A prospective, randomized controlled trial of single-incision laparoscopic vs conventional 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy for treatment of acute appendicitis. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218:950-959. [PMID: 24684867 DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.12.052]

Is Transumbilical Laparoscopic-assisted Appendectomy Better than Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Children? A Randomized Controlled Study

Aim

To compare the gold standard method of managing acute appendicitis; laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) to transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy (TULAA).

Methods

A randomized clinical study of consecutive pediatric patients (age under 13 years) undergoing appendectomy for noncomplicated acute appendicitis was conducted at a tertiary center in Jordan. Data collected included; perioperative parameters, operative time, gas time, postoperative hospital stay, pathology, complications, pain, and cost.

Results

Out of the 50 initially enrolled patients, 47 were included in the analysis (25 in TULAA group [53.2%], 22 in LA group [46.8%]), of which only 12% and 31% of patients had perforated appendicitis, in the TULAA group and LA group consecutively. No early intraoperative complications were observed. Postoperative complications were seen in 4.8% of the LA group and 4% in the TULAA group. TULAA had significantly shorter operative time, lower gas flow, gas time, gas pressure levels, and more cases (68%) were operated without gas use compared to LA. Pain relief, diet resumption, cosmetic, and hospital stay did not significantly differ between the groups. The cosmetic outcome was slightly better in the TULAA group but not statistically significant.

Conclusion

TULLA offers an alternative approach to LA for acute appendicitis and may be of benefit in resource-poor institutions whilst maintaining the benefits of the minimally invasive approach. This study has demonstrated a significantly reduced wound infection, operative time, and gaseous insufflation for TULLA compared to LA. Further studies to demonstrate its feasibility in complicated appendicitis may be warranted.

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.

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.

Comparison between liquid skin adhesive and wound closure strip for skin closure after subcuticular suturing in single-port laparoscopic appendectomy: a single-center retrospective study in Korea

Purpose

This study was performed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of skin adhesives and to compare postoperative and cosmetic outcomes after wound closure in single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SPLA) between skin adhesives and steri-strips.

Methods

This was a single-center retrospective study. We included 22 and 47 patients in whom skin adhesive and steri-strips were used respectively, for skin closure after subcuticular suturing in SPLA between August 2014 and 2020. The patient scar assessment questionnaire (PSAQ) was completed postoperatively to assess postoperative cosmetic outcomes.

Results

On the postoperative day, patients in whom skin adhesive was used had significantly lower numeric rating scores than in whom steri-strips were used (2.8 ± 0.8 vs. 3.9 ± 0.8, p < 0.001). The frequency of analgesic administration within 24 hours and between 24 and 48 hours after surgery was significantly lower in the skin adhesive group compared to the wound closure strip group (1.4 ± 0.8 vs. 2.7 ± 1.2, p = 0.013 and 0.2 ± 0.4 vs. 0.7 ± 0.9, p = 0.002, respectively). In the PSAQ, "satisfaction with appearance" and "satisfaction with symptoms" subitem scores were significantly lower in patients in whom skin adhesive was used (11.3 ± 3.0 vs. 15.1 ± 4.5, p = 0.006 and 6.5 ± 1.8 vs. 9.5 ± 3.3, p = 0.003), whereas, "appearance" and "consciousness" subitems revealed no statistically significant differences between the groups.

Conclusion

Liquid skin adhesive closures seem to be safe and feasible and cause less postoperative pain, resulting in greater patient satisfaction with postoperative scars than wound closure strip closure after subcuticular suturing in SPLA.

Perioperative pain management for appendicectomy: A systematic review and Procedure-specific Postoperative Pain Management recommendations

BACKGROUND

Despite being a commonly performed surgical procedure, pain management for appendicectomy is often neglected because of insufficient evidence on the most effective treatment options.

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based recommendations by assessing the available literature for optimal pain management after appendicectomy.

DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES

This systematic review-based guideline was conducted according to the PROSPECT methodology. Relevant randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the English language from January 1999 to October 2022 were retrieved from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Databases using PRISMA search protocols.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included studies on adults and children. If articles reported combined data from different surgeries, they had to include specific information about appendicectomies. Studies needed to measure pain intensity using a visual analogue scale (VAS) or a numerical rating scale (NRS). Studies that did not report the precise appendicectomy technique were excluded.

RESULTS

Out of 1388 studies, 94 met the inclusion criteria. Based on evidence and consensus, the PROSPECT members agreed that basic analgesics [paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)] should be administered perioperatively for open and laparoscopic appendicectomies. A laparoscopic approach is preferred because of lower pain scores. Additional recommendations for laparoscopic appendicectomies include a three-port laparoscopic approach and the instillation of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic. For open appendicectomy, a preoperative unilateral transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block is recommended. If not possible, preincisional infiltration with local anaesthetics is an alternative. Opioids should only be used as rescue analgesia. Limited evidence exists for TAP block in laparoscopic appendicectomy, analgesic adjuvants for TAP block, continuous wound infiltration after open appendicectomy and preoperative ketamine and dexamethasone. Recommendations apply to children and adults.

CONCLUSION

This review identified an optimal analgesic regimen for open and laparoscopic appendicectomy. Further randomised controlled trials should evaluate the use of regional analgesia and wound infiltrations with adequate baseline analgesia, especially during the recommended conventional three-port approach.

REGISTRATION

The protocol for this study was registered with the PROSPERO database (Registration No. CRD42023387994).

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.

Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy versus traditional three-hole laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis in children by senior pediatric surgeons: a multicenter study from China

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of single-incision laparoscopy appendectomy (SILA) and traditional three-hole laparoscopy appendectomy (THLA) for the treatment of acute appendicitis in children.

Methods

The clinical data of children (<14 years old) who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy at Yijishan Hospital of Wannan Medical College, Hubei Provincial Maternal Health Hospital and Qingdao Women and Children's Medical Center from January 2019 to June 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the operation method, the patients were assigned to the SILA group or the THLA group. The clinical data, including the efficacy, and the surgical details, including the complications, of the two surgical methods were compared. The personal information of the children and the time of disease onset were recorded.

Results

In this study, the data of 588 patients, including 385 patients in the THLA group and 203 patients in the SILA group were collected. The baseline characteristics between the two groups of patients before surgery were comparable. There was no significant difference in the average operation time between the THLA group and the SILA group (56.31 ± 1.83 min vs. 57.48 ± 1.15 min, P > 0.05). There was also no significant difference in the average length of hospital stay between the THLA group and the SILA group (6.91 ± 0.24 days vs. 7.16 ± 0.36 days, P > 0.05). However, the FLACC scores of the SILA group (3.71 ± 0.78) were significantly lower than those of the THLA group (3.99 ± 0.56) on the second postoperative day, and the difference was significant (P < 0.05). The score of the questionnaire evaluating cosmetic appearance of the postoperative abdomen was significantly higher in the SILA group (15.81 ± 0.36) than in the THLA group (13.10 ± 0.24) (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

SILA is more advantageous in terms of postoperative FLACC scores and cosmetic appearance in children than THLA. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications or other aspects between the two surgical methods.

A prospective randomized controlled study comparing patient-reported scar evaluation of single-port versus multiport laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis

Purpose

This study aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes and patient-surveyed scar assessments of single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SPLA) with the outcomes of multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (MPLA).

Methods

Between August 2014 and November 2017, the prospective randomized study comprised 98 patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis and indicated for surgery. Fifty-one patients had MPLA and 47 patients received SPLA. The primary endpoint was the total score of Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire (PSAQ) administered to patients 6 weeks after surgery.

Results

SPLA involved a shorter median operative time than MPLA (47.5 minutes vs. 60.0 minutes, p = 0.02). There were no apparent differences in the time before diet tolerance, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complication. SPLA patients had shorter total incision length (2.0 cm vs. 2.5 cm, p < 0.01) and required fewer analgesics on the day of surgery than MPLA patients (p = 0.011). The PSAQ favored the SPLA approach, revealing significant differences in total score (48 vs. 55, p = 0.026), appearance (15 vs. 18, p = 0.002), and consciousness (8 vs. 10, p = 0.005), while satisfaction with appearance and symptoms scale did not (p = 0.162 and p = 0.690, respectively).

Conclusion

The postoperative scar evaluated by the patient was better with SPLA than with MPLA, and patient satisfaction with the scar was comparable between the two techniques.

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.

Laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy with laparoscopic-assisted percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy for superior mesenteric artery syndrome with dysphagia: a case report

Background

Superior mesenteric artery (SMA) syndrome denotes a mechanical duodenal obstruction between the SMA and aorta. Total parenteral or enteral nutrition is the treatment of choice. However, surgical intervention is indicated if the patient’s condition does not improve with conservative treatment. Here, we describe a case of SMA syndrome with dysphagia treated by laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy with laparoscopic-assisted percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Case presentation

A 64-year-old man was admitted to another hospital because of appetite loss and vomiting. There, he was diagnosed as having superior mesenteric artery (SMA) syndrome after appropriate investigation. He had had a cerebral infarction at age 57 years, since which he had lived in social housing because of complications of that infarction. A nasogastric tube was inserted into the third portion of the duodenum beyond the constricted section. He was discharged 2 months after admission his condition having improved. He was subsequently referred to our hospital for gastrostomy because the nasogastric tube had been in place for a long time and his condition had not improved. Additionally, gastrostomy was needed as a route for enteral nutrition because he had dysphagia, which had persisted despite attempts at rehabilitation, restricting his food intake to small amounts. Computed tomography (CT) revealed compression of the third portion of the duodenum between the SMA and aorta. After obtaining informed consent, we planned an operative procedure. We performed laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy under general anesthesia, followed by laparoscopic-assisted percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. The operation time was 156 min and there was little blood loss. Contrast radiography on postoperative day 3 revealed no evidence of leakage or stenosis. Enteral nutrition via the gastrostomy was started. He was discharged from our hospital on the 27th postoperative day. The gastrostomy was well tolerated and there has been no evidence of recurrence of SMA syndrome during follow-up.

Conclusion

Gastrostomy is often performed to provide a route for administering enteral nutrition in patients with dysphagia. Development of SMA syndrome in patients with dysphagia necessitates operative management of the obstruction. Here, we describe a case of SMA syndrome with dysphagia treated by laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy with laparoscopic-assisted percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Surgical Site Infection Following Single-Port Appendectomy: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are one of the most common postoperative complications after appendectomy leading to recurrent surgery, prolonged hospital stay, and the use of antibiotics. Numerous studies and meta-analyses have been published on the effect of open versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) reporting faster postoperative recovery and less postoperative pain for CLA. A development from CLA has been the single-port appendectomy (SPA), associated with a better cosmesis but seemingly having a higher risk of wound infections. The aim of this systematic literature review and meta-analysis is to investigate whether reduced port or SPA alters the ratio of SSIs.

Methods

Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were screened for suitable articles. All articles published between January 1, 2002, and March 23, 2022, were included. Articles regarding children below the age of 18 were excluded as well as manuscripts that investigated solemnly open appendectomies. Articles were screened for inclusion criteria by two independent authors. Incidence of SSI was the primary outcome. Duration of operation and length of hospital stay were defined as secondary outcomes.

Results

A total of 25 studies were found through a database search describing 5484 patients. A total of 2749 patients received SPA and 2735 received CLA. There was no statistical difference in the rate of SSI (P = 0.98). A total of 22 studies including 4699 patients reported the duration of operation (2223 SPA and 2476 CLA). There was a significantly shorter operation time seen in CLA. The length of hospital stay was reported in 23 studies (4735 patients: 2235 SPA and 2500 CLA). A shorter hospital stay was seen in the SPA group (P &lt; 0.00001). Separately performed analysis of randomized controlled trials could not confirm this effect (P = 0.29).

Discussion

SPA is an equally safe procedure considering SSI compared to CLA and does not lead to an increased risk of SSI. A longer operation time for SPA and a minor difference in the length of stay does lead to the use of SPA in selected patients only.

Laparoscopic appendicectomy without the use of disposable materials - a low-cost alternative - 1,552 cases operated in 20 years

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic appendectomy does not have a single protocol on its technical systematization, access routes, and use of energy and staplers. The cost of disposable materials can prevent its widespread use. Alternatives to decrease cost can help disseminate the laparoscopic access to appendectomy.

OBJECTIVE

to introduce a low-cost laparoscopic appendectomy method with good aesthetic results through the location of incisions; to show its viability through its application in 1,552 cases of laparoscopic appendectomy operated between 2000 and 2019 with three portals and very low-cost regarding materials used.

METHODS

we applied three punctures - an umbilical one for the camera (5 or 10mm in diameter), a 10mm puncture in the right iliac fossa, and one 5mm puncture in the left iliac fossa. The materials used were permanent use trocars, grasping forceps, hook, scissors, and needle holder, without the need for any disposable device.

RESULTS

1.552 patients were operated between 2000 and 2019, 56.2% being female, mean age 32.66 years (9-93), average hospital stay of 1.74 days (1-10), and median of 1.2 days.

CONCLUSION

the technique we describe uses three metallic trocars and four permanent instruments, in addition to a single cotton suture. It is, therefore, a very low-cost laparoscopic procedure. Its application has shown good results and low morbidity, which may become the preferred indication for laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of acute appendicitis.

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.

Evidence-based surgery for laparoscopic appendectomy: A stepwise systematic review

Introduction

Appendectomy is a common emergency surgery performed globally. Despite the frequency of laparoscopic appendectomy, consensus does not exist on the best way to perform each procedural step. We identified literature on key intraoperative steps to inform best technical practice during laparoscopic appendectomy.

Methods

Research questions were framed using the population, indication, comparison, outcome (PICO) format for 6 key operative steps of laparoscopic appendectomy: abdominal entry, placement of laparoscopic ports, division of mesoappendix, division of appendix, removal of appendix, and fascial closure. These questions were used to build literature queries in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases. Evidence quality and certainty was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) definitions.

Results

Recommendations were rendered for 6 PICO questions based on 28 full length articles. Low quality evidence favors direct trocar insertion for abdominal entry and establishment of pneumoperitoneum. Single port appendectomy results in improved cosmesis with unclear clinical implications. There was insufficient data to determine the optimal method of appendiceal stump closure, but use of a specimen extraction bag reduces rates of superficial surgical site infection and intra-abdominal abscess. Port sites made with radially dilating trocars are less likely to necessitate closure and are less likely to result in port site hernia. When port sites are closed, a closure device should be used.

Conclusion

Key operative steps of laparoscopic appendectomy have sufficient data to encourage standardized practice.

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/reduced port surgery vs. conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim is to compare single port surgery (SPS)/reduced port surgery (RPS) versus conventional laparoscopy (CL) for gastrectomy for gastric cancer in terms of intra- and postoperative outcomes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

After a search in Pubmed and Embase, six articles were included. Pooled analysis was used to evaluate the statistically significance for each variable.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-three and 230 patients underwent SPS/RPS and CL, respectively. One hundred and eighty-eight patients and 45 patients underwent subtotal and total gastrectomy, respectively, using the SPS/RPS approach. One hundred and eighty-five patients and 45 patients underwent subtotal and total gastrectomy, respectively, by CL. In 85 patients, an extra trocar was systematically placed at the end of surgery. Statistically significant differences were not observed about preoperative staging. The pooled analysis regarding operative time, blood loss, postoperative complications, number of harvested lymph nodes and postoperative hospital stay showed that the only statistically significant difference between the two approaches is the shorter hospital stay in case of SPS/RPS.

CONCLUSIONS

SPS/RPS total or subtotal gastrectomy shows a lower postoperative hospital stay, with comparable operative time, blood loss, early postoperative complication rate and number of harvested lymph nodes in comparison to CL, provided extensive experience in minimally invasive gastrectomy is present. Abbreviations: AGC: advanced gastric cancer; BMI: body mass index; CI: confidence interval; CL: conventional laparoscopy; LESS: laparoendoscopic single site; MD: mean difference; NOS: Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; OR: odds ratio; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis; ROBIN-I: Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions; RPS: reduced port surgery; RR: risk ratio; SILS: single incision laparoscopic surgery; SPS: single port surgery; WMD: weighted mean differences.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery for appendiceal mucocele: a series of 116 patients

BACKGROUND

Although the safety and feasibility of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for appendiceal mucocele (AM) has been reported, studies on single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for AM have not been reported. Here, we aimed to compare the perioperative and short-term outcomes between SILS and CLS for AM and to evaluate the oncological safety of SILS.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients, diagnosed based on computed tomography findings, who underwent laparoscopic surgery for AM between 2010 and 2018 at one institution. We excluded patients strongly suspected of having malignant lesions and those with preoperative appendiceal perforation. Patients were divided into two groups-CLS and SILS. Pathological outcomes and long-term results were investigated. The median follow-up period was 43.7 (range: 12.3-118.5) months.

RESULTS

Ultimately, 116 patients (CLS = 68, SILS = 48) were enrolled. Patient demographic characteristics did not differ between the groups. The preoperative mucocele diameter was greater in the CLS than in the SILS group (3.2 ± 2.9 cm vs. 2.3 ± 1.4 cm, P = 0.029). More extensive surgery (right hemicolectomies and ileocecectomies) was performed in the CLS than in the SILS group (P = 0.014). Intraoperative perforation developed in only one patient per group. For appendectomies and cecectomies, the CLS group exhibited a longer operation time than the SILS group (63.3 ± 24.5 min vs. 52.4 ± 17.3 min, P = 0.014); the same was noted for length of postoperative hospital stay (2.9 ± 1.8 days vs. 1.7 ± 0.6 days, P < 0.001). The most common AM etiology was low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (71/116 [61.2%] patients); none of the patients exhibited mucinous cystadenocarcinoma. Among these 71 patients, there were 8 patients with microscopic appendiceal perforation or positive resection margins. No recurrence was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

SILS for AM is feasible and safe perioperatively and in the short-term and yields favorable oncological outcomes. Despite the retrospective nature of the study, SILS may be suitable after careful selection of AM patients.

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.

Paramedian incisional complications after prophylactic laparoscopy-assisted gastropexy in 411 dogs

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency and types of paramedian incisional complications after prophylactic laparoscopy-assisted gastropexy (LAG) in dogs and to evaluate potential risk factors for complications.

STUDY DESIGN

Multi-institutional retrospective study.

ANIMALS

Client-owned dogs (N = 411).

METHODS

Records for dogs that underwent single-incision-port laparoscopy-assisted gastropexy (SIPLAG) or multiple-port laparoscopy-assisted gastropexy (MPLAG) at five veterinary referral hospitals were reviewed. Information regarding signalment, surgical procedures, perioperative care, and incisional complications was collected. Follow-up information was obtained by review of medical records and/or communication with owners. Potential risk factors for complications were examined statistically.

RESULTS

Paramedian incisional complications were observed in 78 of 411 (19%) dogs. The most common complication was seroma formation, which occurred in 51 (12.4%) dogs. Surgical site infections were observed in 16 (3.9%) dogs, and dehiscence or development of excessive scar tissue at the incision site were each observed in nine (2.2%) dogs. Complications resolved with conservative treatment in 75 of 78 (96.2%) dogs and with surgical treatment in three of 78 (3.8%) dogs. The odds of complications were approximately twice as high in dogs undergoing SIPLAG than in dogs undergoing MPLAG (odds ratio, 2.03; P = .006).

CONCLUSION

Minor paramedian incisional complications, particularly seroma formation, were frequently observed after LAG. Most complications were successfully managed conservatively. Single-incision-port laparoscopy-assisted gastropexy was associated with a higher complication rate compared with MPLAG.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Owners should be informed that there is a relatively high rate of minor paramedian incisional complications after LAG. The risk of complications appears to be higher for SIPLAG than for MPLAG.

Apendicectomía por único puerto asistida por laparoscopia versus técnica abierta convencional localizada, en pacientes con apendicitis aguda en el Hospital Universitario Clínica San Rafael

Introducción. La apendicectomía por puerto único, asistida por laparoscopia, ofrece una alternativa terapéutica en el abordaje de la apendicitis aguda. En el presente estudio, se evalúa el beneficio terapéutico de la técnica por único puerto asistida por laparoscopia y se compara esta técnica con la apendicectomía abierta. Materiales y métodos. Se trata de un estudio observacional analítico retrospectivo de cohorte, llevado a cabo en el Hospital Universitario Clínica San Rafael, de Bogotá. Se incluyeron 106 pacientes mayores de 15 años con apendicitis aguda, que fueron sometidos a apendicectomía por puerto único, asistida por laparoscopia o apendicectomía abierta. La relación entre el grupo con apendicectomía por laparoscopia y el de técnica abierta, fue de 1:1. Se incluyeron variables sociodemográficas, clínicas y quirúrgicas (tiempo quirúrgico, frecuencia de infección del sitio operatorio, estancia hospitalaria, dolor, reingresos y resultado estético). Resultados. La edad promedio fue de 32 años y la mayoría de los pacientes eran de sexo masculino. El tiempo operatorio fue menor en los casos de apendicectomía por puerto único, asistida por laparoscopia, con un promedio de 34,1 minutos. Según la escala análoga, el dolor posoperatorio fue de 2,2 con la técnica laparoscópica y de 3,2 con la apendicectomía abierta (p<0,05). Hubo ocho veces más reingresos entre los casos de apendicectomía abierta en comparación con la apendicectomía por un puerto, y el resultado estético fue satisfactorio en todos con esta última técnica. No se encontraron diferencias significativas en la estancia hospitalaria o la infección del sitio operatorio. La razón de momios (odds ratio, OR) fue inferior a 1 en variables como dolor, reingreso y menor tiempo quirúrgico, lo cual indica una menor probabilidad, en los que se usó un solo puerto. Discusión. La técnica por un solo puerto es segura, reproducible, equiparable en términos de días de estancia hospitalaria e infección de sitio operatorio, e incluso, produce mejores resultados en el tiempo quirúrgico, las escalas de dolor y el número de reingresos.

Meta-analysis of unplanned readmission to hospital post-appendectomy: an opportunity for a new benchmark

BACKGROUND

Appendicitis is the most common cause of acute abdominal pain requiring surgical intervention. While many studies report readmission, a meta-analysis of readmission post-appendectomy has not been published. This meta-analysis was undertaken to determine rates and predictors of hospital readmission following appendectomy and to potentially provide a metric benchmark.

METHODS

An ethically approved PROSPERO-registered (ID CRD42017069040) meta-analysis following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, using databases PubMed and Scopus, was undertaken for studies published between January 2012 and June 2017. Articles relating to outcomes and readmissions after appendectomy were identified. Those scoring >15 for comparative studies and >10 for non-comparative studies, using Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria were included in the final analysis. The odds ratios (OR) using random-effects, Mantel-Haenszel method with 95% confidence intervals (CI), were computed for each risk factor with RevMan5.

RESULTS

A total of 1757 articles reviewed were reduced to 45 qualifying studies for a final analysis of 836 921 appendectomies. 4.3% (range 0.0-14.4%) of patients were readmitted within 30 days. Significant preoperative patient factors for increased readmission were diabetes mellitus (OR 1.93, CI 1.63-2.28, P < 0.00001), complicated appendicitis (OR 3.6, CI 2.43-5.34, P < 0.00001) and open surgical technique (OR 1.39, CI 1.08-1.79, P < 0.00001). Increased readmission was not associated with gender, obesity or paediatric versus general surgeons or centres.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis identified that readmission is not uncommon post-appendectomy, occurring in one in 25 cases. The mean readmission rate of 4.3% may act as a quality benchmark for improving emergency surgical care. Targeting high-risk groups with diabetes or complicated appendicitis and increasing use of laparoscopic technique may help reduce readmission rates.

Transumbilical Single-Incision Laparoscopic-Assisted Appendectomy (TULAA) Is Useful in Adults and Young Adolescents: Comparison with Multi-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy

Background and objectives: Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SLA) in most previous studies has used intracorporeal excision of the appendix and needed a longer operative time than multi-port laparoscopic appendectomy (MLA), although SLA does have the potential benefit of an almost invisible scar within the umbilicus. Some studies have reported that extracorporeal transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy (TULAA) in children took a considerably reduced operative time compared to MLA. We adopted TULAA in adults, adding routine dissection of the peritoneal attachment of the appendix. The aim was to compare the operative outcomes between TULAA and MLA. Materials and Methods: Between March 2013 and January 2016, 770 patients with acute uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis from 15 to 75 years of age were enrolled retrospectively. The operation was performed as early (EA) and interval appendectomy (IA). Results: Operative time was shorter in the TULAA group than in the MLA group, except for IA. No open conversion occurred in the TULAA group, except one case of ileocecal resection for IA. No intra-abdominal fluid collection was found in the TULAA group. Extended resection (especially partial cecectomy) was performed less frequently in the TULAA group than in the MLA group for IA. Mean postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the TULAA group for uncomplicated appendicitis. When the data of the EA group and the IA group were compared, operative time was significantly shorter in the IA group for both MLA and TULAA. The open conversion rate and the complication rate tended to be lower in the IA group. Confined to IA, the TULAA group tended to have shorter mean initial, postoperative, and total hospital stays. Conclusions: TULAA can be a useful surgical alternative to MLA in adults and young adolescents, because it lacks open conversion and provides both a shorter operative time and a shorter postoperative hospital stay. TULAA is feasible for IA in that it showed a lower rate of extended resection and complications.

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.

A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of Single-Port and Three-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Children

Background: This study aimed to evaluate single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SPLA) in comparison with three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (3PLA) in children about the extent of surgical trauma after SPLA and 3PLA measured by serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) and C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations. Materials and Methods: A total of 50 patients with a median age of 11.5 were randomized to two groups. Experts in both methods performed the surgeries. The decision on the type of planned surgery was randomly determined. Serum IL-6 and CRP levels were measured using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay before, and at 12 and 36 hours after surgery. Furthermore, we compared operating time, hospital stay, postoperative pain, and complication rates. Results: The operative time in the 3PLA group was shorter than that in the SPLA group (P < .05). Preoperative IL-6 levels were not different between the two groups, but the rise (pre- versus postoperative) of IL-6 in the SPLA group was remarkably higher when compared with the 3PLA group (P < .05). Similar results were obtained for CRP; basal serum CRP levels were not different between the two groups, but the rise of CRP in the 3PLA group was significantly lower compared with that in the SPLA group. During the first 12 hours postoperative, the SPLA patients reported more severe postoperative pain and longer inpatient opiate usage was noted that after 3-PLA. Only one SPLA case was converted to 3PLA. There were no conversions to open surgery. The length of hospital stay and complication rate were not different between the two groups. Conclusions: SPLA in children is associated with longer operative times, increased pain level, and more severe surgical trauma as measured by postoperative CRP and IL-6 levels in comparison with a 3PLA. The two approaches were comparable regarding the length of hospital stay and complication rate.

European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery changed the management of numerous surgical conditions. It was associated with many advantages over open surgery, such as decreased postoperative pain, faster recovery, shorter hospital stay and excellent cosmesis. Since two decades single-incision endoscopic surgery (SIES) was introduced to the surgical community. SIES could possibly result in even better postoperative outcomes than multi-port laparoscopic surgery, especially concerning cosmetic outcomes and pain. However, the single-incision surgical procedure is associated with quite some challenges.

METHODS

An expert panel of surgeons has been selected and invited to participate in the preparation of the material for a consensus meeting on the topic SIES, which was held during the EAES congress in Frankfurt, June 16, 2017. The material presented during the consensus meeting was based on evidence identified through a systematic search of literature according to a pre-specified protocol. Three main topics with respect to SIES have been identified by the panel: (1) General, (2) Organ specific, (3) New development. Within each of these topics, subcategories have been defined. Evidence was graded according to the Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Recommendations were made according to the GRADE criteria.

RESULTS

In general, there is a lack of high level evidence and a lack of long-term follow-up in the field of single-incision endoscopic surgery. In selected patients, the single-incision approach seems to be safe and effective in terms of perioperative morbidity. Satisfaction with cosmesis has been established to be the main advantage of the single-incision approach. Less pain after single-incision approach compared to conventional laparoscopy seems to be considered an advantage, although it has not been consistently demonstrated across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the increased direct costs (devices, instruments and operating time) of the SIES procedure and the prolonged learning curve, wider acceptance of the procedure should be supported only after demonstration of clear benefits.

Single-Incision, Two-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy as an Alternative to Transumbilical Single-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy

Purpose

We designed a modified technique to perform an advanced procedure using conventional instruments and did not employ specialized single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) port equipment. We compared postoperative results for transumbilical, single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (TUSPLA) and single-incision, 2-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SITPLA).

Methods

This retrospective study enrolled 77 patients who underwent TUSPLA or SITPLA to provide more minimally invasive surgery between May 2017 and April 2018. TUSPLA was performed in 39 patients and 38 underwent SITPLA. In the SITPLA group, two 5-mm trocars were inserted through the umbilicus and an extra puncture site was used for a left-handed instrument. Demographic characteristics, operative data, and postoperative outcomes were collected and compared between the groups.

Results

The mean total operative time in the SITPLA group was shorter than in the TUSPLA group (p=0.003). The mean laparoscopic instrumental time was also shorter (p<0.001) in the SITPLA. The number of postoperative analgesics in the SITPLA group was less than in the TUSPLA group (p=0.002). The length of hospital day after surgery was shorter in the SITPLA group than in the TUSPLA group (p=0.008). There were no other significant differences between the groups.

Conclusion

SITPLA had a shorter operative time, required less pain management, and had a similar cosmetic outcome when compared with TUSPLA.

Laparoscopic entry techniques

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is a common procedure in many surgical specialties. Complications arising from laparoscopy are often related to initial entry into the abdomen. Life-threatening complications include injury to viscera (e.g. bowel, bladder) or to vasculature (e.g. major abdominal and anterior abdominal wall vessels). No clear consensus has been reached as to the optimal method of laparoscopic entry into the peritoneal cavity.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and risks of different laparoscopic entry techniques in gynaecological and non-gynaecological surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and trials registers in January 2018. We also checked the references of articles retrieved.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared one laparoscopic entry technique versus another. Primary outcomes were major complications including mortality, vascular injury of major vessels and abdominal wall vessels, visceral injury of bladder or bowel, gas embolism, solid organ injury, and failed entry (inability to access the peritoneal cavity). Secondary outcomes were extraperitoneal insufflation, trocar site bleeding, trocar site infection, incisional hernia, omentum injury, and uterine bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We expressed findings as Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 57 RCTs including four multi-arm trials, with a total of 9865 participants, and evaluated 25 different laparoscopic entry techniques. Most studies selected low-risk patients, and many studies excluded patients with high body mass index (BMI) and previous abdominal surgery. Researchers did not find evidence of differences in major vascular or visceral complications, as would be anticipated given that event rates were very low and sample sizes were far too small to identify plausible differences in rare but serious adverse events.Open-entry versus closed-entryTen RCTs investigating Veress needle entry reported vascular injury as an outcome. There was a total of 1086 participants and 10 events of vascular injury were reported. Four RCTs looking at open entry technique reported vascular injury as an outcome. There was a total of 376 participants and 0 events of vascular injury were reported. This was not a direct comparison. In the direct comparison of Veress needle and Open-entry technique, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82; 4 RCTs; n = 915; I² = N/A, very low-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups for visceral injury (Peto OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.08; 4 RCTs; n = 915: I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42; 3 RCTs; n = 865; I² = 63%; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported mortality with no events in either group. No studies reported gas embolism or solid organ injury.Direct trocar versus Veress needle entryTrial results show a reduction in failed entry into the abdomen with the use of a direct trocar in comparison with Veress needle entry (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.34; 8 RCTs; N = 3185; I² = 45%; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.96; 6 RCTs; n = 1603; I² = 75%; very low-quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 2.02, 95% CI 0.21 to 19.42; 5 RCTs; n = 1519; I² = 25%; very low-quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 0.58, 95% Cl 0.06 to 5.65; 3 RCTs; n = 1079; I² = 61%; very low-quality evidence). Four studies reported mortality with no events in either group. Two studies reported gas embolism, with no events in either group.Direct vision entry versus Veress needle entryEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.85; 1 RCT; n = 186; very low-quality evidence) or visceral injury (Peto OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.34; 2 RCTs; n = 380; I² = N/A; very low-quality evidence). Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Direct vision entry versus open entryEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.50; 2 RCTs; n = 392; I² = N/A; very low-quality evidence), solid organ injury (Peto OR 6.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 316.67; 1 RCT; n = 60; very low-quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.09; 1 RCT; n = 60; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported vascular injury with no events in either arm. Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Radially expanding (STEP) trocars versus non-expanding trocarsEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.24, 95% Cl 0.05 to 1.21; 2 RCTs; n = 331; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.37; 2 RCTs; n = 331; very low-quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.91; 1 RCT; n = 244; very low-quality evidence). Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Other studies compared a wide variety of other laparoscopic entry techniques, but all evidence was of very low quality and evidence was insufficient to support the use of one technique over another.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, evidence was insufficient to support the use of one laparoscopic entry technique over another. Researchers noted an advantage of direct trocar entry over Veress needle entry for failed entry. Most evidence was of very low quality; the main limitations were imprecision (due to small sample sizes and very low event rates) and risk of bias associated with poor reporting of study methods.

[Appendectomy: open versus laparoscopic versus single port : Evidence for choice of surgical procedure]

The treatment of choice in acute appendicitis is still the surgical removal of an inflamed vermiform appendix. There is still some disagreement regarding the optimal access route, i.e. conventional open or minimally invasive. The best available evidence is used to answer the question of the current optimal choice of procedure. For laparoscopic appendectomy there are evidence-based benefits in terms of access trauma, postoperative pain, wound infection rates and convalescence. For the alternative minimally invasive procedure single port appendectomy, mini-laparoscopic appendectomy or NOTES appendectomy, there is still a lack of scientific evidence to advocate the broad clinical use of these procedures. It is recommended that whenever the infrastructure permits, laparoscopic appendectomy should be the treatment of choice.

Single-port Laparoscopic Appendectomy: Beyond the Learning Curve: A Retrospective Comparison With Multi-port Laparoscopic Appendectomy

OBJECTIVES

Previous comparisons between single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SPLA) and multi-port laparoscopic appendectomy have been conflicting and limited. We compare our single-surgeon, SPLA experience with multi-port cases performed during the same time.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of 128 single-surgeon single-port and 941 multi-port laparoscopic appendectomy cases from April 2009 to December 2014 was conducted.

RESULTS

Patient demographics and preoperative laboratory values were comparable. SPLA was associated with shorter operative time (P=0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in length of hospitalization, postoperative pain medication use, cost, postoperative complication rates (ileus, urinary retention, deep space infection), or readmission between the 2 groups. There were no postoperative incisional hernias in the single-port group. The single-port group had more postoperative oxycodone use (P=0.0110).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study supports recently published metaanalyses that fail to support older studies demonstrating longer operative times, and higher hernia rates with SPLA.

Magnetic Surgery: Results From First Prospective Clinical Trial in 50 Patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a new magnetic surgical system during reduced-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a prospective, multicenter clinical trial.

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic instrumentation coupled by magnetic fields may enhance surgeon performance by allowing for shaft-less retraction and mobilization. The movements can be performed under direct visualization, generating different angles of traction and reducing the number of trocars to perform the procedure. This may reduce well-known associated complications of trocars, including incisional pain, scarring, infection, bowel, and vascular injuries, among others.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter, single-arm, open-label study was performed to assess the safety and performance of a magnetic surgical system (Levita Magnetics' Surgical System). The investigational device was used during a 3-port laparoscopic technique. The primary endpoints evaluated were safety and feasibility of the device to adequately mobilize the gallbladder to achieve effective exposure of the targeted surgical site. Patients were followed for 30 days postprocedure.

RESULTS

Between January 2014 and March 2015, 50 patients presenting with benign gallbladder disease were recruited. Forty-five women and 5 men with an average age of 39 years (18-59), average body mass index of 27 kg/m (20.4-34.1) and an average abdominal wall thickness of 2.6 cm (1.8-4.6). The procedures were successfully performed in all 50 patients. No device-related serious adverse events were reported. Surgeons rated as "excellent" (90%) or "sufficient" (10%) the exposure of the surgical site.

CONCLUSIONS

This clinical trial shows that this new magnetic surgical system is safe and effective in reduced-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Bayesian network meta-analysis of the effects of single-incision laparoscopic surgery, conventional laparoscopic appendectomy and open appendectomy for the treatment of acute appendicitis

The present study aimed to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) and open appendectomy (OA) for the treatment of acute appendicitis. PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched to identify relevant studies comparing the effectiveness of different appendectomy methods for treating acute appendicitis published prior to April 2016. ADDIS 1.16.5 software was used for data analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed using I² statistic. Odds ratios or standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated and pooled accordingly. Consistency was assessed using node-splitting analysis and inconsistency standard deviation. Convergence was assessed with the Brooks-Gelman-Rubin method using Potential Scale Reduction Factor (PSRF). Surgical procedure duration, duration of hospital stay, wound infection and incidence of abscesses were compared. A total of 24 eligible studies were included in this meta-analysis. A consistency model was used to pool data regarding the four outcomes. The PSRFs in each item were all <1.03. Pooled results showed that, compared with OA, SILS and CLA were associated with significantly shorter durations of hospital stay (all P<0.01) and lower risk of wound infection (SILS vs. OA P=0.02 and CLA vs. OA P<0.01, respectively), but no significant differences were identified between SILS and CLA. However, compared with OA, SILS exhibited a significantly longer surgical procedure duration (P=0.01) and lower incidence of abscesses (P=0.04), while no significant difference was observed between OA and CLA. This comprehensive network meta-analysis indicated that laparoscopic appendectomy, including SILS and CLA, may have more advantages for acute appendicitis compared with OA. Furthermore, SILS procedures require improvement and simplification to reduce the surgical procedure duration.

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

BACKGROUND

Conventional three-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (CTLA) is considered the new golden standard for the treatment of acute appendicitis. However, single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) can further reduce the number of abdominal incisions and visible scars.

METHODS

Major databases were researched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing SILA and CTLA for acute appendicitis from January 1983 and to March 2015. The technical feasibility, effectiveness, and safety between SILA and CTLA were compared. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models.

RESULTS

In total, 11 RCTs with 1489 patients were analyzed. The patients in the SILA group had a significantly shorter hospital duration (WMD: -0.63; 95% CI: -1.04, -0.21; P = 0.003) and return to activity (WMD: -2.91; 95% CI: -5.45, -0.37; P = 0.02) but experienced a longer operating time (WMD: 6.56; 95% CI: 3.55, 9.58; P < 0.0001) and higher rate of conversion (OR: 6.82; 95% CI: 3.14, 14.79; P < 0.00001). There were no differences between the two groups in visual analog pain scores, doses of analgesics, overall complication rates, wound infection, or cosmesis (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

SILA is a safer and more effective than CTLA in both pediatric and adult patients.

Outcome of early discharge protocol after appendectomy for pediatric acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of an early discharge protocol for pediatric acute appendicitis.

METHODS

The present new early discharge protocol for appendicitis consisted of both postoperative early feeding and reduced-port laparoscopic surgery, to reduce surgical stress. The outcome was studied in patients with acute appendicitis treated at the present institution from 2012 to 2013.

RESULTS

Data on 36 acute appendicitis patients (mean age, 10.3 years) were collected. Operation time was 95 ± 27 min. Preoperatively, mean white blood cell (WBC) count was 13 850 ± 3644/μL; mean C-reactive protein (CRP), 2.7 ± 2.9 mg/dL; and mean procalcitonin, 0.25 ± 0.37 ng/mL. After surgery there was a significant decrease in WBC count, which fell to within the normal range; CRP peaked at 4.9 ± 3.2 mg/dL on postoperative day (POD) 1. On POD 7, all of the hematological markers were within the normal range. There were no postoperative complications. Mean hospital stay was 2.1 ± 1.1 days. Mean frequency of oral painkiller use was 3.2 ± 3.3 times per person.

CONCLUSIONS

The present early discharge protocol is safe and effective for the management of acute non-perforated appendicitis.

Interventions to optimize recovery after laparoscopic appendectomy: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

No enhanced recovery after surgery protocol has been published for laparoscopic appendectomy. This was a review of evidence-based interventions that could optimize recovery after appendectomy.

METHODS

Interventions for the review Clinical pathway, fast-track or enhanced recovery protocols; needlescopic approach; single incision laparoscopic (SIL) approach; natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES); regional nerve blocks; intraperitoneal local anaesthetic (IPLA); drains. Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science Core Collection. Study eligibility criteria Randomized controlled trial (RCT); prospective evaluation with historical controls for studies assessing clinical pathways/protocols. Participants People undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis. Study appraisal and synthesis methods Meta-analysis, random effects model.

RESULTS

Clinical pathways for laparoscopic appendectomy were safe in selected patients, but may be associated with a higher readmission rate. Needlescopic surgery offered no recovery advantage over traditional laparoscopic appendectomy. SIL afforded no recovery advantage over conventional laparoscopic surgery, but may increase operative time in children. The search found no RCT on NOTES appendectomy. Transversus abdominis plane blocks did not significantly reduce pain after laparoscopic appendectomy. IPLA should be considered in laparoscopic appendectomy; studies in paediatric surgery are needed. The search found no RCT on the use of drains in appendectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified gaps in the literature on optimizing recovery after laparoscopic appendectomy and found the need for more randomized controlled trials on regional anaesthesia and intraperitoneal local anaesthesia in children.

Evaluating the Feasibility of Single Incision Laparoscopic Appendectomy Performed by a Resident Based on Propensity Score Matching

PURPOSE

Conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) has been considered the standard for the treatment of acute appendicitis. Recently, single incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) has become an alternative option. There are few reports on the results of SILA performed by residents during the training period. The present study, we report our residents' experience.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed clinical characteristics and outcomes of 1005 patients who underwent appendectomy between October 2013 and April 2016. Every operation was performed by only residents. Clinical characteristics and operative outcomes between SILA and CLA group were reviewed after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

SILA was used more frequently in younger patients (23.3 versus 36.4 years, P = .000), women (66.4% versus 45.9%, P = .000), and patients with lower body mass index (20.2 versus 22.9 kg/m², P = .043). After propensity score matching, the rate of complicated appendicitis was lower (12.9% versus 15.5%, P = .573), and the mean operative time was slightly shorter in the SILA group than in the CLA group (56.68 versus 59.09 minutes, P = .068), although these differences were not statistically significant. There were no significant differences between the two groups in hospitalization period (2.7 versus 2.9 days, P = .380), the use of analgesics (2.0 versus 2.1 times, P = .128), and wound complication rate (10.3% versus 14.6%, P = .333).

CONCLUSION

It is a safe and relatively easy procedure with an acceptable postoperative cosmetic outcome that can be incorporated into the routine surgical training.

The use of expanding ports in laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery may cause more pain: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses on the clinical outcome after laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) have not revealed any major differences in postoperative pain between the two procedures. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the difference in postoperative pain between the two procedures, focusing on whether LESS was conducted with a non-expanding port (LESSnonex) or a port expanding (LESSex) within the incision.

METHOD

EMBASE, Medline, PubMed, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on LESS versus CLS for general abdominal procedures. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 29 RCTs with 2999 procedures were included. Pain (VAS 0-10) 6 h after surgery was significantly lower in the group where LESS was conducted with LESSnonex compared to CLS, WMD=-0.72 (- 1.10 to - 0.33). Pain 18-24 h was significantly higher in the group where LESS was conducted with LESSex compared to CLS, WMD = 0.38 (0.01-0.75). Wound-related complications were significantly more frequent in LESSex procedures compared to CLS, OR = 1.94 (1.03-3.63).

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis indirectly indicates that the type of access device that is used for an abdominal LESS procedure may contribute to the development of early postoperative pain as the use of a non-expanding model was associated with a more advantageous outcome. Direct randomized comparison of LESSnonex and LESSex is warranted to confirm if the use of expanding access devices generates more pain and wound complications.

A single case of single-port access laparoscopic appendectomy during the puerperium

Laparoscopic appendectomy is now widely practiced for the treatment of acute appendicitis. As result of increased demand for minimally invasive surgery, single-incision access was introduced and is being performed in various abdominal surgeries. Conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is gradually being performed in pregnant women. A 33-year-old woman was referred to our department at 39 weeks and 1 day of gestation due to abdominal pain. She was aware of her gastroepiploic pain even after the delivery. Though it was past 2 days, she was not recovering from right lower abdominal pain, so she was transferred to the Department of Gynecology at our hospital on the same day. Although an antibiotic was administered, the right abdominal pain did not improve, and she was referred to our department from the Department of Gynecology. We performed single-port LA (SP-LA). The total operation time was 63 minutes, and the estimated blood loss was 0 mL. She was discharged with no complications on postoperative day 7. We report our initial experience with single-port LA (SP-LA) using the glove technique for treatment of acute appendicitis in a postpartum woman. SP-LA using the glove technique was performed successfully during the puerperium without prolongation of operation time. This approach is less invasive, offers a much better cosmetic result than with conventional methods, and can be performed safely and at low cost.

Single incision laparoscopic appendicectomy versus conventional three-port laparoscopic appendicectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Appendicectomy is a well-established surgical procedure used in the management of acute appendicitis. The operation can be performed with minimally invasive surgery or as an open procedure. A further development in the minimally invasive appendicectomy technique has been the introduction of single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILA).

AIM

To ascertain any differences in outcomes from available trials comparing SILA with conventional multi-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy (CLA).

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE/Ovid and CENTRAL for articles from Jan1990 to June 2015 with key words: 'appendectomy', 'appendicetomy'; 'appendicitis'; 'laparoscopy'; 'keyhole'; 'single port'; 'single incision'; 'single site'; 'one port'; 'incisionless'; 'scarless'. Randomised control trials of patients with signs and symptoms of appendicitis undergoing laparoscopic appendicectomy, with one arm being SILA were included. Statistical analysis was performed through Mantle-Haenszel and inverse variance methods.

RESULTS

A total of 8 RCTs published between 2012 and 2014 with a total of 995 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed no significant differences between SILA and CLA for complication rates, post-operative ileus, length of hospital stay, return to work or post-operative pain. CLA was significantly superior to SILA with reduced operating time (mean difference 5.81 [2.01, 9.62] P = 0.003) and conversion rates (OR 4.14 [1.93, 8.91] P = 0.0003). SILA surgery had better wound cosmesis (mean difference 0.55 [0.33, 0.77] P = 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

SILA is comparable to CLA in terms of complications, post-operative pain and recovery. Therefore, SILA could be a viable option in the hands of an experienced surgeons and for patients' groups who place great value on the final cosmetic outcome.

Feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy in a small hospital

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes for single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) for the treatment of acute appendicitis and to assess the feasibility of performing SILA in a small hospital with limited surgical instruments and staff experience.

METHODS

Retrospective record review identified 133 patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy from December 2013 to April 2015. Patients were categorized according to the type of appendectomy performed (SILA or CLA). Patient characteristics and surgical outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. Postoperative complication rates were compared using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Postoperative pain was assessed using a visual analog scale immediately postsurgery; at 12, 24, 36, and 48 hours postoperatively, and at 7 days postoperatively.

RESULTS

Record review identified 38 patients who had undergone SILA and 95 patients who had undergone CLA. No significant differences in clinical characteristics were found between the 2 groups. There were no significant differences in operation time, time to flatus, or length of hospital stay. Overall complication rates were not significantly different between the 2 groups. No complications worse than grade IIIa occurred in the SILA group. Postoperative pain scores were not significantly different between the 2 groups at any time point.

CONCLUSION

We found comparable surgical outcomes for SILA compared to CLA. Even in a small hospital with limited surgical instruments and staff experience, SILA may be a feasible and safe technique.