Single-incision laparoscopic bariatric surgery: a systematic review

Preliminary experience in using the lateral single-incision laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal approach for inguinal hernia repair

To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of the lateral single-incision laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (L-SILTEP) approach in patients with inguinal hernia who had contraindications to the midline approach. This study included 58 patients who underwent L-SILTEP. Data on their baseline characteristics and perioperative details were collected. Quality of life and cosmetic satisfaction assessments were performed. Of the evaluated patients, 25.9% had a history of middle and lower abdominal surgery and 10.3% had skin diseases around the umbilicus. The mean surgical duration, blood loss volume, and incision length were 53.5 (± 22.3) min, 7.2 (± 9.7) mL, and 2.0 (± 0.13) cm, respectively. Additionally, 29.3% of patients experienced intraoperative peritoneal rupture, and one patient had epigastric vessel bleeding. The 6-, 24-, and 48-h postoperative pain scores were 3.0 (± 0.6), 1.6 (± 0.6), and 1.1 (± 0.4), respectively. Postoperative complications included seroma (n = 3), hematoma (n = 1), and scrotal edema (n = 1). The surgical incision in the L-SILTEP approach was more aesthetically pleasing than that in previous surgeries. Approximately 17.2%, 8.6%, and 10.3% of patients reported pain, mesh sensation, and movement limitation, respectively. Severe or disabling symptoms were not reported, and there were no cases of 30-day readmissions. Hernia recurrence or incisional hernia was not observed over a mean follow-up duration of 14.6 (± 6.1) months. L-SILTEP can be used for patients with contraindications to the midline approach. Furthermore, it is a safe and effective procedure.

Reduced Port Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

This systematic review evaluated the safety and efficacy of reduced port laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and compared its potential advantages over the conventional laparoscopic approach. Eighteen eligible articles were analyzed, including thirteen cohort studies and five randomized trials (n = 2945). There were no differences in total postoperative complications [OR of 0.99 (0.72 to 1.37)] nor those classified as Clavien-Dindo ≥ IIIb. There were also no differences regarding operative time, blood loss, postoperative pain, weight loss, and improvement in comorbidities. In the reduced port group, hospital stay was slightly shorter [WDM of - 0.23 (- 0.39 to - 0.07)], and cosmetic results were better in the short term. Our meta-analysis shows reduced port sleeve gastrectomy can be safely performed in selected patients, although clinical benefits are unclear (PROSPERO (CRD42022372829)).

Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) versus conventional laparoscopic technique for ileostomy: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Minimal-invasive surgery has gained wide acceptance in colorectal surgery. Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) was designed to minimize surgical trauma and improve postoperative outcome. However, the role of SILS in ileostomy formation is unclear.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study 26 patients were included. Six patients were operated with SILS and 20 with conventional laparoscopic technique for ileostomy. We retrospectively evaluated patient charts for baseline characteristics including prior abdominal surgeries and combination of surgeries. Our primary efficacy objectives were operation time and postoperative hospitalization days. Our safety objectives included the prevalence of postoperative pain, parastomal hernia, incisional hernia, perforation, wound infection, ileus, and infections in general.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics including previous abdominal surgery and concomitant surgeries were comparable in both groups. Total operation time using SILS (37.5 ± 6.2 min [mean ± SD]), compared to laparoscopic surgery (82.2 ± 54.8 min [mean ± SD]) was significantly shorter (p = 0.0002). In a sensitivity analysis excluding patients with combined surgery, ileostomy formation by SILS was shorter (36.5 ± 6.2 min [mean ± SD]), compared to laparoscopy (59.7 ± 28.7 min [mean ± SD]; p = 0.024). Length of postoperative stay was not statistically different between the groups (SILS: 5.5 ± 2.4 days [mean ± SD]; laparoscopic: 13.8 ± 17.3 days [mean ± SD], p = 0.193). Postoperative complication rates were low and comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Placement of a loop ileostomy using SILS technique not only reduces surgical trauma but also operation time without affecting postoperative hospital stay or postoperative complication rates. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for ileostomy is an appealing approach for ileostomy in selected patients.

Comparative review of outcomes: single-incision laparoscopic total extra-peritoneal sub-lay (SIL-TES) mesh repair versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for ventral hernia

To compare outcomes between single-incision laparoscopic totally extra-peritoneal sub-lay (SIL-TES) mesh repair and laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair of ventral hernia (VH). A retrospective selection of 104 patients who underwent VH repair (50 and 54 in the SIL-TES and IPOM groups, respectively) was made. Patient data were collected, and quality of life was evaluated using Carolinas Comfort Scale (CCS) 1 month and 3 months after surgery. There were no significant differences in sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, defect size, mesh area, estimated blood loss, and complication rate between the groups. Age was lower, body mass index was higher, prevalence of primary VH was significantly higher (p < 0.0001), and pain was less at 24 and 48 h post procedure (p < 0.0001) in the SIL-TES group. Drainage placement was more (p < 0.0001), operation time was shorter (p = 0.012), and hospitalization duration and total hospitalization cost were greater in the IPOM group than that in SIL-TES group (8.3 ± 0.3 vs 4.3 ± 0.4 days, p < 0.0001; $7126.9 ± 141.4 vs $2937.3 ± 58.3, p < 0.0001, respectively). Pain and movement limitation scores evaluated by CCS were significantly worse at 1 month (4.93 ± 0.28 vs 1.75 ± 0.28: p < 0.0001; 2.52 ± 0.24 vs 1.15 ± 0.18: p < 0.0001, respectively) and 3 months (4.32 ± 0.37 vs 0.9 ± 0.29: p < 0.0001; 2.06 ± 0.25 vs 0.69 ± 0.11: p < 0.0001, respectively) in IPOM group, compared with the according scores in SIL-TES group. There was no readmission within 30 days and no hernia recurrence at mean follow-up of 12 months. SIL-TES mesh repair is safe and effective and is superior to IPOM repair.

Analogies between medusa and single port surgery in gastroenterology and hepatology: A review

Single port surgery (SPS) was introduced as an attractive, minimally invasive surgical technique that ensures esthetic results for many types of visceral surgery. Initially, surgeons immediately set about performing SPS without preliminary knowledge or training, which resulted in higher complication rates. Today, current studies conclusively show that SPS is scientifically rehabilitated and indicated for simple and complex laparoscopic procedures. We here describe the astonishing analogies between Greek mythology and modern surgery.

Comparison of Single-Incision and Conventional Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy for Morbid Obesity: a Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SILSG) has been proposed as an alternative to conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (CLSG) in obese patients. This study aims to compare the surgical outcomes of these two techniques.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of existing literature obtained through a systematic literature search in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library CENTRAL databases from 2009 to 2019 was conducted.

RESULTS

Eleven articles including 1168 patients were analyzed. Patients in the SILSG group reported greater satisfaction with cosmetic scar outcomes than those in the CLSG group (SMD = 2.47, 95% CI = 1.10 to 3.83, P = 0.00). There was no significant difference between the SILSG group and the CLSG group regarding operative time, intraoperative estimated blood loss, conversion rate, intraoperative complications, length of hospital stay, postoperative analgesia, postoperative complications, excess weight loss (EWL), and improvements in comorbidities (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to CLSG, SILSG resulted in improved cosmetic satisfaction and showed no disadvantages in terms of surgical outcomes; thus, SILSG can serve as an alternative to CLSG for obese patients. Nonetheless, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with large study populations and long follow-up periods are needed.

Short-term and midterm outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for right-sided colon cancer

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to clarify the usefulness of SILS for right-sided colon cancer by evaluating the short-term and midterm outcomes.

METHODS

Between 2012 and 2017, 65 selected patients with right-sided colon cancer underwent ileocecal resection, right hemicolectomy, or transverse colectomy; all were enrolled in the study. The same well-trained surgeon performed each procedure by using a multi-instrument access port with three channels, which was placed at the umbilicus via an approximately 3-cm skin incision.

RESULTS

The pathological disease stage distribution was stage 0, 4 cases; stage I, 23 cases; stage II, 19 cases; stage III, 17 cases; and stage IV, 2 cases. The surgical procedures performed were ileocecal resection, 23 cases; right hemicolectomy, 35 cases; and transverse colectomy, 7 cases. The median operative time and intraoperative blood loss were 216 min and 10 mL, respectively. Although 18 cases needed additional ports, none required conversion to open surgery. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 24. No major perioperative morbidities occurred in this patient series. The median postoperative hospital stay was 7 days. The median follow-up period was 30 months, and the 3-year relapse-free and overall survival rates were 100% and 100%, respectively, in the stage 0-I cases and 89% and 96% in the stage II-III cases, respectively.

CONCLUSION

We concluded that SILS is as feasible as multiport laparoscopic surgery and a reliable surgical option in selected cases of right-sided colon cancer.

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.

Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Bariatric Surgery: A Review of Single-Port Laparoscopic and Endoscopic Bariatric Treatments

Bariatric surgery is an established and effective treatment, not only to combat morbid obesity, but also to address associated metabolic comorbidities. At this time, the cutoff for bariatric or metabolic surgery in terms of body mass index (BMI) is decreasing, making it more feasible for certain individuals to consider minimally invasive surgical options. Innovations in the technique have led to the application of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) in the field of bariatrics, which uses a single or no incision in the performance of weight-reducing surgery. To date, there is no consensus regarding patient selection though most candidates for single-port bariatric surgery are female. Some doctors suggest that single-port bariatric surgery may not be recommended in patients with BMI of more than 50 kg/m², height of more than 180 cm, and xiphoid–umbilicus distance of more than 20 cm. Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is now the most widely performed bariatric surgery worldwide and single-port SG (SPSG) is already established as a routine procedure in various institutions. Current evidence shows that SPSG is less painful and demonstrates higher rates of patient satisfaction regarding the wound. SPSG is feasible and is recommendable in patients who meet certain criteria. Furthermore, endoscopic treatment modalities such as intragastric balloons and endoluminal malabsorptive devices are being developed to bridge the gap between medical and surgical treatments. Nevertheless, there is still insufficient evidence to prove the superiority of LESS bariatric surgery over conventional laparoscopic surgery. Large, well-designed prospective analyses are needed to determine the criteria for selecting patients suitable to undergo LESS bariatric surgery and to predict the procedure’s role in the growth of bariatric surgery.

Postoperative pain after conventional laparoscopic versus single-port sleeve gastrectomy: a prospective, randomized, controlled pilot study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic approach is the gold standard for surgical treatment of morbid obesity. The single-port (SP) approach has been demonstrated to be a safe and effective technique for the treatment of morbid obesity in several case control studies.

OBJECTIVES

Compare conventional multiport laparoscopy (LAP) with an SP approach for the treatment of morbid obesity using sleeve gastrectomy in terms of postoperative pain using a visual analog scale (VAS) 0-100, surgical outcome, weight loss, and aesthetical satisfaction at 6 months after surgery.

SETTING

University Hospital, Spain.

METHODS

Randomized, controlled pilot study. The trial enrolled patients suitable for bariatric surgery, with a body mass index lower than 50 kg/m² and xiphoumbilical distance lower than 25 cm. Patients were randomly assigned to receive LAP or SP sleeve gastrectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients were enrolled; 15 were assigned to LAP group and 15 to SP group. No patients were lost during follow-up. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. A significantly higher level of pain during movement was noted for the patients in the LAP group on the first (mean VAS 49.3±12.2 versus 34.1±8.9, P = .046) and second days (mean VAS 35.9±10.2 versus 22.1±7.9, P = .044) but not the third day (mean VAS 20.1±5.2 versus 34.12.9 ±4.3, P = .620). No differences regarding pain at rest, operative time, complications, or weight loss at 6 months were observed. Higher aesthetical satisfaction was noticed in SP group.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients, SP surgery presented less postoperative pain in sleeve gastrectomy compared with the conventional laparoscopic approach with similar surgical results.

Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery: Review of Its Applications in Bariatric Procedures

This review aims to summarise clinical applications of natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) in bariatric surgery. A review of data, until December 2014, was carried out regarding techniques and outcomes of bariatric NOTES procedures. Nine publications were included in the final analysis, with another six papers describing endolumenal procedures included for comparison. All NOTES studies adopted a hybrid procedure. Hybrid NOTES sleeve gastrectomy (hNSG) was described in four humans and two porcine studies. In humans, six subjects (23.1 %) were converted to conventional laparoscopic methods, and one postoperative complication (3.8 %) was reported. Mean excess weight loss was 46.6 % (range 35.2–58.9). Transvaginal-assisted sleeve gastrectomy appears feasible and safe when performed by appropriately trained professionals. However, improvements must be made to overcome current technical limitations.

Transanal total mesorectal excision: a pure NOTES approach for selected patients

BACKGROUND

The concept of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) has stimulated the development of various "incisionless" procedures. One of the most popular is the transanal approach for rectal lesions. The aims of this study were to report how we standardized NOTES technique for transanal mesorectal excision without abdominal assistance, discuss the difficulties and surgical outcomes of this technique and report its feasibility in a small group of selected patients.

METHODS

Three consecutive female patients underwent transanal NOTES rectal resection without transabdominal laparoscopic assistance for rectal lesions. Functional results were assessed with the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life scale and the Wexner score.

RESULTS

The technical steps are described in details and complemented with a video. All procedures were completed without transabdominal laparoscopic help. The mesorectal plane was entirely dissected without any disruption, and distal and circumferential margins were tumor-free. No major complications were observed. Functional results show a significant impairment after surgery with improvement at 6 months to levels near those of the preoperative period.

CONCLUSIONS

The performance and publication of NOTES procedures are subject to much discussion. Despite the small number of patients, this procedure appears feasible and can be accomplished maintaining fecal continence and respecting oncologic principles.