Single-Port Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Better Cosmesis at the Price of an Increased Incisional Hernia Rate?

Postoperative abdominopelvic adhesion and umbilical wound validation after single-port laparoscopy or two-port laparoscopy for gynecological surgery: a comparison with conventional laparoscopy

PURPOSE

The emergence of minimally invasive surgery has led to the development of laparoscopic surgery to reduce the number of ports. Although the incision for the umbilical port is sufficiently large, thus reducing the number of ports used during laparoscopic surgery, postoperative complications involving incisions at port sites have been reported. Thus, we analyzed postoperative intraperitoneal outcomes after laparoscopy by reviewing operation records and photographs of consecutive surgeries.

METHODS

A total of 134 patients were enrolled in the clinical study to analyze their intraperitoneal outcomes. The patients were divided into groups, which were compared and analyzed on the basis of the number of ports used intraoperatively. The clinical characteristics of the patients were obtained from their medical records, and their operation records, including those of their consecutive operations, were analyzed.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent single-port laparoscopy were included in Group 1, patients who underwent two-port laparoscopy were included in Group 2, and patients who underwent three-port laparoscopy or four-port laparoscopy were included in Group 3. Correlation analysis of the number of ports used during surgery revealed that the white blood cell count before and after surgery and the intraperitoneal umbilical adhesion score were negatively correlated. The incidence of intraperitoneal umbilical adhesions increased as the number of ports used during laparoscopy decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

Because the incidence of postoperative intraperitoneal umbilical adhesion increases as the size of the umbilical wound increases, such as after single-port laparoscopy, surgical umbilical wounds should be cautiously repaired after single-port laparoscopic surgery.

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.

PLAFOKON: a new concept for a patient-individual and intervention-specific flexible surgical platform

Background

Research in the field of surgery is mainly driven by aiming for trauma reduction as well as for personalized treatment concepts. Beyond laparoscopy, other proposed approaches for further reduction of the therapeutic trauma have failed to achieve clinical translation, with few notable exceptions. We believe that this is mainly due to a lack of flexibility and high associated costs. We aimed at addressing these issues by developing a novel minimally invasive operating platform and a preoperative design workflow for patient-individual adaptation and cost-effective rapid manufacturing of surgical manipulators. In this article, we report on the first in-vitro cholecystectomy performed with our operating platform.

Methods

The single-port overtube (SPOT) is a snake-like surgical manipulator for minimally invasive interventions. The system layout is highly flexible and can be adapted in design and dimensions for different kinds of surgery, based on patient- and disease-specific parameters. For collecting and analyzing this data, we developed a graphical user interface, which assists clinicians during the preoperative planning phase. Other major components of our operating platform include an instrument management system and a non-sterile user interface. For the trial surgery, we used a validated phantom which was further equipped with a porcine liver including the gallbladder.

Results

Following our envisioned preoperative design workflow, a suitable geometry of the surgical manipulator was determined for our trial surgery and rapidly manufactured by means of 3D printing. With this setup, we successfully performed a first in-vitro cholecystectomy, which was completed in 78 min.

Conclusions

By conducting the trial surgery, we demonstrated the effectiveness of our PLAFOKON operating platform. While some aspects – especially regarding usability and ergonomics – can be further optimized, the overall performance of the system is highly promising, with sufficient flexibility and strength for conducting the necessary tissue manipulations.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-021-08908-x.

Low long-term incidence of incisional hernia after cholecystectomy: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Various surgical approaches are available for cholecystectomy, but their long-term outcomes, such as incidence of incisional hernia, are largely unknown. Our aim was to investigate the long-term incidence of incisional hernia after cholecystectomy for different surgical approaches.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020178906). Three databases were searched for original studies on long-term complications of cholecystectomy with n > 40 and follow-up ≥6 months for incisional hernia. Risk of bias within the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane "risk of bias" tool. Meta-analysis of the incidence of incisional hernia after 6 and 12 months was conducted when possible.

RESULTS

We included 89 studies. Of these, 77 reported on multiport or single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Twelve studies reported on open cholecystectomy and 4 studies on robotic cholecystectomy. Weighted mean incidence proportion of incisional hernia after multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy was 0.3% (95% confidence interval 0-0.6) after 6 months and 0.2% after 12 months (95% confidence interval 0.1-0.3). Weighted mean incidence of incisional hernia 12 months postoperatively was 1.5% (95% confidence interval 0.4-2.6) after open cholecystectomy and 4.5% (95% confidence interval 0.4-8.6) after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. No meta-analysis could be conducted for robotic cholecystectomy, but incidences ranged from 0% to 16.7%.

CONCLUSION

We found low 1-year incidences of incisional hernia after multiport laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy, whereas risks of incisional hernia were considerably higher after single-incision laparoscopic and robotic cholecystectomy.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Long-Term Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Single-Port Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair

BACKGROUND

Surgical techniques for inguinal hernia repair have evolved rapidly from open methods to conventional laparoscopic totally extra-peritoneal (CTEP) and recently single-port TEP (STEP). As there is currently no randomized controlled trial (RCT) reporting long-term patient-reported outcomes between CTEP and STEP, we reviewed patients who were randomized to CTEP or STEP 5 years after surgery.

METHODS

Telephone interviews were administered to patients with primary unilateral inguinal hernia recruited for the RCT comparing CTEP and STEP in 2011. The modified Body Image Questionnaire was used to measure long-term patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-two out of forty-nine of the STEP group and forty-one out of fifty of the CTEP group responded to phone interviews. Median follow-up time, demographic data and clinical outcomes were comparable between both groups. The Body Image Score (5-20: 5-least dissatisfied, 20-most dissatisfied; BIS score ± SD, STEP vs. CTEP, 5.33 ± 0.90 vs. 7.17 ± 1.87, p < 0.001) and Cosmetic Score (2-20: 2-least satisfied, 20-most satisfied; CS score ± SD, STEP vs. CTEP, 19.05 ± 1.31 vs. 15.87 ± 1.57, p < 0.001) were superior in the STEP group. Similarly, self-reported scar perception (1-cannot be seen, 2-can barely be seen, 3-visible; scar perception score ± SD, STEP vs. CTEP, 1.29 ± 0.51 vs. 2.55 ± 0.64, p < 0.001) and overall experience score (1-least satisfied, 10-most satisfied; overall satisfaction score ± SD, STEP vs. CTEP, 9.57 ± 0.67 vs. 8.22 ± 0.94, p < 0.001) were superior in the STEP group.

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent STEP reported superior cosmetic and satisfaction scores and comparable surgical outcomes 5 years after surgery compared to the CTEP group. STEP should be strongly considered in patients who are concerned about long-term cosmetic outcomes and should be offered if surgical expertise is available. Trial registration NCT02302937.