O was safe and feasible for right colon cancer. There is a potential to shorten the learning curve of SILS using an organ retractor.

Natural orifice versus conventional mini-laparotomy for specimen extraction after reduced-port laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: propensity score-matched comparative study

BACKGROUND

Although reduced port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS), defined as laparoscopic surgery performed with the minimum possible number of ports and/or small-sized ports, is less invasive than conventional laparoscopic surgery by reducing the number of surgical wounds, an extension of the incision is still needed for specimen extraction, which can undermine the merits of RPLS.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) in patients undergoing RPLS for colorectal cancer. The endpoints were perioperative outcome and oncologic safety at 3 years.

SETTING

Single-center experience (2013-2019).

PATIENTS

We retrospectively analyzed our prospectively collected patient records (American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage I-III sigmoid or upper rectal cancer (tumor diameter ≤ 5 cm) who underwent curative anterior resection via RPLS. We excluded patients who did not undergo intestinal anastomosis.

INTERVENTIONS

Perioperative and oncologic outcomes were compared between patients undergoing natural orifice (RPLS-NOSE) or conventional (mini-laparotomy) specimen extraction (RPLS-CSE). Patients were matched by propensity scores 1:1 for tumor diameter, AJCC stage, American Society of Anesthesiologists score and tumor location.

RESULTS

Of 119 eligible patients, 104 were matched (52 RPLS-NOSE; 52 RPLS-CSE) by propensity scores. Compared with RPLS-CSE, RPLS-NOSE was associated with longer operative time (223.9 vs. 188.7 min; p = 0.003), decreased use of analgesics (morphine dose 33.9 vs. 43.4 mg; p = 0.011) and duration of hospital stay (4.2 vs. 5.1 days; p = 0.001). No statistically significant difference was found in morbidity or wound-related complication rates between the two groups. After a median follow-up of 34.3 months, no local recurrence was observed in RPLS-NOSE. The 3-year disease-free survival did not differ statistically significantly between groups (90.9 vs. 90.5%; p = 0.610).

CONCLUSION

NOSE enhances the advantages of RPLS by avoiding the need for abdominal wall specimen extraction in patients with tumor diameter ≤ 5 cm. Surgical and oncologic safety are comparable to RPLS with CSE.

Feasibility of Single-Incision Plus One Port Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer

PURPOSE

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is a recently developed minimally invasive surgical technique. We aimed to compare the feasibility and safety of single-incision plus one port laparoscopic low anterior resection (S+1-LAR) with those of multi-port laparoscopic low anterior resection (M-LAR) for mid-to-low rectal cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patient characteristics and surgical outcomes by assessing data collected from the medical records of patients who underwent elective laparoscopic low anterior resection for mid-to-low rectal cancer at the Gangneung Asan Hospital.

RESULTS

From April 2015 to April 2019, 52 patients underwent S+1-LAR (n=28) or M-LAR (n=24) for mid-to-low rectal cancer at Gangneung Asan Hospital. There were no significant between-group differences in clinical characteristics. The mean postoperative 1-day pain score was significantly lower in the S+1-LAR group. Surgical outcomes and postoperative complications did not differ significantly between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

S+1-LAR is a feasible and safe technique and is comparable with M-LAR in terms of surgical outcomes of patients with mid-to-low rectal cancer.

Initial experience of single-incision plus one port left-side approach totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Single incision plus one port left-side approach (SILS+1/L) totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) is an emerging technique for the treatment of gastric cancer. Reduced port laparoscopic gastrectomy has a number of potential advantages for patients compared with conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy: relieving postoperative pain, shortening hospital stay and offering a better cosmetic outcome. Nevertheless, there are no previous reports on the use of SILS+1/L TLDG with uncut Roux-en-Y (uncut R-Y) reconstruction.

AIM

To investigate the initial feasibility of SILS+1/L TLDG with uncut Roux-en-Y digestive tract reconstruction (uncut R-Y reconstruction) to treat distal gastric cancer.

METHODS

A total of 21 patients who underwent SILS+1/L TLDG with uncut R-Y reconstruction for gastric cancer were enrolled. All patients were treated at The Second Hospital of Shandong University. Reconstructions were performed intracorporeally with 60 mm endoscopic linear stapler and 45 mm no-knife stapler. The clinicopathological characteristics, surgical details, postoperative short-term outcomes, postoperative follow-up upper gastrointestinal radiography findings and endoscopy results were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

All SILS+1/L operations were performed by SILS+1/L TLDG successfully. The patient population included 13 men and 8 women with a mean age of 48.2 years (ranged from 40 years to 70 years) and median body mass index of 22.8 kg/m². There were no conversions to open laparotomy, and no other port was placed. The mean operation time was 146 min (ranged 130-180 min), and the estimated mean blood loss was 54 mL (ranged 20-110 mL). The mean duration to flatus and discharge was 2.3 (ranged 1-3.5) and 7.3 (ranged 6-9) d, respectively. The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was 42 (ranged 30-47). Two patients experienced mild postoperative complications, including surgical site infection (wound at the navel incision) and mild postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade A). Follow-up upper gastrointestinal radiography and endoscopy were carried out at 3 mo postoperatively. No patients experienced moderate or severe food stasis, alkaline gastritis or bile reflux during the follow-up period. No recanalization of the biliopancreatic limb was found.

CONCLUSION

SILS+1/L TLDG with uncut R-Y reconstruction could be safely performed as a reduced port surgery.

Short- And medium-term outcomes of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery in elderly patients with upper rectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study

Background

To investigate the short‐ and medium‐term outcomes of using a reduced‐port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS), compared to multi‐port laparoscopic surgery (MPLS), for the treatment of upper rectal cancer (URC) among elderly patients.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of the clinical and follow‐up data of 181 elderly patients with URC, who underwent radical laparoscopic surgery at our hospital, between January 2015 and January 2019. Among these 181 cases, 62 underwent RPLS and 119 MPLS.

Results

Compared to MPLS, RPLS decreased the length of surgical incision, lower pain on postoperative days 1 and 2, decreased the time to first flatus after surgery, as well as the time to mobilization after surgery. There was no difference between the short‐term outcomes between the two laparoscopic approaches, and no difference in the 3‐year disease‐free and overall survival rate.

Conclusion

Compared to MPLS, RPLS provides several advantages for the treatment of URC among elderly individuals, including a shorter length of surgical incision, reduced postoperative pain, shorter time to first flatus after surgery, earlier mobilization, and better cosmetic outcomes. These advantages are achieved with no difference in the length of surgery, nor in the 3‐year disease‐free and overall survival rate, compared to MPLS.

Single-incision laparoscopic total colectomy using an organ retractor: A case report

Introduction

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has benefits, including less postoperative pain, a shorter incision, and improved cosmesis. However, SILS is technically difficult because of the limited movement. An organ retractor is an instrument that has the potential to overcome these limitations.

Presentation of case

An 85-year-old woman with hematochezia was referred to our hospital. Emergency endoscopy showed diverticulosis of the entire colon and active bleeding from the ascending colon. Despite endoscopic clipping, the bleeding continued. SILS total colectomy using an organ retractor was performed due to uncontrollable diverticular bleeding. A 3-cm incision was placed in the umbilicus, and three conventional ports were inserted into the single umbilical incision. An organ retractor was used for hepatocolic ligament transection, transection of the ileocolic vessels, and transection of the mesentery of the sigmoid colon. For each transection, the tension was adjusted to provide a good operative view. The patient's postoperative course was uneventful.

Conclusion

An organ retractor was effective for SILS total colectomy to maintain an adequate operative view, which enabled safe dissection.

Short-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectosigmoid cancer: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to evaluate the short-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port surgery (SILS + 1) compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colonic cancer.

BACKGROUND

At present, single-incision laparoscopic colectomy remains technically challenging. The use of SILS + 1 as an alternative has gained increasing attention; however, its safety and efficacy remain controversial.

METHODS AND PATIENTS

Between April 2014 and July 2016, 198 patients with clinical stage T1-4aN0-2 M0 rectosigmoid cancer were enrolled. The participants were randomly assigned to either SILS + 1 (n = 99) or CLS (n = 99). The morbidity and mortality within 30 days, operative and pathologic outcomes, postoperative recovery course, inflammation and immune responses, and pain intensity were compared.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in overall complications between the two groups (17.2 vs. 16.3%, P = 1.000). The total operating time for the SILS + 1 group was significantly shorter (100.8 ± 30.4 vs. 116.6 ± 36.6, P = 0.002). Blood loss was significantly greater in the CLS group (20 vs. 50, P < 0.001). Thirteen patients (14%) in the CLS group required additional postoperative analgesics, which was significantly more than four patients in the SILS + 1 group. Notably, on postoperative day three, the visual analogue scale score of the CLS group was greater than that of the SILS + 1 group (1.3 ± 1.1 vs. 1.7 ± 1.3, P = 0.023). Tumor diameter, pathologic stage, length of the proximal and distal margins, and number of lymph nodes harvested were similar, other values were also similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that SILS + 1 might be safe and feasible for rectosigmoid cancer when performed by experienced surgeons. It offers minimal invasiveness without compromising oncologic treatment principles. Trial Registration This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02117557).

Multidimensional analyses of the learning curve for single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Single-incision plus one port surgery (SILS + 1) provides the advantages of being minimally invasive and easier to perform than pure single-incision laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate the learning curve (LC) for SILS + 1 for sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer.

METHOD

From November 2012 to May 2014, a series of 85 consecutive patients underwent selective SLIS + 1 for sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer performed by a single surgeon at Nanfang Hospital. The LC for SILS + 1 was evaluated using cumulative sum control chart (CUSUM) and risk-adjusted CUSUM methods. Data for all the perioperative variables and pathologic results among the phases were compared.

RESULTS

The LC had three phases: phase 1 (cases 1-13) was the initial learning period; phase 2 (cases 14-44) was the learning plateau period; and phase 3 (cases 45-85) was the competent period. The differences in total operating time among the three phases were significant. The number of harvested lymph nodes increased along with increases in the surgeon's experience.

CONCLUSIONS

For experienced CLS surgeons, the learning process reached the plateau period after the 13th case, and technical competence was achieved after the 44th case.

Hybrid Single-Incision Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Surgery Using One Additional 5 mm Trocar

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a feasible and safe procedure for colorectal cancer. However, SILS has some technical limitations such as collision between instruments and inadequate countertraction. We present a hybrid single-incision laparoscopic surgery (hybrid SILS) technique for colon cancer that involves use of one additional 5 mm trocar.

METHODS

Hybrid SILS for colon cancer was attempted in 70 consecutive patients by a single surgeon between August 2014 and July 2016 at Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine. Using prospectively collected data, an observational study was performed on an intention-to-treat basis.

RESULTS

Hybrid SILS was technically completed in 66 patients, with a failure rate of 5.7% (4/70). One patient was converted to open surgery for para-aortic lymph node dissection. Another was converted to open surgery due to severe peritoneal adhesion. An additional trocar was inserted for adhesiolysis in the other two cases. Median lengths of proximal and distal margins were 12.8 cm (interquartile range [IQR], 10.0-18.6), and 8.2 cm (IQR, 5.5-18.3), respectively. Median total number of lymph nodes harvested was 24 (IQR, 18-33). Overall rate of postoperative morbidity was 12.9%, but there were no Clavien-Dindo grade III or IV complications. There was no postoperative mortality or reoperation. Median postoperative hospital stay was 6 days (IQR, 5-7).

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid SILS using one additional 5 mm trocar is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgical technique for colon cancer. Experienced laparoscopic surgeons can perform hybrid SILS without a learning curve based on the formulaic surgical techniques presented in this article.