Umbilical incision laparoscopic colectomy with one additional port for colorectal cancer. Tech Coloproctol. 2013;17:193-199. [PMID: 22991135 DOI: 10.1007/s10151-012-0900-z]

New Exploration of Single-Incision Plus Two Ports Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy Based on the Principle of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery

Background: Despite single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) being a standard procedure, its main shortcomings include narrow operating space and instrument collisions. Although the proposal of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1) reduces the operational difficulty, laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) involves complex digestive tract resection and anastomosis. To reduce the number of incisions while ensuring the quality of LPD, we propose a single-incision plus two ports LPD (SILPD + 2) procedure wherein a surgeon uses two trocars with a traditional layout while the assistant and scope assistant conduct subumbilical incision. Methods: Retrospective analysis was performed of the perioperative data of 64 patients who underwent total LPD at our department from January to June 2023, including their age, gender, surgical operation time, estimated bleeding loss, and postoperative complications. Based on the number of inserted trocars, the patients were assigned to the conventional LPD (CLPD) group (n = 55) with five incisions and the new SILPD + 2 group (n = 9). Results: A total of 64 patients were included in this study, including 55 in the CLPD group and 9 in the SILPD + 2 group. The SILPD + 2 group patients had lower age and body mass index when compared to the CLPD group patients, albeit there was no statistical significance. In both groups of patients, laparoscopic surgery was completed. Regarding the operation time, estimated blood loss, and intraoperative blood transfusion, the SILPD + 2 group showed no significant disadvantage. Conclusion: When compared to CLPD, SILPD + 2 reduced the surgical difficulty by reducing incisions, and there was no significant difference in the short-term prognosis outcomes.

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.

Comparison of clinical efficacy of single-incision and traditional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies

Background

Single-incision laparoscopy surgery (SILS) is a new laparoscopic technique that has emerged in the past decade. Whether it has advantages over conventionl laparoscopy surgery (CLS) is inconclusive. This article aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer through high-quality literature text mining and meta-analysis.

Methods

Relevant articles were searched on the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from January 2012 to November 2021. All data was from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in order to increase the confidence of the analytical results.The main outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative complications.

Results

A total of 10 RCTs were included, involving 1609 patients. The quality of the included studies was generally high. No significant difference was found between SILS and CLS in the postoperative complications, operation time, postoperative hospital stay, number of lymph nodes removed, readmission, reoperation, complication level I- II, complication level IIIa, complication level IIIb, prolonged Ileus, blood loss, infection, anastomotic leakage and operation time. The results showed that SILS group had a higher rate of intraoperative complications, but it had lower incision length and better cosmetic effects.

Conclusion

These results indicate that SILS did not have a comprehensive and obvious advantage over the CLS. On the contrary, SILS has higher intraoperative complications, which may be related to the more difficulty of SILS operation, but SILS still has better cosmetic effects, which is in line with the concept of surgical development. Therefore, the SILS needs to be selected in patients with higher cosmetic requirements and performed by more experienced surgeons.

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).

The first single-incision plus one-port transverse colon resection using Senhance Digital Laparoscopy System: a case report

BACKGROUND

We have introduced the Senhance Digital Laparoscopy System and actively use for colorectal cancer surgery. Recently, we also try to perform surgery by reduce port as less invasive method. For the first time, we report a case of single-incision plus one-port transverse colectomy using Senhance system.

CASE PRESENTATION

The case was a 57-year-old woman, diagnosed with transverse colon cancer referred to our department. The preoperative diagnosis was cT1bN0M0, Stage I. We performed single-incision plus one-port transverse colon resection using Senhance system without any problems. The operative time was 203 min and the blood loss was 35 ml.

CONCLUSION

We report the first case of single-incision plus one-port transverse colectomy using Senhance system. We trust this approach will find increasing use, enabling a safer means of minimally invasive robotic surgery.

Single-incision robotic colectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic colectomy: A matched case control study

BACKGROUND

Single incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) and single incision robotic colectomy (SIRC) are both advanced minimally invasive operative techniques. However, studies comparing these two surgical methods have not been published. The purpose of this study is to compare and evaluate the short-term outcomes of SIRC with those of SILC.

METHODS

A total of 21 consecutive patients underwent SIRC and 136 consecutive patients underwent SILC in separate institutes between January 2013 and December 2019. We used retrospective cohort matching to analyze these patients.

RESULTS

Prior to matching, patients who underwent SIRC had a lower percentage of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grades III-IV (5% vs. 19%, P = 0.11) compared with patients who underwent SILC. The SIRC group revealed a higher proportion of sigmoid colon lesions and anterior resections than the SILC group (61% vs. 45%, P = 0.16). After 1:4 cohort matching, 21 patients were enrolled in the SIRC group and 84 patients were enrolled in the SILC group. No statistically significant difference in terms of operative time (SIRC: 185 ± 46 min, SILC: 208 ± 53 min; P = 0.51), estimated blood loss (SIRC: 12 ± 22 ml, SILC: 85 ± 234 ml; P = 0.12), and complications (SIRC: 4.7%, SIRC: 7.1%; P = 0.31) was observed between these groups. Length of postoperative hospital stay (SIRC: 8.3 ± 1.7 days, SILC: 9.3 ± 6.5; P = 0.10) and number of harvested lymph nodes (SIRC: 21.3 ± 10.3, SILC: 21.3 ± 9.5; P = 0.77) were also similar between the two groups. In subgroup analysis, numbers of harvested lymph node is less in SIRC than SILC (SIRC: 18.1 ± 4.7 vs. SILC: 18.9 ± 8.1, P = 0.04) in anterior resection.

CONCLUSION

SIRC and SILC are safe and feasible procedures with similar surgical and pathological outcomes for right- and left-side colectomy.

Nutritional risk screening score is associated with omission of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the association between nutritional risk screening (NRS) score and administration of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer.

METHODS

A total of 404 patients with stage III colon cancer who underwent curative resection between January 2012 and December 2015 were included. Patients with a preoperative high nutritional risk score (NRS ≥4) were compared with those with an NRS <4. Predictive factors for omission of adjuvant chemotherapy, and prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Eighty (19.8%) patients had a high nutritional risk (NRS ≥4). An NRS score ≥4 was associated with higher risk of omission of adjuvant chemotherapy (26.3% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.006), which was significant after adjusting for covariables (odds ratio = 1.862, p = 0.047). Multivariable survival analysis showed that omission of adjuvant chemotherapy was an independent poor prognostic factor for OS (hazard ratio = 4.060, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

An NRS score ≥4 was associated with omission of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III colon cancer, which resulted in poor OS.

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).

Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery in Patients With Previous Abdominal Surgery: A Single-center Experience and Literature Review

To present the outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in colorectal cancer patients with a previous history of abdominal surgery. Data of a total of 121 patients with primary colorectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic surgery were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into 2 groups as those with previous abdominal surgery (PAS, n=34) and those without (non-PAS, n=87). Gastric and colonic surgeries were the most common procedures in the major PAS group, whereas gynecologic and obstetric surgeries and appendectomy were the most common procedures in the minor PAS group. However, there were statistically significant differences in the overall complication rates, wound complications, and anastomotic leaks, although there were no significant differences in the rates of postoperative ileus, pneumonia, port site herniation, and postoperative bleeding between the groups. Our study results suggest that laparoscopic colorectal surgery can be safely performed in patients with colorectal cancer who underwent abdominal surgery previously.

Single-incision laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic right colectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery has gained widespread attention because of its potential benefits such as less skin incision and faster recovery. Up to now, only one meta-analysis (performed in 2013; including 9 studies, a total of 585 cases) compared single-incision laparoscopic right colectomy (SILRC) with conventional laparoscopic right colectomy (CLRC). An updated meta-analysis was undertaken to explore more convinced comparative findings between SILRC and CLRC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The search for studies that compared SILRC with CLRC was done on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. A total of 17 studies (including 1778 cases) were identified, the data of appointed outcomes were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

Patient demographics (age, gender, body mass index and previous abdominal operation) did not differ significantly. No significant differences were found between SILRC and CLRC in operative time, conversion, reoperation, perioperative complications, postoperative mortality, and 30-days readmission. Pathological outcomes, including lymph nodes harvested, proximal resection margin, and distal resection margin, were similar. SILRC showed less estimated blood loss (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -15.67 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -24.36 to -6.98; p = 0.0004), less skin incisions (WMD: -1.56 cm; 95%CI, -2.63 to -0.49; p = 0.004) and shorter hospital stay (WMD: -0.73d; 95%CI, -1.04 to -0.41; p < 0.00001), without publication bias.

CONCLUSION

SILRC may provide a safe and feasible alternative to CLRC with similar short-term outcomes and aesthetic advantage of less skin incision. Well-designed randomized controlled trials, involving large cases and carrying long-term outcomes, are needed.

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.

Prognostic impact of the length of the longitudinal resection margin in colon cancer

AIM

Although several guidelines recommend a longitudinal resection margin (LRM) of at least 5 cm, the impact of the LRM on survival is still unknown. The study assessed the prognostic significance of the LRM in patients with colon cancer.

METHOD

We retrospectively reviewed 1343 primary colon cancer patients without distant metastasis who underwent curative resection between January 2004 and December 2012. Patients were classified into three groups: LRM < 3 cm (n = 186), LRM ≥ 3 and <5 cm (n = 376) and LRM ≥5 cm (n = 781). Clinicopathological characteristics and the oncological outcome in the three groups were compared.

RESULTS

The median LRM length was 5.0 cm (range 0.5-26.0 cm). With increasing LRM, the number of retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) tended to increase (19.5 ± 12.0, 22.1 ± 12.8 and 30.0 ± 16.2; P < 0.001). After a median follow-up period of 45 (1-128) months, 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) (89.2%, 89.0% and 87.0%; P = 0.629) and 5-year overall survival (OS) (89.0%, 92.1% and 91.8%; P = 0.679) were not significantly different between the three groups. When confounders were adjusted, LRM was not significantly associated with either DFS or OS, but the number of retrieved LNs (< 12) was an independent risk factor for both DFS (hazard ratio 1.748, 95% confidence interval 1.048-2.917) and OS (hazard ratio 1.929, 95% confidence interval 1.046-3.559).

CONCLUSION

LRM was not associated with oncological outcome, but care should be taken to obtain an adequate number of LNs for better survival.

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

BACKGROUND

The advantages of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) for rectosigmoid cancer treatment have been disputed. This study evaluated the outcomes of RPLS compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for rectosigmoid cancer.

METHODS

Data from 211 patients who underwent a selective sigmoidectomy or anterior resection from August 2011 to June 2014 at a single institution were collected and analyzed via propensity score matching. Operative outcomes, inflammatory responses, pain intensity, oncologic outcomes, quality of life, and cosmetic results were compared between groups.

RESULTS

After matching, 96 patients (48 CLS and 48 RPLS) were evaluated. Sixteen RPLS cases underwent single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), and 32 underwent single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1). Baseline clinical characteristics were comparable between the RPLS and the CLS groups. Morbidity, pathologic outcomes, and 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival rates were also comparable between the 2 groups. Compared with the CLS group, the RPLS group had a shorter total incision length (p < 0.001); shorter time to liquid diet (p = 0.027), ambulation (p = 0.026), and discharge (p < 0.001); and lower visual analogue scale scores during mobilization at postoperative days 3-5 (p < 0.05). The total operation times, C-reactive protein levels at 24 h and 96 h, and interleukin-6 levels at 24 h postoperatively were significantly lower in the SILS + 1 group than those in the CLS and SILS groups (p < 0.05). Compared with the CLS group, the RPLS group showed better social functioning at 6 months postoperatively (p = 0.011). The SILS and SILS + 1 groups showed similar cosmetic results, and both groups showed better results than the CLS group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RPLS for rectosigmoid cancer is feasible, with short-term safety and long-term oncological safety comparable to that of CLS. Better cosmesis and accelerated recovery can be expected. SILS + 1 is a better choice than CLS or SILS for rectosigmoid cancer because it minimizes invasiveness and reduces technical difficulties.

Two-port laparoscopic anterior resection through a self-made glove device versus conventional laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparison of short-term surgical results

Background

The laparoscopic approach has become increasingly incorporated into the development of new surgical procedures. An ever-increasing number of surgeons desire methods that minimize surgical trauma and provide improved cosmetic outcomes. Since 2014, we have performed two-port laparoscopic surgery using a transumbilical multichannel glove port and a 12-mm port. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term surgical results of two-port laparoscopic anterior resection (TPLAR) with those of conventional laparoscopic anterior resection (CLAR) for rectal cancer.

Methods

Between January 2014 and May 2014, a total of 27 patients underwent TPLAR and 30 patients underwent CLAR for the treatment of rectal cancer. The short-term surgical results of these two groups of patients were analyzed retrospectively.

Results

The differences in operative time, blood loss, conversion rate, complication rate, distal resection margin, number of harvested lymph nodes, duration until ambulation, duration until first flatus, length of postoperative hospital stay, and overall hospital costs between the two groups were not significant. The median (range) length of the abdominal incisions of the TPLAR patients was shorter than the length of the CLAR patients (5.1 (4.5–16.3) cm vs 8.2 (7.0–10.0) cm, respectively; p < 0.001). The respective median (range) postoperative pain scores were lower in the TPLAR than in the CLAR patients at 24 h (4 (1–6) h vs 5 (2–8) h; p = 0.045), 48 h (3 (1–4) h vs 4 (range 1–8) h; P = 0.004) and 72 h (1 (0–3) h vs 2 (1–5) h; p = 0.010). The median overall score on the satisfaction-with-abdominal-incision questionnaire of the TPLAR patients was significantly higher (better) than the score of the CLAR patients.

Conclusions

TPLAR for rectal cancer is safe and feasible, with short-term perioperative and oncological outcomes similar to those of CLAR. TPLAR provides less postoperative pain and better cosmetic outcomes.

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.

Chylous ascites after colorectal cancer surgery: risk factors and impact on short-term and long-term outcomes

PURPOSE

Data on the incidence, risk factors, and oncologic impact of chylous ascites after colorectal cancer surgery are scarce. In this study, we aimed to assess the risk factors and the short-term and long-term impact of chylous ascites after colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined 2917 primary colorectal cancer patients who underwent surgical resection between January 2008 and December 2013. The short-term and long-term outcomes were compared between patients with and those without postoperative chylous ascites, and the risk factors for chylous ascites were analyzed.

RESULTS

Chylous ascites developed in 138 (4.7 %) patients. A shorter operative time (odds ratio [OR] 0.992, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.988-0.996) and the number of retrieved lymph nodes (OR 1.015, 95 % CI 1.004-1.025) were independent risk factors for postoperative chylous ascites. All patients with chylous ascites were managed conservatively, without surgical intervention. The postoperative hospital stay was similar between the two groups (9.4 vs. 9.2 days, p = 0.467). After a median follow-up of 37 months (range 0-118 months), no significant difference was observed in the 3-year disease-free survival (85.0 vs. 83.9 %, p = 0.408) and 5-year overall survival (93.0 vs. 89.7 %, p = 0.662) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A major drawback of this study was that the definition of chylous ascites was solely based on clinical signs. Nevertheless, we can conclude that chylous ascites after colorectal cancer surgery is associated with a shorter operative time and the number of retrieved lymph nodes, but is not associated with the short-term and long-term outcomes.

Single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a report of 33 cases in Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has gained worldwide acceptance as a minimally invasive technique in colorectal procedures since its introduction in 2008. However, case series on its feasibility and safety in Saudi Arabia are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the operative results and clinical outcome of single-port laparoscopic procedures in colorectal surgeries.

DESIGN

Retrospective.

SETTING

This study was conducted at King Khalid university Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Demographic and clinical data, including pathology, and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, were prospectively collected in patients undergoing SILS. This study was conducted during the period from January 2010 and October 2014.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Demographic and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing SILS colectomies.

RESULTS

Thirty-three (33) patients underwent SILS. The mean (SD) age was 51 years (18.2 years), and the average body mass index was 26.6 (6.9) kg/m2. Patients were primarily diagnosed with cancer (n=20/33, 61%), inflammatory bowel disease (n=12/33, 36%) and diverticulitis (n=1/33, 3%). Procedures included anterior resection (n=9/33, 27%), ileocecal resection (n=8/33 24%), hemicolectomy (n=7/33, 21%), extended right hemicolectomy (n=5/33, 15%) and total colectomy (n=4/33, 12%). The mean SD operative time was 212 minutes (76.4 minutes). The mean SD size of the extraction incision was 4.2 (1.7) cm. Six percent of the cases were converted to open (n=2/33), and 9% required placement of an extra port (n=3/33). Four (12%) patients had intraoperative complications, and 30% experienced postoperative complications. The average length of hospital stay was 6.4 (4.3) days.

COCNLUSIONS

SILS is technically feasible and safe for patients undergoing colorectal surgery with no unusual complications. However, comparative studies are necessary to validate the potential benefits of SILS over conventional colorectal laparoscopic surgery.

LIMITATIONS

The study lacked a comparison to conventional open procedures. Additionally, some evaluation criteria were not considered, including cosmesis, pain control, patient satisfaction and cost effectiveness.

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer patients who underwent previous abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery may be impeded by intraperitoneal adhesions caused by previous abdominal surgery. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of previous abdominal surgery on short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 3188 patients with primary colorectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery between January 2004 and December 2013. Patients with a history of abdominal surgery (n = 593, 18.6 %) were compared to those without such history (n = 2595, 81.4 %).

RESULTS

Patients who had undergone previous abdominal surgery exhibited acceptable intraoperative outcomes, including conversion to open surgery, operative time, estimated blood loss, and the number of harvested lymph nodes. Overall, postoperative complication rates were similar between the groups (10.8 vs. 10.6 %, p = 0.885). Subgroup analysis revealed that patients with history of major abdominal surgery (n = 165) had higher rates of conversion to open surgery (4.2 vs. 1.7 %, p = 0.033), prolonged postoperative ileus (5.5 vs. 2.0 %, p = 0.008), and wound complications (4.2 vs. 1.2 %, p = 0.006), when compared to those without prior abdominal surgery. Previous major abdominal surgery was an independent risk factor for conversion to open surgery [adjusted odds ratio = 2.740; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.197-6.269]. Disease-free survival [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.847; 95 % CI 0.532-1.346] and overall survival (adjusted HR = 0.846; 95 % CI 0.432-1.657) were not observed to differ between the previous major abdominal surgery group and those without previous abdominal surgery.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery in patients with a history of abdominal surgery exhibited acceptable short- and long-term outcomes. Patients with a history of previous abdominal surgery had relatively higher rate of conversion to open surgery as well as higher incidences of prolonged postoperative ileus and wound complications compared to patients without such history.

Single-Incision Laparoscopy Could Be Better than Standard Laparoscopy in Right Colectomy for Cancer

BACKGROUND

Human natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is slowed down by technical hurdles. Concomitantly, single-incision laparoscopy has been increasingly reported as an alternative. By reducing the invasiveness of standard laparoscopy, we may further reduce postoperative pain, decrease morbidity, preserve abdominal wall, and enhance cosmesis. Such techniques have been widely applied, including in colorectal surgery. The aim of this multicenter study is to compare the results of single-incision right colectomy (SIRC) with the results of the standard laparoscopic right colectomy (SLRC) in patients with colon cancer.

METHODS

The files of patients who underwent right colectomy for cancer in five hospitals between January 2010 and December 2013 have been reviewed. Exclusion criteria were open surgery, emergency setting, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score >3. Patients were distributed in Groups A (SIRC) or B (SLRC).

RESULTS

Five hundred ninety-two patients were included in this study, 336 in Group A and 256 in Group B. Mean operative time was 129.0 minutes (range 65-245) in Group A and 168.1 minutes in the Group B (range 70-290), respectively (P < .001). No mortality occurred in either group. The overall 30-day morbidity rates were 21.4% in Group A and 25% in Group B, respectively (P = .64). The median length of hospital stay was 4.95 days (range 3-14) in Group A and 5.5 days in Group B (range 3-12), respectively (P = .28). Conversion to laparotomy occurred in four patients in each group (P = 1). Length of skin incision was significantly shorter in Group A than in Group B (2.99 ± 0.63 cm versus 4.94 ± 0.65 cm, P < .001). Histological analysis of the operative specimens showed no significant differences.

CONCLUSION

SIRC is feasible and sure for patients with colon cancer. As compared with SLRC, SIRC may offer some advantages, including lower operative morbidity, shorter hospital stay, and better cosmoses, without compromising the oncological quality of the resected specimen.

Does reduced-port laparoscopic surgery for medically uncontrolled ulcerative colitis do more harm than good?

INTRODUCTION

Reduced-port laparoscopic surgery is a novel minimally invasive surgery. However, reduced-port surgery for ulcerative colitis (UC) remains controversial. Here, we describe the clinical outcomes of single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1) for medically uncontrolled UC.

METHODS

Between May 2011 and September 2014, 10 UC patients underwent SILS + 1 port surgery. All procedures were performed with the use of a SILS port and either a 5-mm or a 12-mm port placed at the planned ileostomy site.

RESULTS

The median age of patients was 32 years (range, 22-53 years). Six patients underwent two-stage SILS + 1 port restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis, two patients underwent SILS + 1 total proctocolectomy, and the remaining two patients underwent SILS + 1 subtotal colectomy with subsequent three-stage SILS + 1 ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. The median operative time was 363.1 min (range, 253-465 min) and the median estimated blood loss was 29 mL (range, 0-100 mL). There were no conversions or additional ports required. Two patients previously underwent SILS + 1 subtotal colectomy, and in one of those patients, SILS + 1 ileal pouch-anal anastomosis was performed successfully 6 months after the previous surgery. There were no intra-abdominal adhesions, and no extra wounds were necessary because the previous stoma site had been used to access the SILS port. The median postoperative period was 24 months, during which five patients had their ileostomies closed. No patients reported occasional minor daily soiling or the need to wear a pad.

CONCLUSION

Reduced-port laparoscopic surgery for medically uncontrolled UC is a feasible and safe procedure when performed by skilled surgeons.

Short-term outcomes following reduced-port, single-port, and multi-port laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer: tailored laparoscopic approaches based on tumor size and nodal status

PURPOSE

Surgeons have recently developed more minimally invasive surgical procedures to reduce surgical stress and improve cosmesis. Although single-port laparoscopic colectomy (SPLC) has potential benefits over multi-port laparoscopic colectomy (MPLC), there are concerns about the increased technical difficulties associated with SPLC. Therefore, we attempted reduced-port laparoscopic colectomy (RPLC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the difference in perioperative outcome following tailored laparoscopic approaches for colon cancer on the basis of tumor characteristics.

METHODS

The prospectively collected data of 170 patients who underwent only minimally invasive colectomy for colon cancer from July 2010 to June 2013 were reviewed. The MPLC, SPLC, and RPLC groups comprised 92 (54.1 %), 40 (23.5 %), and 38 (22.4 %) patients, respectively.

RESULTS

The number of harvested lymph nodes was significantly higher in the RPLC group than in the MPLC and SPLC groups (29.9 ± 21.5, 21.9 ± 12.1, and 24.2 ± 13.8, respectively; p = 0.027). The mean operating time was significantly different among the MPLC, SPLC, and RPLC groups (243.5 ± 59.0, 207.2 ± 49.6, and 216.2 ± 53.7 min, respectively; p = 0.001). The time to first flatus was also significantly different among the MPLC, SPLC, and RPLC groups (3.1 ± 1.2, 3.6 ± 1.3, and 3.4 ± 1.1 days, respectively; p = 0.039). No significant differences in the other short-term surgical outcomes were observed among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SPLC and RPLC according to tailored laparoscopic approaches for colon cancer appear to be beneficial in terms of operative time and lymph node retrieval, and may be considered as surgical options in laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer patients with favorable tumor characteristics.

A safety study of transumbilical single incision versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is an emerging minimally invasive surgery to reduce abdominal incisions. However, despite the increasing clinical application of SILS, no evidence from large-scale, randomized controlled trials is available for assessing the feasibility, short-term safety, oncological safety, and potential benefits of SILS compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colorectal cancer.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a single-center, open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial. A total of 198 eligible patients will be randomly assigned to transumbilical single incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery (SILS plus one) group or to a CLS group at a 1:1 ratio. Patients ranging in age from 18 to 80 years with rectosigmoid cancer diagnosed as cT1-4aN0-2 M0 and a tumor size no larger than 5 cm are considered eligible. The primary endpoint is early morbidity, as evaluated by an independent investigator. Secondary outcomes include operative outcomes (operative time, estimated blood loss, and incision length), pathologic outcomes (tumor size, length of proximal and distal resection margins, and number of harvested lymph nodes), postoperative inflammatory and immune responses (white blood cells [WBC], neutrophil percentage [NE %], C-reactive protein [CRP], interleukin-6 [IL-6], and tumor necrosis factor-α [TNF-α]), postoperative recovery (time to first ambulation, flatus, liquid diet, soft diet, and duration of hospital stay), pain intensity, body image and cosmetic assessment, 3-year disease free survival (DFS), and 5-year overall survival (OS). Follow-up visits are scheduled for 1 and 3 months after surgery, then every 3 months for the first 2 years and every 6 months for the next 3 years.

DISCUSSION

This trial will provide valuable clinical evidence for the objective assessment of the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of SILS plus one compared with CLS for the radical resection of rectosigmoid cancer. The hypothesis is that SILS plus one is feasible for the radical resection of rectosigmoid cancer and offers short-term safety and long-term oncological safety comparable to that of CLS, and that SILS plus one offers better cosmetic results and faster convalescence compared to CLS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02117557 (registered on 16 April 2014).

Comparison of single-incision plus one additional port laparoscopy-assisted anterior resection with conventional laparoscopy-assisted anterior resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Reduced-port laparoscopic surgery is the latest innovation in minimally invasive surgery. We performed single-incision plus one additional port laparoscopy-assisted anterior resection (SILS + 1-AR) starting in August 2010. This study aimed at evaluating the feasibility of SILS + 1-AR and comparing it with that of conventional laparoscopy-assisted anterior resection (C-AR).

METHODS

Patients with preoperative clinical stage 0 to stage III rectal cancer were included. Demographic, intraoperative, and pathological examination data, as well as short-term outcome data, of 20 patients who underwent SILS + 1-AR were retrospectively compared with that of 20 patients who underwent C-AR. Invasiveness of the two procedures was also evaluated through a vital signs diary and hematological examination on postoperative days (POD) 1, 3, and 7.

RESULTS

Operating time, mean estimated blood loss, the number of lymph nodes dissected, the number of lymph node metastases, and the mean distal resection margin length were not significantly different. However, postoperative neutrophil counts in the SILS + 1-AR group were lower than those in the C-AR group (P = 0.085). A significant difference in body temperature was observed in the SILS + 1-AR group on POD 1 (P = 0.028). No significant differences were observed in perioperative and overall morbidity between the two groups. Conversion to open surgery was required in 2 (10 %) of the 20 patients in the SILS + 1-AR group. The mean postoperative length of stay and recurrence rates were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

SILS + 1-AR for rectal cancer is similar to C-AR in safety, feasibility, and provision of oncological radicality.

New trends in colorectal surgery: Single port and natural orifice techniques

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) have rapidly gained pace worldwide, potentially replacing conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) as the preferred colorectal surgery technique. Currently available data mainly consist of retrospective series analyzed in four meta-analyses. Despite conflicting results and lack of an objective comparison, SILS appears to offer cosmetic advantages over CLS. However, due to conflicting results and marked heterogeneity, present data fail to show significant differences in terms of operative time, postoperative morbidity profiles, port-site complications rates, oncological appropriateness, duration of hospitalization or cost when comparing SILS with conventional laparoscopy for colorectal procedures. The application of “pure” NOTES in humans remains limited to case reports because of unresolved issues concerning the ideal access site, distant organ reach, spatial orientation and viscera closure. Alternatively, minilaparoscopy-assisted natural orifice surgery techniques are being developed. The transanal “down-to-up” total mesorectum excision has been derived for transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and represents the most encouraging NOTES-derived technique. Preliminary experiences demonstrate good oncological and functional short-term outcomes. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are now mandatory to confirm the long-term SILS results and validate transanal TEM for the application of NOTES in humans.

Learning curve of laparoscopic low anterior resection in terms of local recurrence

BACKGROUND

Experience in terms of surgical case numbers required to develop proficiency for oncologic adequacy after sphincter-saving laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery has not been established.

METHOD

Three hundred seventeen consecutive patients underwent sphincter-saving laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery with curative intent performed by single surgeon. The learning curve was estimated using risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) and the graph of 195 consecutive patients who were treated by another surgeon was used to evaluate inter-surgeon variability in the learning curve.

RESULTS

Overall, the 3-year local recurrence rate was 7.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.4%-9.0%). The RA-CUSUM analysis demonstrated a learning curve of 110 cases for local recurrence for both of surgeons and 50-70 cases for CRM involvement. The 3-year local recurrence-free rate was better during the experienced period than during the learning period (95.1% [95% CI, 91.6%-97.1%] vs. 89.5% [95% CI, 84.4%-93.0%]; P = 0.029). These differences were obvious in subgroup analysis of stage III tumors (93.4% [95% CI, 86.6%-96.8%] vs. 78.6% [95% CI, 68.5%-85.3%]; P = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

Local recurrence rates decreased with increasing surgeon experience, as did other short-term outcomes, especially in advanced disease cases.

Single incision laparoscopic colectomy for colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional laparoscopic colectomy

Purpose

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the feasibility of single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), and to compare the short-term surgical outcomes with those of conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.

Methods

Forty-four patients who underwent SILS were compared with 263 patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal adenocarcinoma between November 2011 and September 2012.

Results

In the SILS group, eleven cases (25.0%) of right hemicolectomy, 15 (34.1%) anterior resections, and 18 (40.9%) low anterior resections were performed. Additional ports were required in 10 rectal patients during SILS operation. In the 32 patients with rectosigmoid and rectal cancer in the SILS group, patients with mid and lower rectal cancers had a tendency to require a longer operation time (168.2 minutes vs. 223.8 minutes, P = 0.002), additional ports or multiport conversion (P = 0.007), than those with rectosigmoid and upper rectal cancer. Both SILS and conventional groups had similar perioperative outcomes. Operation time was longer in the SILS group than in the conventional laparoscopic surgery group (185.0 minutes vs. 139.2 minutes, P < 0.001). More diverting stoma were performed in the SILS group (64.7% vs. 24.2%, P = 0.011). Multivariate analysis showed that tumor location in the rectum (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.858-10.560; P = 0.001), SILS (95% CI, 3.450-20.233; P < 0.001), diverting stoma (95% CI, 1.606-9.288; P = 0.003), and transfusion (95% CI, 1.092-7.854; P = 0.033) were independent risk factors for long operation time (>180 minutes).

Conclusion

SILS is a feasible, not inferior treatment option for colorectal cancer, and appears to have similar results as standard conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy, despite the longer operative time.