Single-Incision Versus Three-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy: Short- and Long-Term Outcomes

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.

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 brief overview of single-port laparoscopic appendectomy as an optimal surgical procedure for patients with acute appendicitis: still a long way to go

Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SPLA) has become a good alternative to the traditional surgical treatment of acute appendicitis, due to its advantages of small incision, mild postoperative pain, short hospital stay, and good cosmetic effect. However, the further application of SPLA has been restricted by its relatively long operating time, high level of operating difficulty, and increased equipment and technical requirements. Clinical teams worldwide have attempted to improve and optimize SPLA technical protocols and equipment to maintain stable intraoperative pneumoperitoneal pressure, improve the 'triangle relationship' of operating angles, and develop new surgical procedures with less trauma and higher cost-effectiveness. Here, new SPLA techniques reported over the past decade are reviewed and compared, with the aim of providing new insights into technical improvements, equipment upgrades and clinical studies in the coming years.

Wound Irrigation Using Wet Gauze May Reduce Surgical Site Infection Following Laparoscopic Appendectomy

Purpose

This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of wet gauze and conventional irrigation after laparoscopic appendectomy to determine whether wet gauze irrigation can help reduce surgical site infection (SSI).

Methods

A total of 308 patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy were included in this study between December 2018 and May 2020. Of these, 132 (42.9%) received gauze irrigation (group 1), and 176 patients (57.1%) received conventional irrigation (group 2). Pre-operative outcomes and complications, including SSI, were compared after propensity score matching (PSM) to adjust for baseline differences and selection bias.

Results

After 1:1 PSM, 92 well-matched patients in each group were evaluated. Regarding perioperative outcomes between groups 1 and 2, the rate of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo Classification grades III, IV, and V), operative time, and readmission rate did not differ between the groups. Superficial/deep SSIs were observed more frequently in group 2 (8/92 cases) than in group 1 (1/92 cases; p = 0.017). The organ/space SSIs rate was not significantly different between the two groups (1/92 group 1 and 0/92 group 2, p = 0.316). However, post-operative hospital stay was significantly longer in group 2 (2.8 ± 1.3 days) than in group 1 (1.6 ± 1.2 days; p < 0.001). In the univariate analyses, wound irrigation using wet gauze was an independent protective factor for superficial or deep SSI (p = 0.044).

Conclusions

Wound irrigation using wet gauze after fascia closure has a significant beneficial effect on reducing post-operative superficial/deep SSI following laparoscopic appendectomy.

Single-Incision Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Multi-Center Randomized Controlled Trial (SCAR trial)

Introduction:

Although single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) was introduced decades ago, it is still considered a difficult technique to perform compared to conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA). In addition, controversy about the benefits of SILA compared to CLA abound and no definite criteria for choosing SILA over CLA in patients with appendicitis currently exist. Therefore, we have planned a multi-center randomized controlled trial to compare SILA with CLA in terms of cosmetic satisfaction and pain reduction.

Methods and analysis:

Patients diagnosed with appendicitis at the participating centers will be recruited and allocated into either a CLA or an SILA groups using a 1:1 randomization. Patients in the CLA group will receive a conventional 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy and patients in the SILA group will receive a laparoscopic appendectomy using a single-incision at the umbilicus. The primary trial endpoint is cosmetic satisfaction assessed using the Patients and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) administered 6 weeks post-surgery. Secondary trial endpoints include cosmetic satisfaction assessed via the Body Image Questionnaire, pain levels assessed via the Visual Analog Scale and International Pain Outcomes questionnaire, and the presence of postoperative complications. The target sample size of this superiority trial is 120 patients, as this will provide 80% power at the 2.5% level of significance to detect a 3-point difference in POSAS.

Discussion:

The results of this planned multi-center randomized controlled trial will provide substantive evidence to help surgeons choose when to use SILA over CLA in patients with appendicitis.

Ethics and dissemination:

This trial was approved by the institutional review board at Daegu joint on February 27, 2020 (No: 19-12-001-001) and registered with the clinical research information service (CRIS) (KCT0005048). The results of the study will be published and presented at appropriate conferences.

Highlights

Robotic Surgery in Gastrointestinal Surgery

Robotic surgery is expanding in the minimally invasive treatment of gastrointestinal cancer. In the field of gastrointestinal cancer, robotic surgery is performed using a robot-assisted surgery system. In this system, the robot does not operate automatically but is controlled by the surgeon. The surgery assistant robot currently used in clinical practice worldwide is the leader-follower type, including the da Vinci® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical). This review describes the current state of robotic surgery in the treatment of gastrointestinal cancer and discusses the future development of robotic systems in gastrointestinal surgery.

Conventional Laparoscopic Appendectomy Versus Single-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy, a Multicenter Randomized Control Trial: A Feasible and Safe Alternative to Standard Laparoscopy

Background: Acute appendicitis represents one of the main causes of surgical emergencies. It can be approached as open appendectomy or laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). LA uses different modalities, such as conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) or single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SPLA). The aim of this work is to compare the results of CLA versus SPLA in patients diagnosed with Acute Appendicitis. Materials and Methods: A comparative multicenter prospective study of patients undergoing LA with a clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis was presented. They were divided into two groups (CLA group and SPLA group). Results: A total of n = 147 patients were included (72 CLA and 75 SPLA). Preoperative and intraoperative times were shorter for patients undergoing CLA (P = .002; P = .068). Postoperative and reinsertion time was lower for SPLA (P = .000; P = .0004). There were no differences in postoperative complications. The type of approach showed statistically significant differences with respect to pain within the first 12 hours of the postoperative period, as well as at discharge, while no differences were observed in relation to cosmetic satisfaction when the two approaches were compared. Conclusion: SPLA technique presented less intraoperative time, shorter time of labor reinsertion, and less postoperative pain. There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative complications.