Single-port laparoscopic surgery in uncomplicated acute appendicitis: a randomized controlled trial

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

Three-port (trocar) laparoscopic appendectomy is the standard treatment for acute appendicitis and previous studies have compared to single-incision approach, however, they often include both pediatric and adult patients and fail to account for surgeons' experience, leading to variability in outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to address these literature gaps by focusing on adult patients and controlling for surgeon expertise. We conducted a comprehensive search of randomized controlled trials comparing single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) up to November 2024. We assessed the length of hospitalization, operative duration, postoperative complications, and surgical wound infections. Data were synthesized using random-effects models to account for variability among studies. The meta-analysis included four studies with a total of 408 patients, comprising 202 in the single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) group and 206 in the conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) group. For the length of hospitalization, no statistically significant difference was observed, with a weighted mean difference (WMD) of 0.07 days (95% CI  - 0.32 to 0.47, I2 = 0%, p = 0.72). Similarly, the operative duration showed no significant difference, with a WMD of 4.49 min (95% CI  - 7.02 to 16.00, I2 = 89%, p = 0.44). The analysis of postoperative complications also revealed no significant difference between the groups, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.32 (95% CI 0.69 to 2.51, I2 = 0%, p = 0.40). Surgical wound infections were found to be comparable, with an OR of 1.14 (95% CI 0.46 to 2.83, I2 = 0%, p = 0.78). Sensitivity analysis indicated that the results were statistically significant regarding operative duration when Kim et al. was excluded from the analysis. SILA and CLA yield comparable outcomes in terms of hospitalization length, operative duration, and complications, suggesting that both techniques are viable options for the management of acute appendicitis in adults. Further studies investigating overall cosmesis, patient satisfaction, and postoperative pain are warranted to optimize surgical approaches.PROSPERO registration: CRD42024612596.

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-port laparoscopic appendectomy using new surgical procedure versus conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy

The aim of this study was to compare the clinic outcomes between new single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (NSLA) and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (CTLA) for patients with acute appendicitis. Patients who were diagnosed with acute appendicitis and underwent appendectomy were retrospectively collected from a single clinical center from September 2021 to June 2023. Baseline characteristics, surgical information, and postoperative information were compared between the NSLA group and the CTLA group. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to find out the predictors of overall complications. A total of 296 patients were enrolled from a single clinical medical center. There were 146 (49.3%) males and 150 (50.7%) females. There were 54 (18.2%) patients in the NSLA group and 242 (81.8%) patients in the CTLA group. After data analysis, we found the patients in the NSLA group had a shorter postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.01) than the CTLA group. The other outcomes including intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.167), operation time (P = 0.282), nature of the appendix (P = 0.971), and overall complications (P = 0.543) were not statistically different. After univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis, we found that age (P = 0.018, OR = 1.039, 95% CI = 1.007-1.072), neutrophil percentage (P = 0.018, OR = 1.070, 95% CI = 1.011-1.132), and fever (P = 0.019, OR = 6.112, 95% CI = 1.340-27.886) were the predictors of overall complications. However, the surgical procedure (NSLA versus CTLA) was not a predictor of overall complications (P = 0.376, OR = 1.964, 95% CI = 0.440-8.768). Compared with CTLA, there was no significant increase in postoperative overall complications with NSLA, making it a safe and feasible new surgical procedure. More studies are needed to evaluate the long-term results.

Laparoscopic appendectomy with single port vs conventional access: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Conventional three-access laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) is currently the gold standard treatment, however, Single-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy (SILA) has been proposed as an alternative. The aim of this systematic review/meta-analysis was to evaluate safety and efficacy of SILA compared with conventional approach.

METHODS

Per PRISMA guidelines, we systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CLA vs SILA for acute appendicitis. The randomised Mantel-Haenszel method was used for the meta-analysis. Statistical data analysis was performed with the Review Manager software and the risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane "Risk of Bias" assessment tool.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies (RCTs) were selected (2646 patients). The operative time was significantly longer in the SILA group (MD = 7,32), confirmed in both paediatric (MD = 9,80), (Q = 1,47) and adult subgroups (MD = 5,92), (Q = 55,85). Overall postoperative morbidity was higher in patients who underwent SILA, but the result was not statistically significant. In SILA group were assessed shorter hospital stays, fewer wound infections and higher conversion rate, but the results were not statistically significant. Meta-analysis was not performed about cosmetics of skin scars and postoperative pain because different scales were used in each study.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis show that SILA, although associated with fewer postoperative wound infection, has a significantly longer operative time. Furthermore, the risk of postoperative general complications is still present. Further studies will be required to analyse outcomes related to postoperative pain and the cosmetics of the surgical scar.

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

While consensus on single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) for acute appendicitis is lacking, our meta-analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of SILA compared to conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (CTLA). A computer-based search was conducted in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP, Wanfang, China Biological Medicine (CBM), PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SILA with CTLA groups. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. A total of 26 RCTs were included. The meta-analysis results indicated that, compared to the CTLA group, the SILA group had a longer operation time [MD = 7.97, 95 % CI (5.84, 10.10), P < 0.00001], and a higher rate of conversion to open surgery [RR = 2.60, 95 % CI (1.27, 5.31), P = 0.009], but had a shorter time to return to normal activities [MD = -0.76, 95 % CI (-1.15, -0.37), P = 0.0001]. Additionally, the SILA group had higher satisfaction scores [SMD = 1.21, 95 % CI (0.75, 1.68), P < 0.00001] and cosmetic scores [SMD = 0.68, 95 % CI (0.45, 0.90), P < 0.00001]. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of pain scores at 24 h postoperatively [MD = -0.21, 95 % CI (-0.56, 0.14), P = 0.25], the incidence of wound infection [RR = 1.13, 95 % CI (0.74, 1.73), P = 0.58], or the overall complication rate [RR = 0.86, 95 % CI (0.66, 1.12), P = 0.27]. SILA is a safe and effective surgical approach that allows patients to recover to normal activities earlier, particularly for patients with a strong demand for better cosmetic outcomes. However, the quality of some RCTs in this meta-analysis is low, and further verification is needed through future high-quality RCTs.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the outcomes of laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis

Purpose

This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the time interval from symptom onset to surgery and on the operative outcomes of laparoscopic appendectomy for patients with acute appendicitis.

Methods

Between October 2018 and July 2021, laparoscopic appendectomy was performed in 502 patients with acute appendicitis admitted to Hallym University Chuncheon Sacred Heart Hospital in Chuncheon, Korea. We compared demographic data, serum levels of inflammatory markers, time to event of appendicitis, and operative outcomes between the pre-COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 pandemic groups.

Results

Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed in 271 patients in the pre-COVID-19 group and in 231 patients in the post-COVID-19 group. There were no differences in baseline characteristics, serum inflammatory marker levels, or the proportions of complicated appendicitis between the groups (25.1%, pre-COVID-19 vs. 31.6%, post-COVID-19; P = 0.106). The time intervals between symptom onset and hospital arrival (24.42 hours vs. 23.59 hours, P = 0.743) and between hospital arrival and the start of surgery (10.12 hours vs. 9.04 hours, P = 0.246) did not increase post-COVID-19. The overall 30-day postoperative complication rate did not differ significantly between the groups (9.6% vs. 10.8%, P = 0.650), and the severity of 30-day postoperative complications was also similar in both groups (P = 0.447).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that hospitalization and surgeries were not delayed in patients with acute appendicitis and that the operative outcomes of laparoscopic appendectomy did not worsen despite the COVID-19 pandemic.

Single-incision compared with conventional laparoscopy for appendectomy in acute appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A meta-analysis of the relevant literature evaluated the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) relative to those of conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA).

METHODS

The major biomedical databases, including ClinicalTrials.gov, were searched up to January 2022 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). SILA and CLA were compared regarding patient body mass index, operative time, and perioperative complications. The Cochrane Handbook and RevMan 5.3 were used to judge trial quality and perform the meta-analysis, respectively.

RESULTS

The 17 included RCTs comprised 2068 patients, of whom 1039 and 1029 patients underwent SILA and CLA, respectively. The operative time for SILA was longer than that for CLA (MD = 8.35 min, 95% CI = 6.58 to 10.11, P < 0.00001), but the cosmetic results from SILA were superior (SMD = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.58 to 1.03, P < 0.00001). However, the incidence rates were similar in terms of patient body mass index; postoperative pain scores; and rates of abdominal abscess, conversion to open surgery, ileus, surgical site infection, and overall perioperative complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

SILA is a safe technique for acute appendicitis, and its cosmetic outcomes are superior to those of CLA.

Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy using a needle-type grasping forceps compared with conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy for patients with acute uncomplicated appendicitis: a single-center retrospective study

Objective

To compare the clinical outcomes between single-port laparoscopic appendectomy using a needle-type grasping forceps (SLAN) and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) for patients with uncomplicated appendicitis.

Methods

We retrospectively collected clinical data of patients with uncomplicated appendicitis who underwent SLAN or CLA from May 2019 to May 2021 in our center. The patients’ baseline characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and follow-up data were compared between the two groups. Additionally, baseline characteristics were compared with postoperative outcomes in the SLAN group.

Results

Ninety-six patients were enrolled (SLAN group, n = 32; CLA group, n = 64). The SLAN group had a shorter hospital stay, lower 24-hour postoperative visual analogue scale scores, shorter postoperative fasting time, lower frequency of antibiotic administration, and longer operative time than the CLA group. In the SLAN group, younger patients had a longer appendix and male patients had a thicker appendix; additionally, patients with an appendiceal diameter of 0.6 to 1.0 cm had a longer postoperative hospital stay and higher frequency of antibiotic administration.

Conclusions

Compared with CLA, SLAN may be less invasive, provide faster postoperative recovery, and result in better cosmesis for patients with uncomplicated appendicitis. Further research should be performed to evaluate the long-term outcomes.

Comparison of postoperative pain after needle grasper-assisted single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial (PANASILA trial)

Purpose

This study was performed to compare the efficacies of newly developed needle grasper-assisted (Endo Relief) single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (NASILA) and single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA).

Methods

This study enrolled 110 patients with acute appendicitis without periappendiceal abscess, diagnosed using computed tomography, who were randomized to the SILA (n = 54) and NASILA groups (n = 56) between December 2017 and August 2018 (6 patients withdrawn). The NASILA technique entailed a small umbilical incision for the glove port (equivalent to that for a 12-mm trocar), and a 2.5-mm suprapubic incision for the needle grasper.

Results

The SILA and NASILA groups included 49 (male, 61.2%) and 55 (male, 54.5%) patients, respectively. Age, body mass index, abdominal surgical history, symptom duration, and use of patient-controlled analgesia did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. The main wound size was significantly smaller in the NASILA group than in the SILA group (1.8 ± 0.4 cm vs. 2.2 ± 0.4 cm, P < 0.001). The operative time and estimated blood loss did not differ significantly between both groups. The immediate postoperative pain score, i.e., the primary endpoint, was significantly lower in the NASILA group than in the SILA group (2.33 ± 0.98 vs. 2.82 ± 1.29, P = 0.031). The complaints for scar status 1 month postoperatively did not differ significantly between the groups.

Conclusion

NASILA could attenuate postoperative pain by minimizing the size of the surgical wound; further, NASILA may not be inferior to SILA in terms of cosmetic results.

Single-port laparoscopic appendicectomy versus conventional three-port approach for acute appendicitis: A systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials

AIMS

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare outcomes of single-port laparoscopic appendicectomy (SPLA) and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendicectomy (CLA) in the management of acute appendicitis.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with subsequent meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of outcomes were conducted. Post-operative pain at 12-h, cosmesis, need for an additional port(s), operative time, port-site hernia, ileus, surgical site infection (SSI), intra-abdominal collection, length of hospital stay (LOS), readmission, and reoperation were the evaluated outcome parameters.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs with total number of 2017 patients who underwent SPLA (n = 1009) or CLA (n = 1008) were included. SPLA was associated with a significantly higher cosmetic score (MD 1.11, P= 0.03) but significantly longer operative time (MD 7.08, P = 0.00001) compared to CLA. However, the difference was not significant between SPLA and CLA in the post-operative pain score at 12-h (MD -0.13, P = 0.69), need for additional port(s) (RR0.03, P = 0.07), port-site hernia (RD: 0.00, P = 0.68), ileus (RR 0.74, P = 0.51), SSI (RR 1.38, P = 0.28), post-operative intra-abdominal collection (RR 0.00, P = 0.62), LOS (MD -2.41, P = 0.16), readmission to the hospital (RR 0.45, P = 0.22), and return to theatre (RR 0.00, P = 0.49). Trial sequential analysis demonstrated that the meta-analysis is conclusive for most of the outcomes, except LOS and intra-abdominal collection.

CONCLUSION

Although SPLA is associated with a slightly longer operative time, its efficacy and safety are comparable to CLA in management of uncomplicated appendicitis. Moreover, it offers improved post-operative cosmesis. The available evidence is conclusive, and further trials may not be required.

Single-port laparoscopic appendicectomy versus conventional three-port approach for acute appendicitis in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To evaluate comparative outcomes of single-port laparoscopic appendicectomy (SPLA) and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendicectomy (CLA) in the management of acute appendicitis in children.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with subsequent meta-analysis of outcomes were conducted in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement standards. Operative time, surgical site infection, intra-abdominal collection, incisional hernia, length of hospital stay (LOS), additional port/s and conversion to open were the evaluated outcome parameters.

RESULTS

Four RCTs reporting a total number of 520 patients who underwent SPLA (n = 260) or CLA (n = 260) were included. There was no difference between SPLA and CLA group in post-operative collection (risk difference (RD) - 0.00, P = 0.94), surgical site infection (RD 0.02, P = 0.25), incisional hernia (RD 0.00 P = 1), LOS (mean difference (MD) 0.73 P = 0.93), need for additional port/s (RD 0.04, P = 0.24) and conversion to open (RD 0.00, P = 1). However, there was a significantly longer operative time in the SPLA group (MD 9.80, P = 0.00001). The certainty of the evidence was judged to be moderate for all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

SPLA and CLA seem to have comparable efficacy and safety in children with acute appendicitis although the former may be associated with longer procedure time. Future high-quality RCTs with adequate sample sizes are required to provide stronger evidence in favour of an intervention.

Minimization of Wound With the Assistance of a Needle Grasper in Single-Incision Laparoscopic Appendectomy

Background. Technical difficulties and pain from large wounds have prevented the widespread use of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of our newly developed needle grasper (Endo Relief)-assisted SILA (NASILA). Methods. For NASILA, about a 12-mm umbilical incision was made, and a glove port was introduced. A needle grasper was then introduced through a 2.5-mm wound on the suprapubic area. For SILA, a 2.5-cm transumbilical wound was made. The medical records of patients who underwent SILA or NASILA from June 2017 to September 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Operative and short-term postoperative outcomes and results of telephone interviews for scars were compared. Results. A total of 49 patients in the SILA group (male: 40.8%) and 12 in the NASILA group (male: 50.0%) were included. Appendicitis status (not perforated:perforated without abscess:perforated with abscess) was significantly different between the 2 groups (SILA vs NASILA, 30:18:1 vs 4:6:2, P = .027). Additional trocars were inserted in 9 patients (18.4%) of the SILA group. The operative time was significantly shorter (43.3 ± 33.6 vs 54.1 ± 15.6 minutes, P = .012), and the highest numerical pain intensity score during the first 24 hours after surgery was significantly lower (2.4 ± 0.7 vs 3.0 ± 0.9, P = .038) in the NASILA group than in the SILA group. Hospital stay, postoperative complications, and complaint of scar were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Conclusions. NASILA was not inferior to SILA regarding cosmetic results. Operative convenience is higher in NASILA than in SILA, and the smaller surgical wound in NASILA minimizes postoperative pain.

Risk factors for additional port insertion in single-port laparoscopic appendectomy

Introduction

Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SPLA) was expected to have reduced risk of wound infection, less postoperative pain, and improved patient’s satisfaction with better cosmesis compared with conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA). When SPLA is converted to CLA, the additional incision for another port insertion can lead to a decrease in the surgical advantages and clinical benefit.

Aim

To evaluate risk factors for conversion to CLA during SPLA.

Material and methods

Between August 2015 and December 2016, patients who underwent intended SPLA were retrospectively reviewed. Conversion was defined as any insertion of an additional port, and complicated appendicitis was defined as gangrenous or perforated appendicitis, abscess, or peritonitis in preoperative computed tomography. Postoperative complication was defined as any deviation in the routine postoperative course within 30 days postoperatively.

Results

Of 409 patients, 65 (15.9%) were treated with additional port insertion. The overall complication rate was 1.5% in each group, of which 1 patient developed superficial SSI and 4 patients developed deep surgical site infections in the SPLA group. After univariable and multivariable analysis, old age, male sex, increased serum C-reactive protein (OR = 2.944; 95% CI: 1.433–6.047; p = 0.003), and complicated appendicitis (OR = 3.330; 95% CI: 1.304–8.503; p = 0.012) were significant risk factors for conversion to CLA.

Conclusions

The conversion rate to CLA was 15.9%. Serum C-reactive protein level and complicated appendicitis were strong predictive factors for conversion from SPLA in acute appendicitis.