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

Single-incision Laparoscopic Colonic Surgery: A Systemic Review, Meta-analysis, and Future Prospect

Although single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has gained some attention as a feasible alternative to conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) in colonic surgery, it became less prevalent than expected. Hence, we conducted this systematic review to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and oncological outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) with meta-analysis and discussion of the future prospect of SILS. The search was conducted from September to October 2023 using PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Articles on colorectal cancer comparing SILC with multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MPLC) from all randomized controlled trials and comparative studies with 50 patients or more per arm were examined. The primary outcomes were the intra- and postoperative complication rates, and the secondary outcomes were the perioperative and oncological outcomes. The trends of the SILS number in Japan and the trends of the number of articles on SILS in PubMed were also reviewed. There were no significant differences in perioperative complication rates, operative factors, and oncological outcomes between SILC and MPLC, although heterogeneity was observed mainly in operative factors and the total length of the skin incision was significantly shorter in SILC. Therefore, SILC is technically and oncologically feasible and safe when performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons. The case number of SILS was gradually increasing but the rate of SILS was decreasing in Japan. The number of articles on SILS was also decreasing. SILS has gained foothold to some extent but has plateaued. The emerging new robotic platform may reappraise the concept of SILS.

Paratubal Cystectomy in a Pregnant Woman Using the Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery (SILS) Technique

Introduction

The proliferation of prenatal ultrasound has enhanced the detection of adnexal masses during pregnancy. The presentation necessitates a clear approach to investigation and treatment that balances both maternal and fetal risk. Laparoscopy is a safe approach to surgical management in the pregnant patient, and SILS may contribute to minimising perioperative complications. Case Presentation. We present the case of a 21-year-old female in her second trimester of pregnancy presenting with a large 20 cm right adnexal cyst. We proceeded with laparoscopic cystectomy via the SILS technique. There were no intraoperative complications, and she recovered well postoperatively.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic resection of adnexal lesions is safe during pregnancy and should be favoured over the open approach. SILS minimises incision sites and has potential for reduction in perioperative morbidity.

Short- and long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for right colon cancer: A multicenter propensity score-matched analysis

INTRODUCTION

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colon cancer is a recent innovation in minimally invasive surgery that can improve short-term outcome. However, several biases exist in current favorable comparisons of SILS with conventional laparoscopic (CL) surgery. Moreover, the oncological outcomes in SILS remain unclear. The aim of this study was to identify outcomes following SILS and CL for right colectomy using a propensity score-matched analysis.

METHODS

A total of 553 patients underwent curative resection for right colon cancer (58 SILS and 495 CL). After propensity score matching, 58 patients in each group were matched.

RESULTS

Before matching, median age was younger (p = 0.037) and clinical stage was lower (p < 0.001) in the SILS group. After matching, operation time was shorter (172 versus 193 min, p = 0.007) and blood loss was less (12 versus 20 mL, p = 0.037) in the SILS group. Most of the SILS cases were performed (43.1%) or supervised (51.7%) by an expert surgeon. Median follow-up duration was 30 and 37 mo in the SILS and CL groups, respectively. Three-year relapse-free survival was 92.5% and 92.4% (p = 0.781); and overall survival was 100% versus 98.1% (p = 0.177).

CONCLUSIONS

Under the control of expert surgeons, SILS appeared to be a safe and feasible approach and had similar oncological outcomes compared with CL in a propensity score-matched cohort of patients with right-sided colon cancer.

Initial experience with a suprapubic single-port robotic right hemicolectomy in patients with colon cancer

BACKGROUND

We developed a novel suprapubic single-port robotic right hemicolectomy (spRHC) procedure for patients with right colon cancer using a da Vinci SP Surgical System. The aim of this study was to determine the safety and feasibility of this technique.

METHODS

We performed the spRHC procedure on five patients with right colon cancers between July and September 2020. All procedures including colon mobilization, D3 lymphadenectomy, and intracorporeal anastomosis were completed using the single-port robotic platform through a mini-transverse suprapubic incision and an additional assistant port. Data regarding patient characteristics, perioperative outcomes and pathologic results were analyzed.

RESULTS

Four of the five patients were males. The median age was 69 years (range, 58-77 years).Two patients received preoperative chemotherapy for advanced colon cancer. The median total operative time was 160 min (range, 150-240 min). The median docking time was 4 min 40 s (range, 2 min 10 s-5 min 10 s). The median console time was 105 min (range, 100-120 min). There were no conversions to multiport or open surgeries. The median hospital stay was 7 days (range, 5-12 days). One patient experienced a wound infection. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 41 (range, 39-50 lymph nodes).

CONCLUSIONS

SpRHC is safe and feasible. However, further comparative studies are needed to assess whether this procedure can provide patients with significant benefits compared with multiport robotic surgery.

A learning curve in using organ retractor for single-incision laparoscopic right colectomy

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has the potential to improve perioperative outcomes, including less postoperative pain, shorter operation time, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay. However, SILS is technically difficult and needs a longer learning curve. Between April 2016 and September 2019, a total of 198 patients with clinical stage I/II right colon cancer underwent curative resection. In the case of the SILS approach, an organ retractor was usually used to overcome SILS-specific restrictions. The patients were divided into two groups by surgical approach: the SILS with organ retractor group (SILS-O, n = 33) and the conventional laparoscopic surgery group (LAC, n = 165). Clinical T status was significantly higher in the LAC group (p = 0.016). Operation time was shorter and blood loss was lower in the SILS-O group compared to the LAC group (117 vs. 197 min, p = 0.027; 10 vs. 25 mL, p = 0.024, respectively). In the SILS-O group, surgical outcomes including operation time, blood loss, number of retrieved lymph nodes, and postoperative complications were not significantly different between those performed by experts and by non-experts. Longer operation time (p = 0.041) was significantly associated with complications on univariate and multivariate analyses (odds ratio 2.514, 95%CI 1.047–6.035, p = 0.039). SILS-O was safe and feasible for right colon cancer. There is a potential to shorten the learning curve of SILS using an organ retractor.

A Systematic Review of Comparing Single-incision Versus Traditional Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy For Right Colon Diseases

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (SILS) has been promoted in clinic since 2008, but a systematic review of comparing SILS and traditional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (TLS) with long-term follow-up is rare. Here, in this study, comparison of SILS and TLS with long-term follow-up was evaluated by a meta-analysis method.

METHODS

All studies about SILS and TLS for right hemicolectomy from 2010 to 2018 were searched from databases including Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Wanfang. Operation index, recovery, and midterm follow-up data were evaluated by fixed-effects models, random-effects models, and Begg test.

RESULTS

We collected 22 studies with 2218 patients. SILS groups contained 1038 (46.7%) patients, and 1180 (53.3%) patients were observed in the TLS group. Patients' baseline data were similar in the 2 groups. Compared with TLS, SILS had shorter operation duration [standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.61 to -0.08, P<0.001, χ=49.40], shorter hospitalization time (SMD: -0.27, 95% CI: -0.37 to -0.16, P<0.001, χ=9.17), slightly less blood loss (SMD: -0.23, 95% CI: -0.36 to -0.10; P<0.001; χ=5.36), and smaller incision length (SMD: -2.19, 95% CI: -3.66 to -0.71, P<0.001; χ=316.1). No statistical differences were observed in other figures.

CONCLUSION

SILS is more convenient and has better efficacy than TLS and could provide a promising surgical approach for right colon diseases.

Clinical and oncological outcomes of single-incision vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the clinical and oncological outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for patients with rectal cancer (RC) who underwent total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case-control study of patients with RC operated between 12/2013 and 12/2017 in Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine. In total, 177 patients who underwent CLS and 51 who underwent SILS met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching method (PSM).

RESULTS

Compared with the CLS group, the SILS group showed shorter operation time [105 (40) vs. 125 (55) min, P = 0.045], shorter total incision length [4 (1) vs. 6.5 (1.5) cm, P < 0.001], lower VAS score on POD2 [1 (1) vs. 2 (1), P < 0.001], shorter time to soft diet [7 (1) vs. 8 (2) days, P = 0.048], and shorter length of hospital stay [9 (2) vs. 11 (3) days, P < 0.001]. The postoperative complications were similar between two groups [1(2%) vs. 5 (9.8%), P = 0.205]. No readmissions or mortality in either group occurred within 30 days of surgery. All 102 specimens met the requirements of TME. No significant differences were observed in the pathologic outcomes between the two groups. The median follow-up period was 32.6 months in the SILS group and 36.8 months in the CLS group (P = 0.053). The 3-year disease-free survival rates and overall survival rates of the SILS and CLS groups were 89.8% vs. 96.0% (P = 0.224) and 90.9% vs. 96.9% (P = 0.146), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CLS, TME surgery for rectal cancer can be performed safely and effectively using the SILS technique with better cosmetic results, less postoperative pain, faster postoperative recovery, and acceptable clinical and oncological outcomes.

Systematic review of comparing single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for right colon cancer

Background

Single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (SILS) has long used in surgery for a long time. However, there is barely a systemic review related to the comparison between the SILS and the conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (CLS) for the right colon cancer in the long term follow-up. Herein, we used the most recent articles to compare these two techniques by meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Wanfang databases to compare SILS with CLS for right colon cancer up to May 2019. The operative, postoperative, pathological and mid-term follow-up outcomes of nine studies were extracted and compared.

Results

A total of 1356 patients participated in 9 studies, while 653 patients were assigned to the SILS group and 703 patients were assigned to the CLS group. The patients’ baselines in the SILS group were consistent with those in the CLS group. Compared to the CLS group, the SILS group had a shorter operation duration (SMD − 23.49, 95%CI − 36.71 to − 10.27, P < 0.001, chi-square = 24.11), shorter hospital stay (SMD − 0.76, 95% `CI − 1.07 to − 0.45, P < 0.001, chi-square = 9.85), less blood loss (SMD − 8.46, 95% CI − 14.59 to − 2.34; P < 0.05; chi-square = 2.26), smaller incision length (SMD − 1.60, 95% CI − 2.66 to − 0.55, P < 0.001; chi-square = 280.44), more lymph node harvested (SMD − 0.98, 95% CI − 1.79 to − 0.16, P < 0.05; chi-square = 4.61), and a longer proximal surgical edge (SMD − 0.51, 95% CI − 0.93 to − 0.09, P < 0.05; chi-square = 2.42). No significant difference was found in other indexes. After we removed a single large study, we performed another meta-analysis again. The operation duration in the SILS group was still better than that in the CLS group.

Conclusion

SILS could be a faster and more reliable approach than CLS for the right colon cancer and could accelerate patient recovery, especially for patients with a low BMI.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Preliminary experience with umbilical stoma in transumbilical single-port colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

The umbilicus, an embryological natural orifice, is increasingly used as the only access route during single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colorectal disease. As a part of some of these procedures, a temporary, diverting ostomy could be exteriorized through the umbilicus itself. Theoretical advantages include better preservation of the abdominal wall and potentially superior cosmetic results. The aim of the present study was to evaluate our preliminary experience in SILS colorectal resection with umbilical stoma (u-stoma).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all colorectal patients operated using SILS for benign or malignant disease at Paris Poissy Medical Center. Patients were selected for consideration of u-stoma with our stoma therapists.

RESULTS

Between January 2010 and December 2016, 234 patients underwent colorectal SILS procedures. In 74 patients (31.6%), an ileostomy (n = 41) or a colostomy (n = 33) was fashioned. Of these, 20 (27% of all ostomies) were umbilical stomas. The 20 u-stoma patients, 10 men and 10 women, received either a loop ileostomy (n = 14) or an end (n = 4) or loop (n = 2) colostomy. The mean age was 52 years (range 29-81 years). There was no mortality. Operative stoma-related morbidity occurred in only 5% of patients (n = 1: ileal torsion volvulus). Median follow-up after stoma formation was 30 months (range 12-59 months). Adjustment to the stoma and quality of life were satisfactory as estimated by both the patient and the stoma therapist. All stomas were reversed. At a median follow-up of 27.5 months (range 7-55 months) after stoma reversal, two patients had reoperation for incisional hernia.

CONCLUSION

This preliminary experience showed that u-stoma is a feasible and safe alternative to more conventional ostomy after SILS.

Re-appraisal and consideration of minimally invasive surgery in colorectal cancer

Throughout history, surgeons have been on a quest to refine the surgical treatment options for their patients and to minimize operative trauma. During the last three decades, there have been tremendous advances in the field of minimally invasive colorectal surgery, with an explosion of different technologies and approaches offered to treat well-known diseases. Laparoscopic surgery has been shown to be equal or superior to open surgery. The boundaries of laparoscopy have been pushed further, in the form of single-incision laparoscopy, natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and robotics. This paper critically reviews the pathway of development of minimally invasive surgery, and appraises the different minimally invasive colorectal surgical approaches available to date.

Single-incision laparoscopy surgery: a systematic review

Background

Laparoscopic surgery is a modern surgical technique in which operations are performed far from their location through small incisions elsewhere in the body.

Objective

This systematic review is aimed to overview single-incision laparoscopy surgery.

Methods

This systematic review was carried out by searching studies in PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, and IranMedex databases. The initial search strategy identified about 87 references. In this study, 54 studies were accepted for further screening and met all our inclusion criteria [in English, full text, therapeutic effects of single-incision laparoscopy surgery and dated mainly from the year 1990 to 2016]. The search terms were “single-incision,” “surgery,” and “laparoscopy.”

Results

Single-incision laparoscopy surgery is widely used for surgical operations in cholecystectomy, sleeve gastrectomy, cholecystoduodenostomy, hepatobiliary disease, colon cancer, obesity, appendectomy, liver surgery, rectosigmoid cancer, vaginal hysterectomy, vaginoplasty, colorectal lung metastases, pyloroplasty, endoscopic surgery, hernia repair, nephrectomy, rectal cancer, colectomy and uterus-preserving repair, bile duct exploration, ileo-ileal resection, lymphadenectomy, incarcerated inguinal hernia, anastomosis, congenital anomaly, colectomy for cancer.

Conclusion

Based on the findings, single-incision laparoscopy surgery is a scarless surgery with minimal access. Although it possesses lots of benefits, including less incisional pain and scars, cosmesis, and the ability to convert to standard multiport laparoscopic surgery, it has some disadvantages, for example, less freedom of movement, fewer number of ports that can be used, and the proximity of the instruments to each other during the operation.