Feasibility and safety of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2012;255:667-676. [PMID: 22258065 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0b013e31823fbae7]

A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Single-Port Vs Multiport Laparoscopic Total Abdominal Colectomy With End Ileostomy for Medically Refractory Ulcerative Colitis

BACKGROUND

Medically refractory ulcerative colitis necessitates surgical intervention, with total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy being a definitive treatment. The comparison between single-port and multiport laparoscopic surgery outcomes remains underexplored.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the surgical outcomes of single-port versus multiport laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy for medically refractory ulcerative colitis.

DESIGN

A retrospective analysis comparing single-port to multiport surgery in patients with ulcerative colitis from 2010 to 2020. Patients were propensity score-matched 3:1 (multiport to single-port) on baseline characteristics.

SETTINGS

Single-center academic hospital.

PATIENTS

A total of 756 patients with medically refractory ulcerative colitis who underwent multiport vs single-port total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy from 2010 to 2020 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Binary outcomes were compared using a multivariable logistic regression model, and a subset analysis was conducted for postoperative stump leak based on stump implantation during surgery. These metrics were compared between the single-port and multiport groups to assess the differences in surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

The multiport and single-port groups included 642 and 114 patients, respectively. The matched cohort included 342 multiports and 114 single ports. We observed a statistically significant difference in mean operation time, with the single-port procedure taking 43 minutes less than the multiport laparoscopy. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in postoperative stump leaks, postoperative ileus, stoma site complications, postoperative readmission within 30 days, postoperative reoperation within 30 days, and subsequent IPAA surgery. In the subset analysis, stump implantation was associated with a higher risk of stump leak in the multiport group. The single-port group had a shorter hospital stay.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective nature and being conducted at a single center.

CONCLUSION

Single-incision laparoscopic total abdominal colectomy in the treatment of mucosal ulcerative colitis is a safe, effective, and efficient approach. In our cohort, single-incision laparoscopy has had shorter operation times and better overall length of stay compared with the multiport approach. Taking into account a less invasive approach, decreased abdominal trauma, and faster recovery, single-port surgery is a viable alternative to multiport surgery. See Video Abstract .

UN ANLISIS EMPAREJADO POR PUNTUACIN DE PROPENSIN DE LA COLECTOMA ABDOMINAL TOTAL LAPAROSCPICA CON PUERTO NICO VERSUS PUERTO MLTIPLE CON ILEOSTOMA TERMINAL PARA LA COLITIS ULCEROSA MDICAMENTE REFRACTARIA

ANTECEDENTES:La colitis ulcerosa (CU) médicamente refractaria requiere una intervención quirúrgica, siendo la colectomía abdominal total con ileostomía terminal un tratamiento definitivo. La comparación entre los resultados de la cirugía laparoscópica con puerto único y con puerto múltiple aún no se ha explorado lo suficiente.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados quirúrgicos de la cirugía laparoscópica con puerto único versus con puerto múltiple en pacientes sometidos a colectomía abdominal total con ileostomía terminal para CU médicamente refractaria.DISEÑO:Un análisis retrospectivo que comparó la cirugía de puerto único con la de puerto múltiple en pacientes con CU de 2010 a 2020. Los pacientes fueron emparejados por puntuación de propensión 3:1 (puerto múltiple a puerto único) según las características iniciales.AJUSTES:Hospital académico unicentrico.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultados binarios se compararon utilizando un modelo de regresión logística multivariable y se realizó un análisis de subconjunto para la fuga postoperatoria del muñón basado en la implantación del muñón durante la cirugía. Estas métricas se compararon entre los grupos de puerto único y de puerto múltiple para evaluar las diferencias en los resultados quirúrgicos.RESULTADOS:Los grupos de puerto único y multipuerto incluyeron 642 y 114 pacientes, respectivamente. La cohorte emparejada incluyó 342 puertos múltiples y 114 puertos únicos. Observamos una diferencia estadísticamente significativa en el tiempo medio de operación, ya que el procedimiento de puerto único duró 43 minutos menos que la laparoscopia de puerto múltiple. No hubo diferencias significativas entre los dos grupos en las fugas del muñón posoperatorio, el íleo posoperatorio, las complicaciones del sitio del estoma, el reingreso posoperatorio dentro de los 30 días, la reoperación posoperatoria dentro de los 30 días y la cirugía IPAA posterior. En el análisis de subconjunto, la implantación del muñón se asoció con un mayor riesgo de fuga del muñón en el grupo multipuerto. El grupo de puerto único tuvo una estancia hospitalaria más corta.LIMITACIONES:Carácter retrospectivo, realizándose en un único centro.CONCLUSIÓN:La colectomía abdominal total laparoscópica de incisión única en el tratamiento de la colitis ulcerosa mucosa es un enfoque seguro, eficaz y eficiente. En nuestra cohorte, en comparación con el abordaje multipuerto, la laparoscopia de incisión única ha mostrado tiempos de operación más cortos y una mejor duración total de la estancia hospitalaria. Teniendo en cuenta un enfoque menos invasivo, un menor traumatismo abdominal y una recuperación más rápida, la cirugía con puerto único es una alternativa viable a la cirugía con puertos múltiples. (Traducción-Dr. Mauricio Santamaria ).

Clinical application of two-port laparoscopic surgery in sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer resection

Background

In the field of minimally invasive surgery, the two-port laparoscopic surgery is on the rise. This study investigated the safety and efficacy of two-port laparoscopic surgery (TLS) for resecting sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancers compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

Methods

The clinical data of patients undergoing laparoscopic sigmoid colon cancer and upper rectal cancer resection at the Department of General Surgery of the First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical College between July 2019 and January 2022 were retrospectively collected. Grouped according to different laparoscopic surgery. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria,A total of 81 patients were enrolled, of the 25 patients from the TLS group,and of the 56 patients from the CLS group. We mainly compared whether there were statistical differences between the two groups in terms of operative time, intraoperative bleeding, incision length, time to first ambulation, time to first flatus, time to first defecation, postoperative complication rate, and other surgical outcomes.

Results

There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of baseline clinical characteristics (P > 0.05). In terms of the surgical outcomes, there were statistical differences in the total incision length (TLS: 6.21 ± 0.67 cm, CLS: 8.64 ± 1.08 cm, P < 0.001)), time to first ambulation (TLS: 2.0 ± 0.7 d, CLS:3.1 ± 0.9 d, P < 0.001), time to first flatus (TLS: 2.5 ± 0.8 d, CLS: 3.0 ± 0.8 d, P = 0.028), time to first defecation (TLS: 3.8 ± 1.3 d, CLS: 5.1 ± 2.1 d, P = 0.010), and time for liquid diet (TLS: 4.3 ± 1.4 d, CLS: 5.3 ± 1.9 d, P = 0.021). There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of the pathology (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

In terms of safety, TLS in sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer resection is comparable to CLS. However, its incision is smaller and more aesthetic, and it causes lesser trauma than CLS. Additionally, it is also superior to CLS in postoperative recovery.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for intestinal intussusception due to neuroendocrine tumor

BACKGROUND

Small intestinal neuroendocrine tumor (NET) is uncommon, but intestinal intussusception caused by NET is even rare. We report a rare case of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for intestinal intussusception due to NET G1.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 72-year-old woman presented with vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) revealed the target sign in the ascending colon. An enhanced nodule was detected at the lead point, leading us to suspect a tumor. Colonoscopy showed a tumor at the lead point of the intestinal intussusception. Histological findings led to a diagnosis of NET G1. Single-incision laparoscopic ileocecal resection with regional lymphadenectomy was then performed. The patient was discharged 10 days postoperatively with no complications.

CONCLUSION

We achieved SILS with regional lymphadenectomy for preoperatively diagnosed intestinal intussusception due to NET G1. Although this condition is rare, surgeons should take this possibility into consideration in cases showing similar findings.

Recent Technical Developments in the Field of Laparoscopic Surgery: A Literature Review

The benefits of laparoscopic surgery (LS) include a speedy recovery, shorter duration of hospital stay, minimal postoperative pain, discomfort and disabilities, and better cosmetic outcomes (less scarring) that help an individual to resume normal daily activities and return to work. A comprehensive literature search on laparoscopic surgeries was conducted using different Internet-based search engines and databases from August 2021 to October 2021. The search was limited to articles published in the English language and those published between years 2005 and 2021. A total of 126 articles were initially identified. Two independent reviewers thoroughly examined the quality and content of the articles. Articles with duplicate data were excluded, and the remaining articles were screened and assessed by the titles and abstracts. After a vigorous assessment, we included data from 49 articles for this review process. Bibliographic management was done using the software “EndNote” (Thomson Reuters, New York, NY, USA).

It was concluded that LS has become the technique of choice for virtually every kind of abdominal surgery, evident by numerous scholarly publications in this field. Level I evidence demonstrating the advantage of LS over open surgery has been reported for numerous operations, including fundoplication for gastroesophageal regurgitation disease, bariatric surgery for weight loss, and cancer resection. Advanced LS has subsequently been expanded to include hepatectomy, pancreatectomy, urology, and gynecology. Patients who are at risk of having elevated abdominal pressure during LS, however, should proceed with care. Recent advances in natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, single-incision laparoscopic surgery, and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery are promising.

Surgical outcomes of hybrid hand-assisted laparoscopic pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal cancer: Initial experience

INTRODUCTION

Hybrid hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) combines better visualization of laparoscopic surgery with the advantages of open surgery. The aim of this study was to describe important technical considerations of HALS and to assess the feasibility of hybrid HALS pelvic exenteration (PE) for primary advanced rectal cancer.

METHODS

From May 2012 to August 2018, we retrospectively analyzed 11 patients who underwent PE for primary advanced rectal cancer (< 10 cm from the anal verge). Patients were divided into the open PE group (n = 5) and the hybrid HALS PE group (n = 6).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in patient characteristics between the two groups, and all included patients were male. Tumor invasion to adjacent organs was mostly anterior invasion. In addition, four patients (66%) in the hybrid HALS PE group and two (40%) in the open PE group received neoadjuvant therapy (P = .3).

CONCLUSION

Compared to open surgery, hybrid HALS has the advantages of less bleeding and less invasion, and can achieve the same results in the short-term. It was a reasonable procedure which was easy and safe dissection of internal iliac vessels and dorsal vein complex. Thus, hybrid HALS may become a useful approach for PE.

Long-term outcomes of single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer: results of a propensity score-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) for colon cancer (CC), as practiced in real-world settings, especially in relation to disease stage, have not been established. We examined, retrospectively, both short- and long-term outcomes of SILC versus those of multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MPLC) performed for CC in a propensity-score-matched cohort.

METHODS

The study involved 263 patient pairs matched 1:1 from among 691 patients who, between January 2008 and May 2014, underwent either SILC or MPLC for a primary solitary CC at our hospital. Short-term and long-term operative outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Operation time was the only surgical outcome that varied significantly between the two groups (p = 0.0004). Overall 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) in the SILC group was 93.7 (95% CI 89.6-96.2)%, and CSS per pathological stage (I, II and III) was 98.5 (90.0-99.8)%, 96.0 (88.2-98.7)%, and 88.3 (79.6-93.6)%, respectively, whereas overall 5-year CSS in the MPLC group was 93.3 (89.4-95.9)%, and CSS per pathological stage was 100%, 95.4 (88.3-98.3)%, and 84.1 (74.1-90.8)% (p = 0.5278, 0.2679, 0.7666, and 0.9073), respectively. Overall 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) in the SILC group was 94.0 (90.2-96.4)%, and 3-year DFS per pathological stage was 98.6 (90.4-99.8)%, 90.1 (81.4-95.0)%, and 79.0 (69.4-86.2)%, respectively, whereas overall 3-year DFS in the MPLC group was 93.2 (89.4-95.7)%, and 3-year DFS per pathological disease stage was 100%, 94.5 (87.4-97.7)% and 75.5 (64.7-83.8)% (p = 0.2829, 0.7401, 0.4335 and 0.8518), respectively. Thus, oncological outcomes did not differ significantly between groups. Incisional hernia occurred in 21 (8.0%) SILC group patients and 17 (6.5%) MPLC group patients, without a significant between-group difference (p = 0.6139).

CONCLUSION

Our data indicate that perioperative and oncological outcomes of SILC performed for CC are comparable to those of MPLC performed for CC.

Novel Application of the EK Glove Port for Single-Incision Diverting Sigmoid Loop Colostomy in Advanced Rectal Cancer

Background and Objectives:

In patients with obstructing rectal cancers who require intestinal diversion before neoadjuvant therapy, minimizing diversion-related recovery and instituting early chemoradiation are critical to optimizing outcomes.

Methods:

A novel, simple, safe, and inexpensive technique was developed for single-port laparoscopic diverting sigmoid loop colostomy in a low-resource environment.

Results:

Ten consecutive patients with locally advanced rectal cancer underwent single-port, diverting sigmoid loop colostomy using a novel application of the EK glove port. Operative time averaged 59.5 min (range 40–75 min). There were no conversions to multiport laparoscopy or open surgery. There were no intraoperative or early postoperative surgical complications. All patients started chemoradiation therapy within 1 week of diverting colostomy. No surgical reinterventions were required.

Conclusion:

Single-port laparoscopic diverting sigmoid loop colostomy utilizing an EK glove port is a novel, technically simple, safe, and cost-effective procedure, especially applicable to patients with obstructing rectal cancer who receive care in a low resource environment.

Trans-umbilical single-incision laparoscopic trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal hernioplasty of inguinal hernia by self-made glove port

Laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy has been well established for the management of primary and recurrent inguinal hernias. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has now been accepted as a less invasive alternative to conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, commercially available access devices for SILS had disadvantages such as rigidness and crowding. This series aimed to analyze the feasibility and safety of single-incision laparoscopic trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal hernioplasty (SILS-TAPP) by applying our self-made device for managing inguinal hernia.We collected and reviewed the medical records of patients who received SILS-TAPP using a self-made glove-port device between January 2014 and January 2016. All operations were performed by the same surgical team. The demographics and intra- and perioperative outcomes were evaluated.SILS-TAPP was successfully performed in 105 patients (131 inguinal hernia repairs). No major intra- and postoperative morbidities were encountered, and no conversion to a conventional 3-port approach or open surgery was required. The mean operative time was 73.5 min and the mean postoperative hospital stay was 2.1 days. Three minor short-term complications were noted, which were resolved without surgical intervention. One recurrence was diagnosed during follow-up and treated using a second TAPP procedure.SILS-TAPP was shown to be a feasible, safe procedure in patients with an inguinal hernia. A simple self-made glove-port device was proven as a practical method of SILS-TAPP.

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.

Cost analysis of single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer: A propensity score-matching analysis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Although many studies have demonstrated similar perioperative outcomes for single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colon cancer, few have directly compared the costs of them. We aimed to compare costs between SILS and CLS for colon cancer.

METHODS

We analyzed the clinical outcomes and overall hospital costs of patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer from July 2009 to September 2014 at our institution; 288 were used for analysis after propensity score matching. The total hospital charge, including fees for the operation, anesthesia, preoperative diagnosis, and postoperative management was analyzed.

RESULTS

The total hospital charges were similar in both groups ($8770.40 vs. $8352.80, P = 0.099). However, the patients' total hospital bill was higher in the SILS group than in the CLS group ($4184.82 vs. $3735.00, P < 0.001) mainly due to the difference of the cost of access devices. There was no difference in the additional costs associated with readmission due to late complications between the two groups ($2383.08 vs. $2288.33, P = 0.662). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for total incision length in 'total hospital charge' and patient's bill and government's bill in 'cost of instruments and supplies' were -$107.08/1 cm, -$109.70/1 cm, and $80.64/1 cm, respectively.

CONCLUSION

SILS for colon cancer yielded similar costs as well as perioperative and long-term outcomes compared with CLS. Therefore, SILS can be considered a reasonable treatment option for colon cancer for selective patients.

Short-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectosigmoid cancer: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to evaluate the short-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port surgery (SILS + 1) compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colonic cancer.

BACKGROUND

At present, single-incision laparoscopic colectomy remains technically challenging. The use of SILS + 1 as an alternative has gained increasing attention; however, its safety and efficacy remain controversial.

METHODS AND PATIENTS

Between April 2014 and July 2016, 198 patients with clinical stage T1-4aN0-2 M0 rectosigmoid cancer were enrolled. The participants were randomly assigned to either SILS + 1 (n = 99) or CLS (n = 99). The morbidity and mortality within 30 days, operative and pathologic outcomes, postoperative recovery course, inflammation and immune responses, and pain intensity were compared.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in overall complications between the two groups (17.2 vs. 16.3%, P = 1.000). The total operating time for the SILS + 1 group was significantly shorter (100.8 ± 30.4 vs. 116.6 ± 36.6, P = 0.002). Blood loss was significantly greater in the CLS group (20 vs. 50, P < 0.001). Thirteen patients (14%) in the CLS group required additional postoperative analgesics, which was significantly more than four patients in the SILS + 1 group. Notably, on postoperative day three, the visual analogue scale score of the CLS group was greater than that of the SILS + 1 group (1.3 ± 1.1 vs. 1.7 ± 1.3, P = 0.023). Tumor diameter, pathologic stage, length of the proximal and distal margins, and number of lymph nodes harvested were similar, other values were also similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that SILS + 1 might be safe and feasible for rectosigmoid cancer when performed by experienced surgeons. It offers minimal invasiveness without compromising oncologic treatment principles. Trial Registration This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02117557).

Needlescopic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer ~a comparative study~

Objectives: This study set out to determine whether Needlescopic surgery (NS) produces comparable surgical outcomes for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) compared to conventional multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MPS). Methods: We used the five-port method with a 3.5 cm umbilical incision for extraction and reconstruction during MPS for CRC. One or two 5 mm ports were exchanged for needle forceps and all surgical procedures were as for previous MPS since July 2012. We investigated the short-term outcomes of 138 consecutive patients who underwent curative resection of CRC by NS (July 2012-August 2014) and 130 consecutive patients with CRC treated with MPS during a previous period (January 2010-June 2012). Results: Operative time in the NS group was comparable to that of MPS (p=0.467); the NS group had significantly less estimated blood loss (p=0.002) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (p<0.001). The mean number of dissected lymph nodes was 27 in both groups (p=0.730). No mortality occurred in either group, and similar morbidity rates were observed (p=0.454). Conclusions: NS using Endo Relief needle forceps is a safe and feasible option compared to conventional MPS for CRC.

The single-incision laparoscopic surgery technique has questionable advantages in colorectal surgery

Background

Laparoscopic procedures have increasingly been accepted as standard in surgical treatment of benign and malignant entities, resulting in a continuous evolution of operative techniques. Since one of the aims in laparoscopic colorectal surgery is to reduce access trauma, one possible way is to further reduce the surgical site by the single-incision laparoscopic surgery technique (SLS). One of the main criticisms concerning the use of SLS is its questionable benefit combined with its technical demands for the surgeon. These questions were addressed by comparing SLS versus conventional laparoscopic multitrocar surgery (LMS) in benign and malignant conditions with respect to technical operative parameters and early postoperative outcome of the patients.

Methods

Between 2010 and 2013, we performed SLS for colorectal disease. Of the 111 patients who underwent colorectal resection, 47 patients were operated by SLS and 31 using the LMS technique. The collected data for our patients were compared according to operating time, postoperative morbidity and mortality, pain score numeric rating scale on day 1 and day 5 postoperatively and postoperative hospital stay. To complement the pain scores, the required pain medication for adequate pain relief on these days was given.

Results

There was no significant difference in age, BMI or sex ratio between the two groups. The intraoperative and early postoperative course was comparable as well. Postoperative hospital stay was the only parameter with a significant difference, showing an advantage for SLS.

Conclusion

SLS is a feasible surgical method and a technical option in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. However, we were not able to identify substantial advantages of SLS that would favor this technique.

Association between institutional procedural preference and in-hospital outcomes in laparoscopic surgeries; Insights from a retrospective cohort analysis of a nationwide surgical database in Japan

OBJECTIVE

To assess the use of laparoscopic surgeries (LS) and the association between its performance and hospitals' preference for LS over open surgeries.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

LS is increasingly used in many abdominal surgeries, albeit both with and without solid guideline recommendations. To date, the hospitals' preference (LS vs. open surgeries) and its association with in-hospital outcomes has not been evaluated.

METHODS

We enrolled patients undergoing 8 types of gastrointestinal surgeries in 2011-2013 in the Japanese National Clinical Database. We assessed the use of LS and the occurrences of surgery-related morbidity and mortality during the study period. Further, for 4 typical LS procedures, we assessed the hospitals' preference for LS by modeling the propensity to perform LS (over open surgeries) from patient-level factors, and estimating each institution's observed/expected (O/E) ratio for LS use. Institutions with O/E>2 were defined as LS-dominant. Using hierarchical logistic regression models, we assessed the association between LS preference and in-hospital outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 1,377,118 patients undergoing gastrointestinal procedures in 2,336 participating hospitals, use of LS increased in all 8 procedures (35.1% to 44.7% for distal gastrectomy (DG), and 27.5% to 43.2% for right hemi colectomy (RHC)). Those operated at LS-dominant hospitals were at an increased risk of operative death (OR 1.83 [95%CI, 1.37-2.45] for DG, 1.79 [95%CI, 1.43-2.25] for RHC) compared to standard O/E level hospitals (0.5≤O/E<2.0).

CONCLUSIONS

LS use widely increased during 2011-2013 in Japan. Facilities with higher than expected LS use had higher mortality compared to other hospitals, suggesting a need for careful patient selection and dissemination of the procedure.

Single-Port Surgery in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Review of Current Evidence

The majority of patients with Crohn’s disease and up to 35 % of patients with ulcerative colitis will ultimately require surgery during the course of their disease. Over the past few years, surgical techniques and experience in minimal invasive surgery have evolved resulting in single-incision laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this approach is to diminish the surgical trauma by reducing the number of incision sites. This review discusses the benefits and disadvantages of single-port surgery in various procedures in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Short-term postoperative results, functional outcome, and costs available in the literature will be discussed. Single-port surgery in IBD has several benefits when compared to multi-port laparoscopic surgery. By using fewer incisions, a potential reduction of postoperative pain with less morphine use can be accomplished. In addition, accelerated postoperative recovery can result in a shorter hospital stay. Furthermore, a superior cosmesis can be reached with placement of the port at the future ostomy site or at the umbilicus. Literature on single-port surgery in IBD consists mainly of case series and a few matched case series. These studies demonstrated that single-port surgery seems to be a safe and feasible approach for the surgical treatment of IBD patients.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional open surgery in intraoperative and postoperative outcomes for colorectal cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

This meta-analysis aims to compare hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and conventional open surgery (OS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, and to explore the safety, feasibility of HALS for CRC surgery.

METHODS

A systematic literature search with no limits was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Medline. The last search was performed on April 23, 2017. The outcomes of interests included intraoperative outcomes (operative time, blood loss, length of incision, transfusion, and lymph nodes harvested), postoperative outcomes (length of hospital stay, length of postoperative hospital stay, time to first flatus, time to first liquid diet, time to first soft diet, time to first bowel movement, postoperative complications, reoperation, ileus, anastomotic leakage, wound infection, urinary complication, pulmonary infection, and mortality).

RESULTS

Fifteen articles published between 2007 and 2017 with a total of 1962 patients with CRC were included in our meta-analysis. HALS was associated with longer operative time, less blood loss, smaller length of incision, shorter hospital days and postoperative hospital days, less time to first flatus, less wound infection, and less postoperative complications. There was no difference in blood transfusion, lymph node harvested, time to first liquid or soft diet, time to first bowel movement, reoperation, ileus, anastomotic leakage, pulmonary infection, urinary complications, or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggests that HALS in CRC surgery improves cosmesis and results in better postoperative recovery outcomes by reducing postoperative complications and hospital days. Furthermore, a large randomized control study is warranted to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of those 2 techniques for CRC treatment.

Advances in Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery has now become widely adopted for the treatment of colorectal neoplasia, with steady increases in utilization over the past 15 years. Common minimally invasive techniques include multiport laparoscopy, single-incision laparoscopy, and hand-assisted laparoscopy, with the choice of technique depending on several patient and surgeon factors. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery involves a robust learning curve, and fellowship training often lays the foundation for a high-volume laparoscopic practice. This article provides a summary of the various techniques for laparoscopic colorectal surgery, including operative steps, the approach to difficult patients, and the learning curve for proficiency.

Laparoscopy for Benign Diseases of the Colon

Laparoscopic surgery has revolutionized the delivery of care to the surgical patient undergoing colorectal resection. Since the first laparoscopic-assisted colectomy in 1991, significant advances have been made in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. For many benign conditions, laparoscopic colectomy has been proven to be safe and effective, and in some instances superior when compared with open surgery. Complex laparoscopic resections such as those for diverticulitis and inflammatory bowel disease have also been shown to have equivalent outcomes when compared with open surgery. Short-term benefits of a minimally invasive approach include less pain, decreased rates of wound infection and postoperative morbidity, faster return of bowel function, and shorter length of stay. Improvements in long-term complications have also been noted with lower incidence of incisional hernias and small bowel obstructions secondary to adhesions. As surgeons become more facile with laparoscopic resection, more complex cases such as those for complicated diverticulitis and reoperative surgery for inflammatory bowel disease can be completed with shorter operative times and decreased cost.

Patient Body Image and Satisfaction with Surgical Wound Appearance After Reduced Port Surgery for Colorectal Diseases

BACKGROUND

The use of reduced port surgery (RPS) is increasing in the field of colorectal surgery. It is considered to offer advantages over conventional multiport surgery (MPS) in terms of decreased invasiveness and superior cosmesis. However, to date there has been no study that evaluates patient satisfaction after undergoing RPS for colorectal diseases. Herein, we present a questionnaire-based study to address this issue.

METHODS

Questionnaires were sent by mail to 216 patients who underwent RPS and 145 who underwent MPS. Patient's satisfaction with cosmesis and body image after colorectal surgery was assessed using a validated Body Image Questionnaire (BIQ) and Photo Series Questionnaire (PSQ).

RESULTS

A total of 76.9 % (166/216) of the RPS patients and 70.3 % (102/145) of the MPS patients returned the questionnaires. BIQ scores gradually improved after surgery, and were more positive overall in the RPS group compared to the MPS group. RPS patients marked significantly better PSQ scores than MPS patients (P < 0.05). In RPS subset analysis, patients with single port surgery (SPS) rated better PSQ scores than patients with SPS with additional port insertion (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

We find that RPS, especially SPS, enhances patient satisfaction by reducing abdominal wall trauma. This new advantage of RPS may prove valuable in its consideration as an option in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Two-port laparoscopic anterior resection through a self-made glove device versus conventional laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparison of short-term surgical results

Background

The laparoscopic approach has become increasingly incorporated into the development of new surgical procedures. An ever-increasing number of surgeons desire methods that minimize surgical trauma and provide improved cosmetic outcomes. Since 2014, we have performed two-port laparoscopic surgery using a transumbilical multichannel glove port and a 12-mm port. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term surgical results of two-port laparoscopic anterior resection (TPLAR) with those of conventional laparoscopic anterior resection (CLAR) for rectal cancer.

Methods

Between January 2014 and May 2014, a total of 27 patients underwent TPLAR and 30 patients underwent CLAR for the treatment of rectal cancer. The short-term surgical results of these two groups of patients were analyzed retrospectively.

Results

The differences in operative time, blood loss, conversion rate, complication rate, distal resection margin, number of harvested lymph nodes, duration until ambulation, duration until first flatus, length of postoperative hospital stay, and overall hospital costs between the two groups were not significant. The median (range) length of the abdominal incisions of the TPLAR patients was shorter than the length of the CLAR patients (5.1 (4.5–16.3) cm vs 8.2 (7.0–10.0) cm, respectively; p < 0.001). The respective median (range) postoperative pain scores were lower in the TPLAR than in the CLAR patients at 24 h (4 (1–6) h vs 5 (2–8) h; p = 0.045), 48 h (3 (1–4) h vs 4 (range 1–8) h; P = 0.004) and 72 h (1 (0–3) h vs 2 (1–5) h; p = 0.010). The median overall score on the satisfaction-with-abdominal-incision questionnaire of the TPLAR patients was significantly higher (better) than the score of the CLAR patients.

Conclusions

TPLAR for rectal cancer is safe and feasible, with short-term perioperative and oncological outcomes similar to those of CLAR. TPLAR provides less postoperative pain and better cosmetic outcomes.

ECSPECT prospective multicentre registry for single-port laparoscopic colorectal procedures

BACKGROUND

The international multicentre registry ECSPECT (European Consensus of Single Port Expertise in Colorectal Treatment) was established to evaluate the general feasibility and safety of single-port colorectal surgery with regard to preoperative risk assessment.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing single-port colorectal surgery were enrolled from 11 European centres between March 2010 and March 2014. Data were analysed to assess patient-, technique- and procedure-dependent parameters. A validated sex-adjusted risk chart was developed for prediction of single-port colorectal surgery-related conversion and complications.

RESULTS

Some 1769 patients were enrolled, 937 with benign and 832 with malignant conditions. Procedures were completed without additional trocars in 1628 patients (92·0 per cent). Conversion to open surgery was required in 75 patients (4·2 per cent) and was related to male sex and ASA fitness grade exceeding I. Conversions were more frequent in pelvic procedures involving the rectum compared with abdominal procedures (8·1 versus 3·2 per cent; odds ratio 2·69, P < 0·001). Postoperative complications were observed in a total of 224 patients (12·7 per cent). Independent predictors of complications included male sex (P < 0·001), higher ASA grade (P = 0·006) and rectal procedures (P = 0·002). The overall 30-day mortality rate was 0·5 per cent (8 of 1769 patients); three deaths (0·2 per cent; 1 blood loss, 2 leaks) were attributable to surgical causes.

CONCLUSION

The feasibility and safety, conversion and complication profile demonstrated here provides guidance for patient selection.

Single-incision versus standard multi-incision laparoscopic colectomy in patients with malignant or benign colonic disease: a systematic review, meta-analysis and assessment of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) requires only one umbilical port site and (depending on technique) a specimen extraction site. The aim of this study was the assessment of the available evidence for the comparison of SILC to conventional multi-port laparoscopic colectomy (MLC) in adult patients, in whom elective colectomy is indicated because of malignant or benign disease. First, previous meta-analyses on this topic were assessed. Secondly, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, was performed.

METHODS

Electronic literature searches (CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE; up to March 2016) were performed. Additionally, we searched clinical trials registries and abstracts from surgical society meetings. For meta-analysis, risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95 % confidence intervals were calculated and pooled. The quality of previous meta-analyses was evaluated against established criteria (AMSTAR) and their reported results were investigated for consistency.

RESULTS

We identified 6 previous meta-analyses of mostly low methodological quality (AMSTAR total score: 2 - 5 out of 11 items). To fill the evidence gaps, all these meta-analyses had included non-randomised studies, but usually without assessing their risk of bias. In our systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials exclusively, we included two randomised controlled trials with a total of 82 colorectal cancer patients. There was insufficient evidence to clarify whether SILC leads to less local complications (RR = 0.52, 95 % CI 0.14 - 1.94) or lower mortality (1 death per treatment group). Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the SILC group (MD = -1.20 days, 95 % CI -1.95 to -0.44). One of the two studies found postoperative pain intensity to be lower at the first day. We also identified 7 ongoing trials with a total sample size of over 1000 patients.

CONCLUSION

The currently available study results are too sparse to detect (or rule out) relevant differences between SILC and MLC. The quality of the current evidence is low, and the additional analysis of non-randomised data attempts, but does not solve this problem. SILC should still be considered as an experimental procedure, since the evidence of well-designed randomised controlled trials is too sparse to allow any recommendation.

Standardized technique for single-incision laparoscopic-assisted stoma creation

To describe the procedure, efficacy, and utility of single-incision laparoscopic-assisted stoma creation (SILStoma) for transverse colostomy. Using single-incision laparoscopic surgery, we developed a standardized technique for SILStoma. Twelve consecutive patients underwent SILStoma for transverse colostomy at Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases from April 2013 to March 2016. A single, intended stoma site was created with a 2.5-3.5 cm skin incision for primary access to the intra-abdominal space, and it functioned as the main port through which multi-trocars were placed. Clinical and operative factors and postoperative outcomes were evaluated. Patient demographics, including age, gender, body mass index, and surgical indications for intestinal diversion were evaluated. SILStoma was performed in nine cases without the requirement of additional ports. In the remaining three cases, 1-2 additional 5-mm ports were required for mobilization of the transverse colon and safe dissection of abdominal adhesions. No cases required conversion to open surgery. In all cases, SILStoma was completed at the initial stoma site marked preoperatively. No intraoperative or postoperative complications greater than Grade II (the Clavien-Dindo classification) were reported in the complication survey. Surgical site infection at stoma sites was observed in four cases; however, surgical interventions were not required and all infections were cured completely. In all cases, the resumption of bowel movements was observed between postoperative days 1 and 2. SILStoma for transverse loop colostomy represents a feasible surgical procedure that allows the creation of a stoma at the preoperatively marked site without any additional large skin incisions.

Single-incision robotic colectomy: are costs prohibitive?

BACKGROUND

The feasibility, safety, and costs of single-incision robotic colectomy (SIRC) are not known.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted, comparing the initial 29 consecutive SIRC procedures performed to 36 multiport laparoscopic colectomies (MLC).

RESULTS

The groups did not differ significantly on age, body mass index, gender, ASA classification, smoking status, steroid usage or rate of diabetes. Procedure time, conversion rate, infectious complications and length of stay did not differ significantly. The ratio of observed:expected direct hospital costs statistically favoured MLC, although there was no statistical difference between groups for contribution margin, or for observed and expected direct hospital costs.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate safety and technical feasibility for SIRC in selected patients with short-term outcomes and hospital costs comparable to MLC. Contribution margin remained positive and expected costs exceeded observed for SIRC. Increased costs for SIRC are a concern. The comparable but relatively high mortality in both groups may represent an institutional approach to colectomy where significant comorbidity is not a contraindication to minimally invasive surgery. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Reduction in operative trauma along with an improvement in endoscopic access has undoubtedly occupied surgical minds for at least the past 3 decades. It is not at all surprising that minimally invasive colon surgery has come a long way since the first laparoscopic appendectomy by Semm in 1981. It is common knowledge that the recent developments in video and robotic technologies have significantly furthered advancements in laparoscopic and minimally invasive surgery. This has led to the overall acceptance of the treatment of benign colorectal pathology via the endoscopic route. Malignant disease, however, is still primarily treated by conventional approaches.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This review article is based on a literature search pertaining to advances in minimally invasive colorectal surgery for the treatment of malignant pathology, as well as on personal experience in the field over the same period of time. Our search was limited to level I and II clinical papers only, according to the evidence-based medicine guidelines. We attempted to present our unbiased view on the subject relying only on the evidence available.

CONCLUSION

Focusing on advances in colorectal minimally invasive surgery, it has to be stated that there are still a number of unanswered questions regarding the surgical management of malignant diseases with this approach. These questions do not only relate to the area of boundaries set for the use of minimally invasive techniques in this field but also to the exact modality best suited to the treatment of every particular case whilst maintaining state-of-the-art oncological principles.

Z skin incision in reduced-port surgery for colorectal cancer

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) has recently gained in popularity due to the fewer trocars and shorter incision, leading to reduced wound pain and improved cosmetic outcome. In July, 2013, reduced-port surgery (RPS) was introduced and has been performed thereafter in our hospital. An umbilical incision is used for a main port in RPS, through which the specimen is removed and the anastomosis is performed. In order to make the incision shorter, we introduced the Z skin incision in RPS. In this study, we aimed to discuss this method and evaluate the short-term outcome. Among CRC patients undergoing RPS, Z skin incision (n=14) was compared to conventional skin incision (n=15). The clinical and surgical factors were evaluated and there were no significant differences in terms of gender, age, body mass index, tumor site, procedure, operative time, blood loss or complications between the two groups. The median incision length at the umbilicus was significantly shorter in the Z incision group (P=0.004). Particularly in functional end-to-end anastomosis, the median incision length was 2.5 cm in the Z skin incision group and 4.0 cm in the conventional incision group (P=0.018). In conclusion, Z skin incision is a useful technique for achieving an effective length of skin incision in RPS for CRC.

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

BACKGROUND

Human natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is slowed down by technical hurdles. Concomitantly, single-incision laparoscopy has been increasingly reported as an alternative. By reducing the invasiveness of standard laparoscopy, we may further reduce postoperative pain, decrease morbidity, preserve abdominal wall, and enhance cosmesis. Such techniques have been widely applied, including in colorectal surgery. The aim of this multicenter study is to compare the results of single-incision right colectomy (SIRC) with the results of the standard laparoscopic right colectomy (SLRC) in patients with colon cancer.

METHODS

The files of patients who underwent right colectomy for cancer in five hospitals between January 2010 and December 2013 have been reviewed. Exclusion criteria were open surgery, emergency setting, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score >3. Patients were distributed in Groups A (SIRC) or B (SLRC).

RESULTS

Five hundred ninety-two patients were included in this study, 336 in Group A and 256 in Group B. Mean operative time was 129.0 minutes (range 65-245) in Group A and 168.1 minutes in the Group B (range 70-290), respectively (P < .001). No mortality occurred in either group. The overall 30-day morbidity rates were 21.4% in Group A and 25% in Group B, respectively (P = .64). The median length of hospital stay was 4.95 days (range 3-14) in Group A and 5.5 days in Group B (range 3-12), respectively (P = .28). Conversion to laparotomy occurred in four patients in each group (P = 1). Length of skin incision was significantly shorter in Group A than in Group B (2.99 ± 0.63 cm versus 4.94 ± 0.65 cm, P < .001). Histological analysis of the operative specimens showed no significant differences.

CONCLUSION

SIRC is feasible and sure for patients with colon cancer. As compared with SLRC, SIRC may offer some advantages, including lower operative morbidity, shorter hospital stay, and better cosmoses, without compromising the oncological quality of the resected specimen.

Robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Over the years, there has been a continual shift toward more minimally invasive surgical techniques, such as the use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery. Recently, there has been increasing adoption of robotic technology. Our study aims to compare and contrast robot-assisted and laparoscopic approaches to colorectal operations.

METHODS

Forty patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic colorectal surgery performed by 2 surgeons at an academic center, regardless of indication, were included in this retrospective review. Patients undergoing open approaches were excluded. Study outcomes included operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, complications, and conversion rate to an open procedure.

RESULTS

Twenty-five laparoscopic and fifteen robot-assisted colorectal surgeries were performed. The mean patient age was 61.1 ± 10.7 years in the laparoscopic group compared with 61.1 ± 8.5 years in the robotic group (P = .997). Patients had a similar body mass index and history of abdominal surgery. Mean blood loss was 163.3 ± 249.2 mL and 96.8 ± 157.7 mL, respectively (P = .385). Operative times were similar, with 190.8 ± 84.3 minutes in the laparoscopic group versus 258.4 ± 170.8 minutes in the robotic group (P = .183), as were lengths of hospital stay: 9.6 ± 7.3 and 6.5 ± 3.8 days, respectively (P = .091). In addition, there was no difference in the number of lymph nodes harvested between the laparoscopic group (14.0 ± 6.5) and robotic group (12.3 ± 4.2, P = .683).

CONCLUSIONS

In our early experience, the robotic approach to colorectal surgery can be considered both safe and efficacious. Furthermore, it also preserves oncologically sufficient outcomes when performed for cancer operations.

Comparison between the perioperative results of single-access and conventional laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has low rates of morbidity and mortality and achieves comparable pathologic outcomes. With improved instruments and surgical techniques, many surgeons have recently begun using single-access laparoscopic surgery (SALS) to minimize scars and pain. Since 2011, most reports of SALS for rectal cancer have shown comparable pathologic outcomes to those of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). However, SALS is said to be superior to CLS in reducing complications, producing less discomfort, and faster recovery rates. This study aimed to compare the technical feasibility and early postoperative outcomes of these approaches.

METHODS

From January 2011 to January 2014, 78 cases of adenocarcinoma of the rectum and anal canal were enrolled in the study. Anterior, low anterior, intersphincteric, and abdominoperineal resections were performed. Data collected included technical feasibility and outcomes of operation, such as morbidity, mortality, severity of pain, analgesic usage, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

SALS was performed on 35 patients, and CLS was performed in 36 cases. Demographic data, including age, sex, BMI, ASA classification and clinical staging, were similar between the groups. Operative time, blood loss, and conversion rate were similar (P > 0.05). Postoperatively, the only significant difference between the groups was pain score, which was significantly lower in the SALS group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

SALS and CLS for rectal and anal cancer had the same intraoperative, pathologic, and early postoperative results. However, SALS patients had slightly better pain scores in the first 24 and 48 h postoperatively.

Resident training in single-incision laparoscopic colectomy

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SLC) is touted as an improved approach to minimally invasive surgery, although no data currently exist regarding the acquisition of this technique. The aim of this study was to evaluate resident performance and outcomes in patients undergoing SLC performed by residents vs. staff colorectal surgeons. A retrospective case-control study was conducted, including 220 patients who underwent elective surgical intervention with multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MLC, n=141) or SLC (n=79) for colon cancer over a 24-month period at Yao Municipal Hospital (Yao, Japan). Data on patient demographics, operative data, oncological outcomes and short-term outcomes were evaluated for statistical significance. To investigate issues regarding the surgical procedures, the entire operation was recorded on video for all patients and was divided into 6 procedures, with each procedure measured in seconds. Senior-level residents were able to safely perform MLC under appropriate experienced supervision. For SLC, 1 case required conversion to an open procedure. No case required additional trocar placement. The mean operative times were similar for the staff and resident groups for total colon cancer (192.5 and 217.5 min, respectively; P=0.88), whereas the operative times of the staff group for right-sided colon cancer were significantly longer, and the operative times of the resident group for left-sided colon cancer were significantly longer. In addition, the overall perioperative outcomes, including blood loss, number of harvested lymph nodes, length of the surgical margin and complications, were similar between the two groups. When video recordings were evaluated by dividing the surgical process for the right colon into 4 procedures and that for the left colon into 6 procedures, the results demonstrated that the residents required more time to close the mesenteric margin for the left colon compared with the staff performing the same procedure (3,470.1±1,258.5 vs. 5,218.6±2,341.2 sec; P=0.01). Therefore, senior-level residents were able to safely perform SLC under appropriate experienced supervision. For the left colon, the main challenge for the residents appeared to be the closure of the mesenteric margin. Our data support that it is possible to train senior residents to complete a SLC safely and with the same efficacy as staff surgeons.

Review of 500 single incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery cases - Lessons learned

Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a minimally invasive platform with specific benefits over traditional multiport laparoscopic surgery. The safety and feasibility of SILS has been proven, and the applications continue to grow with experience. After 500 cases at a high-volume, single-institution, we were able to standardize instrumentation and operative steps, as well as develop adaptations in technique to help overcome technical and ergonomic challenges. These technical adaptations have allowed the successful application of SILS to technically difficult patient populations, such as pelvic cases, inflammatory bowel disease cases, and high body mass index patients. This review is a frame of reference for the application and wider integration of the single incision laparoscopic platform in colorectal surgery.

Three surgical planes identified in laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision for right-sided colon cancer

Background

Complete mesocolic excision provides a correct anatomical plane for colon cancer surgery. However, manifestation of the surgical plane during laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision versus in computed tomography images remains to be examined.

Methods

Patients who underwent laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision for right-sided colon cancer underwent an abdominal computed tomography scan. The spatial relationship of the intraoperative surgical planes were examined, and then computed tomography reconstruction methods were applied. The resulting images were analyzed.

Results

In 44 right-sided colon cancer patients, the surgical plane for laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision was found to be composed of three surgical planes that were identified by computed tomography imaging with cross-sectional multiplanar reconstruction, maximum intensity projection, and volume reconstruction. For the operations performed, the mean bleeding volume was 73 ± 32.3 ml and the mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 22 ± 9.7. The follow-up period ranged from 6–40 months (mean 21.2), and only two patients had distant metastases.

Conclusions

The laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision surgical plane for right-sided colon cancer is composed of three surgical planes. When these surgical planes were identified, laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision was a safe and effective procedure for the resection of colon cancer.

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Right Hemi-Colectomy: a Systematic Review

As surgeons became more adept with laparoscopic colon surgery, other less invasive procedures, such as single-incision laparoscopic right hemi-colectomy (SIL-RH), have been applied. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of SIL-RH as well as its intraoperative and postoperative outcomes for right-sided colon diseases. A detailed search in PubMed for citations that included SIL-RH from 2000 to 2014 revealed 21 studies fulfilling the criteria of the present review. A total of 684 patients were analyzed. Of the patients, 50.2 % were men. Mean patient age was 64.8 years. Of the patients, 36.1 % had already undergone an abdominal operation before the performance of SIL-RH, while 69 % of the patients underwent SIL-RH for colon cancer. Relatively low rates of overall morbidity (15 %) and mortality (0.75 %) were reported in the included studies. Mean length of postoperative hospital stay (LOS) was 5.5 days. Bowel motility return had a mean value of 2.8 days. Mean number of harvested lymph nodes (LN) was 19.2 LN. All resection margins were tumor-free. SIL-RH was a safe alternative to multiport laparoscopic right hemi-colectomy (ML-RH) in terms of morbidity and mortality, postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery, LOS, as well as oncological radicalness.

Expanding the indications for single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy to all patients with biliary disease: is it safe?

PURPOSE

The safety of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has been proven in well-selected patients. The objective of this study was to determine whether SILC can be offered to all patients with any indication for cholecystectomy.

METHODS

A total of 173 consecutive SILCs were performed between January 2010 and November 2012 with no exclusion criteria. Demographic data, operative, and postoperative outcomes were prospectively collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Patients with acute cholecystitis and gallstone pancreatitis had longer operative times and a higher conversion to 4-port cholecystectomy than patients with biliary colic. Similar relationships were seen when comparing patients with obesity to nonobese patients. There were no differences in complication rates between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC can be safely offered to patients with a wide spectrum of biliary disease with the understanding that this may result in increased operative times and a higher likelihood of conversion to multiport laparoscopy.

Reduced-port laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy without diverting ileostomy

INTRODUCTION

We introduced a reduced-port procedure for laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy without diverting ileostomy for patients with familial adenomatous polyposis and ulcerative colitis.

MATERIALS AND SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

A multichannel port was inserted through a 2.5-cm umbilical incision. A 12-mm port in the right lower abdomen and a 3- or 5-mm port were also employed. A proctocolectomy was performed intracorporeally, and the entire colon and rectum were delivered through the umbilical incision. An ileal J-pouch was made extracorporeally following division of the mesenteric vessels. Ileal j-pouch-anal anastomosis was performed intracorporeally or transanally after rectal mucosectomy. A drain was inserted through the 12-mm port incision, and a transanal decompression tube was placed in the pouch. Two women and one man underwent this surgery, and their postoperative recovery was uneventful.

DISCUSSION

Laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy without a diverting stoma by a reduced-port technique is feasible and provides excellent cosmetic outcomes in selected patients.

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Colon and Rectal Surgery

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) was introduced to further the enhanced outcomes of multiport laparoscopy. Multiple studies have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of SILS for both benign and malignant colorectal disease. SILS provides the potential for improved cosmesis, postoperative outcomes, and patient quality of life. However, widespread use has been limited by technical demands and lack of an evidence and competency-based curriculum.

Review of single incision laparoscopic surgery in colorectal surgery

As surgical techniques continue to move towards less invasive techniques, single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), a hybrid between traditional multiport laparoscopy and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, was introduced to further the enhanced outcomes of multiport laparoscopy. The safety and feasibility of SILS for both benign and malignant colorectal disease has been proven. SILS provides the potential for improved cosmesis, postoperative pain, recovery time, and quality of life at the drawback of higher technical skill required. In this article, we review the history, describe the available technology and techniques, and evaluate the benefits and limitations of SILS for colorectal surgery in the published literature.

SILS v SILS+1: a Case-Matched Comparison for Colorectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is safe and feasible for benign and malignant colorectal diseases. SILS has comparable or improved outcomes compared to multiport laparoscopy but technical limitations when operating in the pelvis. To address these limitations, we developed an innovative SILS+1 approach using a single Pfannenstiel incision for pelvis access with one additional umbilical port. Our goal was to compare outcomes for SILS and SILS+1 in lower abdominal and pelvic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Review of a prospectively maintained database identified patients who underwent an elective reduced port laparoscopic lower abdominal/pelvic colorectal procedure from 2009 to 2014. Cases were stratified by approach: SILS versus SILS+1 then matched 1:2 on age, gender, body mass index (BMI), comorbidity, and procedure. Demographic, perioperative, and postoperative outcome variables were evaluated. The main outcome measures were operative time, conversion rate, length of stay, complication, morbidity, and mortality rates.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-two reduced port AR/LAR patients were evaluated-44 SILS and 88 SILS+1. The groups were similar in age, gender, BMI, and ASA class. The primary diagnosis in both cohorts was diverticulitis (90.9 % SILS, 87.5 % SILS+1), and main procedure performed an anterior rectosigmoidectomy (86.4 % SILS, 88.2 % SILS+1). Significantly more SILS+1 patients had previous abdominal surgery (p = 0.01). The operative time was significantly shorter in SILS+1 (mean 166.6 [SD 48.4] vs. 178.0 [SD 70.0], p = 0.03). The conversion rate to multiport or open surgery was also significantly lower with SILS+1 compared to SILS (1.1 vs. 11.4 %, p = 0.02). Postoperatively, the length of stay across the groups was similar. SILS trended towards higher complication and readmission rates (NS). There were no unplanned reoperations or mortality in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

SILS+1 facilitates pelvic and lower abdominal colorectal surgery, with shorter operative times and lower conversion rates. The additional port improved visualization and outcomes without any impact on length of stay, readmission, or complication rates.

Single-Site Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery Provides Similar Clinical Outcomes Compared With Standard Laparoscopic Surgery: An Analysis of 626 Patients

BACKGROUND

Compared with standard laparoscopy, single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery may potentially offer advantages by creating fewer surgical incisions and providing a multifunctional trocar. Previous comparisons, however, have been limited by small sample sizes and selection bias.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare 60-day outcomes between standard laparoscopic and single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery patients undergoing elective and urgent surgeries.

DESIGN

This was an unselected, retrospective cohort study comparing patients who underwent elective and unplanned standard laparoscopic or single-site laparoscopic colorectal resections for benign and malignant disease between 2008 and 2014. Outcomes were compared using univariate analyses.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a single institution.

PATIENTS

A total of 626 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Morbidity and mortality rates within 60 postoperative days were measured.

RESULTS

A total of 318 (51%) and 308 patients (49%) underwent standard laparoscopic and single-site laparoscopic procedures. No significant differences were noted in mean operative time (standard laparoscopy, 182.1 ± 81.3 vs single-site laparoscopy, 177.0 ± 86.5; p = 0.30) or postoperative length of stay (standard laparoscopy, 4.8 ± 3.4 vs single-site laparoscopy, 5.5 ± 6.9; p = 0.14). Conversions to laparotomy and 60-day readmissions were also similar for both cohorts across all of the procedures performed. A significant difference was identified in the number of patients who developed postoperative complications (standard laparoscopy, 19.2% vs single-site laparoscopy, 10.7%; p = 0.004), especially with respect to surgical-site infections (standard laparoscopy, 11.3% vs single-site laparoscopy, 5.8%; p = 0.02).

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective, single institution study.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery demonstrates similar results to standard laparoscopic colorectal surgery with regard to operative time, length of stay, and readmissions. Single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery may provide advantages in limiting the development of certain complications, such as superficial surgical-site infections.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: will it succeed as the future leading technique for gallbladder removal?

BACKGROUND

The quest for less traumatic abdominal approaches is changing paradigms in times of minimally invasive surgery. While natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery remains experimental, the single-incision approach could be the future of gallbladder surgery.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from 875 patients subjected to conventional single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) or 4-port [laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC)] were retrospectively analyzed and discussed with the current literature.

RESULTS

Between 2008 and 2011, 201 (23%) SILCs and 674 (77%) LCs were performed. Mean age was 51.7±17.5 years (SILC: 45.1 vs. LC: 53.7 y). Patients were predominantly female (SILC: 75.1% vs. LC: 56.5%). Preoperative body mass index was 27.4±9.1 (SILC: 26.4 vs. LC: 27.8; P<0.05) and American Society of Anesthesiologists' score counted 1.67±0.57 in SILC and 1.86±0.7 in LC patients. Acute inflammation of the gallbladder (AIG) was not considered as a contraindication for SILC (AIG in SILC: 17.4% vs. LC: 35.5%). The mean operative time was significantly lower in the SILC group (SILC: 71±31 vs. LC: 79±27 min) and duration of postoperative hospital stay was shorter (SILC: 3.2±1.7 vs. LC: 4.5±2.6 d). No significant difference was observed between SILC and LC in any of the registered complications, including postoperative bleeding, trocar hernias, wound infection, abdominal abscess formation, bile duct injury, or cystic duct leakage.

CONCLUSIONS

In the near future SILC could overrule conventional LC as the leading technique for gallbladder surgery. Our data reconfirm an excellent risk profile for SILC that is equal to that of LC. Large multicenter randomized controlled trials will be required to finally legitimize SILC as the succeeding principal method.

Transanal total mesorectal excision assisted by single-port laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

We have combined the minimally invasive single-port laparoscopic surgery and the transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer with the goal to standardize the approach and improve the quality of rectal cancer resection.

METHODS

By using two single-port platforms, selected patients were first operated by TaTME, and then a single-port laparoscopic surgery was introduced to assist and complete the abdominal portion. Short-term outcomes including perioperative outcome and pathologic results of these patients were evaluated.

RESULTS

Between July 2014 and March 2015, six patients with low rectal cancer (five males and one female) at a median age of 68 years were successfully operated in a median time of 360 min (range 310-420). The median estimated blood loss was 150 ml (range 50-800). In one patient, the spleen was removed because of a lesion identified preoperatively. Their postoperative recovery was uneventful except one acute myocardial infarction on postoperative day 3. Pathologic specimens showed negative margins and a complete excision of the mesorectum in all cases. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 11.5 (range 4-12). At a median follow-up of 4 months (range 3-9), after ileostomy closure, none of the patients suffered from fecal incontinence.

CONCLUSION

TaTME assisted by abdominal single-port may be safely achieved in selected rectal cancer patients.

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.

Single-incision laparoscopic biliary bypass for malignant obstructive jaundice

Biliary bypass is a major management of resolution to malignant obstructive jaundice. Laparoscopic approach is an ideal alternative to open surgery with the less recurrence compared with endoscopic stenting. Single incision surgery approach has not been applied to biliary bypass due to technical challenge. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic biliary bypass. Eighteen patients with periampulla tumor underwent single-incision laparoscopic cholecystojejunostomy. The preoperation and postoperation data were retrospectively analyzed. All the cases underwent surgery successfully without conversion to open or traditional laparoscopic surgery. The operation time and blood loss were 172.8 min and 101.1 ml, respectively. The postoperative hospital stay was 9.9 days. The jaundice was released, and the liver function was improved after the surgery. The mean survival of the patients was 9.5 months. The single-incision laparoscopic cholecystojejunostomy is safe and feasible with acceptable short-term outcomes in selected patients. The benefits still need to be evaluated in comparative study.