SILS v SILS+1: a Case-Matched Comparison for Colorectal Surgery

Advantages of the split-leg supine position single-port plus one laparoscopic surgery approach

The goal of this study was to compare the advantages of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) and the split-leg supine position single-port plus one laparoscopic surgery (SSP SILS + 1) in esophageal surgery. This study enrolled 73 patients who previously underwent radical esophagectomy for esophageal cancer from August 2021 to February 2023. Among them, 36 patients underwent SSP SILS + 1, whereas the remaining 37 patients underwentCLS. Surgical time, bleeding volume, number of dissected lymph nodes, incision length, and postoperative abdominal pain score between the two groups of patients were compared using either the Student's t-test or chi-square test. Time of abdominal incision (1.4 ± 0.2 min vs. 5.2 ± 0.7 min, p < 0.001) was shorter in patients in the SSP SILS + 1 group compared with those in the CLS group. However, the average incision length was shorter in the SSP SILS + 1 group compared with that in the CLS group (35.4 ± 4.0 cm vs. 4.6 ± 4.1 cm, p < 0.001). Notably, the pain score on postoperative day (POD) 1 was lower in the SSP SILS + 1 group compared with that in the CLS group (5.7 ± 0.7 vs.6.3 ± 0.7, p = 0.001). The SCAR score was also lower in the SSP SILS + 1 group compared with that in the CLS group (3.5 ± 0.9 vs. 8.3 ± 1.4, p = 0.019). There was no significant difference in the number of dissected abdominal lymph nodes and positive lymph nodes (p > 0.01) between the two groups. The SSP SILS + 1 intervention offers multiple benefits over conventional surgical procedures, encompassing shorter incision length and pain scores on POD 1. In accelerated rehabilitation surgery for esophageal cancer, this surgical procedure demonstrated high safety, feasibility.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Feasibility of needlescopic surgery for colorectal cancer: safety and learning curve for Japanese Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System-unqualified young surgeons

BACKGROUND

Needlescopic surgery (NS) is a minimally invasive technique for colorectal cancer. NS may be easier to perform than other minimally invasive surgery such as single-incision laparoscopic surgery and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery because the port setting is the same while the shafts are thinner than in conventional laparoscopic surgery. We evaluated the capability of introducing this surgery for sigmoid and rectosigmoid colon cancer by assessing the learning curve in Japanese Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System (JESSQS)-unqualified surgeons.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 112 cases of sigmoidectomy and anterior resection were performed by NS from October 2011 to December 2015 in our institution. Surgical outcomes including operation time, blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, perioperative complications, and overall survival were compared between JESSQS-qualified surgeons (Group A) and JESSQS-unqualified surgeons (Group B). The learning curve for NS was established using the average operation times in JESSQS-unqualified surgeons.

RESULTS

Groups A and B comprised of 41 and 71 patients, respectively. Ninety patients underwent sigmoidectomy and 22 patients underwent anterior resection. No conversion to open surgery occurred. The operation time was significantly shorter in Group A than B (P = 0.0080). There were no significant differences in blood loss, the postoperative hospital stay, perioperative complications, or overall survival between the two groups. These variables were similar even when NS was considered relatively difficult, as in patients with obesity (body mass index of ≥ 25 kg/m²), bulky tumors (tumor size of ≥ 50 mm), and stage III/IV cancer. The average operation time in JESSQS-unqualified young surgeons was significantly shorter in the ninth and tenth cases than in the first and second cases of NS (P = 0.0282).

CONCLUSIONS

NS for sigmoid and rectosigmoid colon cancer was performed safely by both JESSQS-qualified surgeons and JESSQS-unqualified surgeons. Even JESSQS-unqualified young surgeons might be able to quickly learn NS techniques.

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).

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.

Open or Laparoscopic Treatment: Differences and Outcomes

Surgical treatment of diverticulitis is still characterized by high morbidity and mortality. Surgical approach evolved from the early 20th century with 3-stage laparotomy to colon resection with primary anastomosis. In the last 2 decades, laparoscopic colectomy has been applied to elective and emergency setting of diverticular disease. Recently, laparoscopic lavage and drainage has been used to treat purulent peritonitis. All those modalities of treatment have been discussed and pointed pros and cons.

Review of 500 single incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery cases - Lessons learned

Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a minimally invasive platform with specific benefits over traditional multiport laparoscopic surgery. The safety and feasibility of SILS has been proven, and the applications continue to grow with experience. After 500 cases at a high-volume, single-institution, we were able to standardize instrumentation and operative steps, as well as develop adaptations in technique to help overcome technical and ergonomic challenges. These technical adaptations have allowed the successful application of SILS to technically difficult patient populations, such as pelvic cases, inflammatory bowel disease cases, and high body mass index patients. This review is a frame of reference for the application and wider integration of the single incision laparoscopic platform in colorectal surgery.