Transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy using conventional instruments: the single working channel technique. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2013;23:208-211. [PMID: 23579520 DOI: 10.1097/SLE.0b013e3182827f5d]

Is Transumbilical Laparoscopic-assisted Appendectomy Better than Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Children? A Randomized Controlled Study

Aim

To compare the gold standard method of managing acute appendicitis; laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) to transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy (TULAA).

Methods

A randomized clinical study of consecutive pediatric patients (age under 13 years) undergoing appendectomy for noncomplicated acute appendicitis was conducted at a tertiary center in Jordan. Data collected included; perioperative parameters, operative time, gas time, postoperative hospital stay, pathology, complications, pain, and cost.

Results

Out of the 50 initially enrolled patients, 47 were included in the analysis (25 in TULAA group [53.2%], 22 in LA group [46.8%]), of which only 12% and 31% of patients had perforated appendicitis, in the TULAA group and LA group consecutively. No early intraoperative complications were observed. Postoperative complications were seen in 4.8% of the LA group and 4% in the TULAA group. TULAA had significantly shorter operative time, lower gas flow, gas time, gas pressure levels, and more cases (68%) were operated without gas use compared to LA. Pain relief, diet resumption, cosmetic, and hospital stay did not significantly differ between the groups. The cosmetic outcome was slightly better in the TULAA group but not statistically significant.

Conclusion

TULLA offers an alternative approach to LA for acute appendicitis and may be of benefit in resource-poor institutions whilst maintaining the benefits of the minimally invasive approach. This study has demonstrated a significantly reduced wound infection, operative time, and gaseous insufflation for TULLA compared to LA. Further studies to demonstrate its feasibility in complicated appendicitis may be warranted.

Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Three-port (trocar) laparoscopic appendectomy is the standard treatment for acute appendicitis and previous studies have compared to single-incision approach, however, they often include both pediatric and adult patients and fail to account for surgeons' experience, leading to variability in outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to address these literature gaps by focusing on adult patients and controlling for surgeon expertise. We conducted a comprehensive search of randomized controlled trials comparing single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) up to November 2024. We assessed the length of hospitalization, operative duration, postoperative complications, and surgical wound infections. Data were synthesized using random-effects models to account for variability among studies. The meta-analysis included four studies with a total of 408 patients, comprising 202 in the single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) group and 206 in the conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) group. For the length of hospitalization, no statistically significant difference was observed, with a weighted mean difference (WMD) of 0.07 days (95% CI  - 0.32 to 0.47, I2 = 0%, p = 0.72). Similarly, the operative duration showed no significant difference, with a WMD of 4.49 min (95% CI  - 7.02 to 16.00, I2 = 89%, p = 0.44). The analysis of postoperative complications also revealed no significant difference between the groups, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.32 (95% CI 0.69 to 2.51, I2 = 0%, p = 0.40). Surgical wound infections were found to be comparable, with an OR of 1.14 (95% CI 0.46 to 2.83, I2 = 0%, p = 0.78). Sensitivity analysis indicated that the results were statistically significant regarding operative duration when Kim et al. was excluded from the analysis. SILA and CLA yield comparable outcomes in terms of hospitalization length, operative duration, and complications, suggesting that both techniques are viable options for the management of acute appendicitis in adults. Further studies investigating overall cosmesis, patient satisfaction, and postoperative pain are warranted to optimize surgical approaches.PROSPERO registration: CRD42024612596.

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.

Laparoscopic appendectomy with single port vs conventional access: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Conventional three-access laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) is currently the gold standard treatment, however, Single-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy (SILA) has been proposed as an alternative. The aim of this systematic review/meta-analysis was to evaluate safety and efficacy of SILA compared with conventional approach.

METHODS

Per PRISMA guidelines, we systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CLA vs SILA for acute appendicitis. The randomised Mantel-Haenszel method was used for the meta-analysis. Statistical data analysis was performed with the Review Manager software and the risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane "Risk of Bias" assessment tool.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies (RCTs) were selected (2646 patients). The operative time was significantly longer in the SILA group (MD = 7,32), confirmed in both paediatric (MD = 9,80), (Q = 1,47) and adult subgroups (MD = 5,92), (Q = 55,85). Overall postoperative morbidity was higher in patients who underwent SILA, but the result was not statistically significant. In SILA group were assessed shorter hospital stays, fewer wound infections and higher conversion rate, but the results were not statistically significant. Meta-analysis was not performed about cosmetics of skin scars and postoperative pain because different scales were used in each study.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis show that SILA, although associated with fewer postoperative wound infection, has a significantly longer operative time. Furthermore, the risk of postoperative general complications is still present. Further studies will be required to analyse outcomes related to postoperative pain and the cosmetics of the surgical scar.

Single-incision versus conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

While consensus on single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) for acute appendicitis is lacking, our meta-analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of SILA compared to conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (CTLA). A computer-based search was conducted in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP, Wanfang, China Biological Medicine (CBM), PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SILA with CTLA groups. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. A total of 26 RCTs were included. The meta-analysis results indicated that, compared to the CTLA group, the SILA group had a longer operation time [MD = 7.97, 95 % CI (5.84, 10.10), P < 0.00001], and a higher rate of conversion to open surgery [RR = 2.60, 95 % CI (1.27, 5.31), P = 0.009], but had a shorter time to return to normal activities [MD = -0.76, 95 % CI (-1.15, -0.37), P = 0.0001]. Additionally, the SILA group had higher satisfaction scores [SMD = 1.21, 95 % CI (0.75, 1.68), P < 0.00001] and cosmetic scores [SMD = 0.68, 95 % CI (0.45, 0.90), P < 0.00001]. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of pain scores at 24 h postoperatively [MD = -0.21, 95 % CI (-0.56, 0.14), P = 0.25], the incidence of wound infection [RR = 1.13, 95 % CI (0.74, 1.73), P = 0.58], or the overall complication rate [RR = 0.86, 95 % CI (0.66, 1.12), P = 0.27]. SILA is a safe and effective surgical approach that allows patients to recover to normal activities earlier, particularly for patients with a strong demand for better cosmetic outcomes. However, the quality of some RCTs in this meta-analysis is low, and further verification is needed through future high-quality RCTs.

Comparison of Single-Person Laparoscopic Appendectomy Using a Novel Brace-Assisted Camera Holding System and Conventional Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Neural Network Algorithm Analysis

Background

Acute appendicitis represents one of the main causes of surgical emergencies. It can be approached as an open appendectomy or a laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). However, LA generally requires the cooperation of a surgeon and an assistant. This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of the novel brace-assisted single-person laparoscopic appendectomy (BASPLA) with conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) in the treatment of patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis by neural network algorithm analysis.

Methods

Between January 2020 and December 2021,a total of 120 adult patients with acute appendicitis were randomized to the BASPLA group (62 cases) and the CLA group (58 cases).The clinical data were compared between the two groups, including demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes.

Results

There was no significant difference in patients' pain scores before operation (p = 0.68) and after operation (p = 0.81) and patient-reported cosmetic scores (p = 0.43) between the two groups. Operation time in the BASPLA group was longer than that in the CLA group (p<0.001). There were no significant differences in the conversion rate (p = 0.94), analgesics required before (p = 0.91) and after the operation (p = 0.78), intraoperative bleeding (p = 0.53), recovery of bowel movement time (p = 0.26), hospital stay (p = 0.06), and complication rate (p = 0.84) between the two groups.

Conclusions

BASPLA for adult acute appendicitis can be a substitute for CLA, BASPLA is comparable to CLA in postoperative pain and quality of life. Compared to surgical assistants, it not only provides a stable, clear image for the surgeon but also frees up personnel. Especially in emergency surgery, it can achieve satisfactory clinical efficacy without requiring an assistant.

Single-incision compared with conventional laparoscopy for appendectomy in acute appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A meta-analysis of the relevant literature evaluated the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) relative to those of conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA).

METHODS

The major biomedical databases, including ClinicalTrials.gov, were searched up to January 2022 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). SILA and CLA were compared regarding patient body mass index, operative time, and perioperative complications. The Cochrane Handbook and RevMan 5.3 were used to judge trial quality and perform the meta-analysis, respectively.

RESULTS

The 17 included RCTs comprised 2068 patients, of whom 1039 and 1029 patients underwent SILA and CLA, respectively. The operative time for SILA was longer than that for CLA (MD = 8.35 min, 95% CI = 6.58 to 10.11, P < 0.00001), but the cosmetic results from SILA were superior (SMD = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.58 to 1.03, P < 0.00001). However, the incidence rates were similar in terms of patient body mass index; postoperative pain scores; and rates of abdominal abscess, conversion to open surgery, ileus, surgical site infection, and overall perioperative complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

SILA is a safe technique for acute appendicitis, and its cosmetic outcomes are superior to those of CLA.

Surgical Site Infection Following Single-Port Appendectomy: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are one of the most common postoperative complications after appendectomy leading to recurrent surgery, prolonged hospital stay, and the use of antibiotics. Numerous studies and meta-analyses have been published on the effect of open versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) reporting faster postoperative recovery and less postoperative pain for CLA. A development from CLA has been the single-port appendectomy (SPA), associated with a better cosmesis but seemingly having a higher risk of wound infections. The aim of this systematic literature review and meta-analysis is to investigate whether reduced port or SPA alters the ratio of SSIs.

Methods

Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were screened for suitable articles. All articles published between January 1, 2002, and March 23, 2022, were included. Articles regarding children below the age of 18 were excluded as well as manuscripts that investigated solemnly open appendectomies. Articles were screened for inclusion criteria by two independent authors. Incidence of SSI was the primary outcome. Duration of operation and length of hospital stay were defined as secondary outcomes.

Results

A total of 25 studies were found through a database search describing 5484 patients. A total of 2749 patients received SPA and 2735 received CLA. There was no statistical difference in the rate of SSI (P = 0.98). A total of 22 studies including 4699 patients reported the duration of operation (2223 SPA and 2476 CLA). There was a significantly shorter operation time seen in CLA. The length of hospital stay was reported in 23 studies (4735 patients: 2235 SPA and 2500 CLA). A shorter hospital stay was seen in the SPA group (P &lt; 0.00001). Separately performed analysis of randomized controlled trials could not confirm this effect (P = 0.29).

Discussion

SPA is an equally safe procedure considering SSI compared to CLA and does not lead to an increased risk of SSI. A longer operation time for SPA and a minor difference in the length of stay does lead to the use of SPA in selected patients only.

Evidence-based surgery for laparoscopic appendectomy: A stepwise systematic review

Introduction

Appendectomy is a common emergency surgery performed globally. Despite the frequency of laparoscopic appendectomy, consensus does not exist on the best way to perform each procedural step. We identified literature on key intraoperative steps to inform best technical practice during laparoscopic appendectomy.

Methods

Research questions were framed using the population, indication, comparison, outcome (PICO) format for 6 key operative steps of laparoscopic appendectomy: abdominal entry, placement of laparoscopic ports, division of mesoappendix, division of appendix, removal of appendix, and fascial closure. These questions were used to build literature queries in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases. Evidence quality and certainty was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) definitions.

Results

Recommendations were rendered for 6 PICO questions based on 28 full length articles. Low quality evidence favors direct trocar insertion for abdominal entry and establishment of pneumoperitoneum. Single port appendectomy results in improved cosmesis with unclear clinical implications. There was insufficient data to determine the optimal method of appendiceal stump closure, but use of a specimen extraction bag reduces rates of superficial surgical site infection and intra-abdominal abscess. Port sites made with radially dilating trocars are less likely to necessitate closure and are less likely to result in port site hernia. When port sites are closed, a closure device should be used.

Conclusion

Key operative steps of laparoscopic appendectomy have sufficient data to encourage standardized practice.

Single-port laparoscopic appendicectomy versus conventional three-port approach for acute appendicitis: A systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials

AIMS

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare outcomes of single-port laparoscopic appendicectomy (SPLA) and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendicectomy (CLA) in the management of acute appendicitis.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with subsequent meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of outcomes were conducted. Post-operative pain at 12-h, cosmesis, need for an additional port(s), operative time, port-site hernia, ileus, surgical site infection (SSI), intra-abdominal collection, length of hospital stay (LOS), readmission, and reoperation were the evaluated outcome parameters.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs with total number of 2017 patients who underwent SPLA (n = 1009) or CLA (n = 1008) were included. SPLA was associated with a significantly higher cosmetic score (MD 1.11, P= 0.03) but significantly longer operative time (MD 7.08, P = 0.00001) compared to CLA. However, the difference was not significant between SPLA and CLA in the post-operative pain score at 12-h (MD -0.13, P = 0.69), need for additional port(s) (RR0.03, P = 0.07), port-site hernia (RD: 0.00, P = 0.68), ileus (RR 0.74, P = 0.51), SSI (RR 1.38, P = 0.28), post-operative intra-abdominal collection (RR 0.00, P = 0.62), LOS (MD -2.41, P = 0.16), readmission to the hospital (RR 0.45, P = 0.22), and return to theatre (RR 0.00, P = 0.49). Trial sequential analysis demonstrated that the meta-analysis is conclusive for most of the outcomes, except LOS and intra-abdominal collection.

CONCLUSION

Although SPLA is associated with a slightly longer operative time, its efficacy and safety are comparable to CLA in management of uncomplicated appendicitis. Moreover, it offers improved post-operative cosmesis. The available evidence is conclusive, and further trials may not be required.

Single-port laparoscopic appendicectomy versus conventional three-port approach for acute appendicitis in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To evaluate comparative outcomes of single-port laparoscopic appendicectomy (SPLA) and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendicectomy (CLA) in the management of acute appendicitis in children.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with subsequent meta-analysis of outcomes were conducted in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement standards. Operative time, surgical site infection, intra-abdominal collection, incisional hernia, length of hospital stay (LOS), additional port/s and conversion to open were the evaluated outcome parameters.

RESULTS

Four RCTs reporting a total number of 520 patients who underwent SPLA (n = 260) or CLA (n = 260) were included. There was no difference between SPLA and CLA group in post-operative collection (risk difference (RD) - 0.00, P = 0.94), surgical site infection (RD 0.02, P = 0.25), incisional hernia (RD 0.00 P = 1), LOS (mean difference (MD) 0.73 P = 0.93), need for additional port/s (RD 0.04, P = 0.24) and conversion to open (RD 0.00, P = 1). However, there was a significantly longer operative time in the SPLA group (MD 9.80, P = 0.00001). The certainty of the evidence was judged to be moderate for all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

SPLA and CLA seem to have comparable efficacy and safety in children with acute appendicitis although the former may be associated with longer procedure time. Future high-quality RCTs with adequate sample sizes are required to provide stronger evidence in favour of an intervention.

The Effects of Preoperative Pain Education on the Decision to Discharge Patients Following Single-Incision Laparoscopic Appendectomy

Purpose

Few studies have analyzed the effects of preoperative pain education on the postoperative decision to discharge. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of pain education and management on the decision to discharge patients after single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA).

Methods

We analyzed 135 patients who had undergone SILA for acute appendicitis between March 2017 and April 2018 in a single medical center. Of these, 72 patients (53.3%) had received preoperative pain education (group 1), and 63 (46.7%) had not (group 2). We compared perioperative outcomes and complications between the groups.

Results

Baseline characteristics of sex, age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologist score, and systemic inflammation factors (neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, C-reactive protein level) did not differ significantly between the groups. There were no postoperative complications for patients in either group. Perioperative consequences and pathologic findings were not significantly different between the groups; however, length of hospital was significantly shorter in group 1.

Conclusion

Preoperative pain education in relation to postoperative pain management influenced the decision to shorten the postoperative hospital length of stay after SILA.

European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery changed the management of numerous surgical conditions. It was associated with many advantages over open surgery, such as decreased postoperative pain, faster recovery, shorter hospital stay and excellent cosmesis. Since two decades single-incision endoscopic surgery (SIES) was introduced to the surgical community. SIES could possibly result in even better postoperative outcomes than multi-port laparoscopic surgery, especially concerning cosmetic outcomes and pain. However, the single-incision surgical procedure is associated with quite some challenges.

METHODS

An expert panel of surgeons has been selected and invited to participate in the preparation of the material for a consensus meeting on the topic SIES, which was held during the EAES congress in Frankfurt, June 16, 2017. The material presented during the consensus meeting was based on evidence identified through a systematic search of literature according to a pre-specified protocol. Three main topics with respect to SIES have been identified by the panel: (1) General, (2) Organ specific, (3) New development. Within each of these topics, subcategories have been defined. Evidence was graded according to the Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Recommendations were made according to the GRADE criteria.

RESULTS

In general, there is a lack of high level evidence and a lack of long-term follow-up in the field of single-incision endoscopic surgery. In selected patients, the single-incision approach seems to be safe and effective in terms of perioperative morbidity. Satisfaction with cosmesis has been established to be the main advantage of the single-incision approach. Less pain after single-incision approach compared to conventional laparoscopy seems to be considered an advantage, although it has not been consistently demonstrated across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the increased direct costs (devices, instruments and operating time) of the SIES procedure and the prolonged learning curve, wider acceptance of the procedure should be supported only after demonstration of clear benefits.

[Appendectomy: open versus laparoscopic versus single port : Evidence for choice of surgical procedure]

The treatment of choice in acute appendicitis is still the surgical removal of an inflamed vermiform appendix. There is still some disagreement regarding the optimal access route, i.e. conventional open or minimally invasive. The best available evidence is used to answer the question of the current optimal choice of procedure. For laparoscopic appendectomy there are evidence-based benefits in terms of access trauma, postoperative pain, wound infection rates and convalescence. For the alternative minimally invasive procedure single port appendectomy, mini-laparoscopic appendectomy or NOTES appendectomy, there is still a lack of scientific evidence to advocate the broad clinical use of these procedures. It is recommended that whenever the infrastructure permits, laparoscopic appendectomy should be the treatment of choice.

Bayesian network meta-analysis of the effects of single-incision laparoscopic surgery, conventional laparoscopic appendectomy and open appendectomy for the treatment of acute appendicitis

The present study aimed to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) and open appendectomy (OA) for the treatment of acute appendicitis. PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched to identify relevant studies comparing the effectiveness of different appendectomy methods for treating acute appendicitis published prior to April 2016. ADDIS 1.16.5 software was used for data analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed using I² statistic. Odds ratios or standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated and pooled accordingly. Consistency was assessed using node-splitting analysis and inconsistency standard deviation. Convergence was assessed with the Brooks-Gelman-Rubin method using Potential Scale Reduction Factor (PSRF). Surgical procedure duration, duration of hospital stay, wound infection and incidence of abscesses were compared. A total of 24 eligible studies were included in this meta-analysis. A consistency model was used to pool data regarding the four outcomes. The PSRFs in each item were all <1.03. Pooled results showed that, compared with OA, SILS and CLA were associated with significantly shorter durations of hospital stay (all P<0.01) and lower risk of wound infection (SILS vs. OA P=0.02 and CLA vs. OA P<0.01, respectively), but no significant differences were identified between SILS and CLA. However, compared with OA, SILS exhibited a significantly longer surgical procedure duration (P=0.01) and lower incidence of abscesses (P=0.04), while no significant difference was observed between OA and CLA. This comprehensive network meta-analysis indicated that laparoscopic appendectomy, including SILS and CLA, may have more advantages for acute appendicitis compared with OA. Furthermore, SILS procedures require improvement and simplification to reduce the surgical procedure duration.

Single-incision versus conventional three-incision laparoscopic appendectomy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Conventional three-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (CTLA) is considered the new golden standard for the treatment of acute appendicitis. However, single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) can further reduce the number of abdominal incisions and visible scars.

METHODS

Major databases were researched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing SILA and CTLA for acute appendicitis from January 1983 and to March 2015. The technical feasibility, effectiveness, and safety between SILA and CTLA were compared. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models.

RESULTS

In total, 11 RCTs with 1489 patients were analyzed. The patients in the SILA group had a significantly shorter hospital duration (WMD: -0.63; 95% CI: -1.04, -0.21; P = 0.003) and return to activity (WMD: -2.91; 95% CI: -5.45, -0.37; P = 0.02) but experienced a longer operating time (WMD: 6.56; 95% CI: 3.55, 9.58; P < 0.0001) and higher rate of conversion (OR: 6.82; 95% CI: 3.14, 14.79; P < 0.00001). There were no differences between the two groups in visual analog pain scores, doses of analgesics, overall complication rates, wound infection, or cosmesis (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

SILA is a safer and more effective than CTLA in both pediatric and adult patients.

Single incision laparoscopic appendicectomy versus conventional three-port laparoscopic appendicectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Appendicectomy is a well-established surgical procedure used in the management of acute appendicitis. The operation can be performed with minimally invasive surgery or as an open procedure. A further development in the minimally invasive appendicectomy technique has been the introduction of single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILA).

AIM

To ascertain any differences in outcomes from available trials comparing SILA with conventional multi-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy (CLA).

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE/Ovid and CENTRAL for articles from Jan1990 to June 2015 with key words: 'appendectomy', 'appendicetomy'; 'appendicitis'; 'laparoscopy'; 'keyhole'; 'single port'; 'single incision'; 'single site'; 'one port'; 'incisionless'; 'scarless'. Randomised control trials of patients with signs and symptoms of appendicitis undergoing laparoscopic appendicectomy, with one arm being SILA were included. Statistical analysis was performed through Mantle-Haenszel and inverse variance methods.

RESULTS

A total of 8 RCTs published between 2012 and 2014 with a total of 995 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed no significant differences between SILA and CLA for complication rates, post-operative ileus, length of hospital stay, return to work or post-operative pain. CLA was significantly superior to SILA with reduced operating time (mean difference 5.81 [2.01, 9.62] P = 0.003) and conversion rates (OR 4.14 [1.93, 8.91] P = 0.0003). SILA surgery had better wound cosmesis (mean difference 0.55 [0.33, 0.77] P = 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

SILA is comparable to CLA in terms of complications, post-operative pain and recovery. Therefore, SILA could be a viable option in the hands of an experienced surgeons and for patients' groups who place great value on the final cosmetic outcome.

Effectiveness and safety of single-port laparoscopic appendectomy: A meta-analysis

AIM: To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of transumbilical single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) in China.

METHODS: Online databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, CBM, CNKI, VIP and Wangfang) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating therapeutic effects of SILA vs conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) in China. Methodological quality was assessed, and outcomes were analyzed with Revman 5.3.

RESULTS: Nine RCTs containing 878 patients were included. Compared with CLA, SILA significantly increased operation time, but reduced the time to gastrointestinal function recovery. There was no significant difference with regards to postoperative hospital stay and intra-operative blood loss between the two groups. The rate of total complications including wound infection, intestinal obstruction and abscess was similar, although SILA was associated with a higher rate of conversion to open surgery or the use of additional trocars.

CONCLUSION: SILA is a safe procedure for laparoscopic appendectomy in China; however, it is associated with a high rate of conversion to laparotomy or three-port laparoscopic appendectomy in serious patients.

Gasless transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy as a safe and cost-effective alternative surgical procedure for mild acute appendicitis

PURPOSE

Several reports have demonstrated the effectiveness and feasibility of single incisional transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy (TULAA). We developed a modified TULAA technique, gasless-TULAA, which involves lifting the abdominal wall with a retractor, without pneumoperitoneum or another incision.

METHODS

We assessed the surgical outcomes of 257 patients treated for appendicitis in our hospital between 2005 and 2013. In a preoperative comprehensive evaluation, appendicitis without abscess was defined as mild appendicitis (mild appendicitis group: MAG), and appendicitis with abscess was defined as severe appendicitis (severe appendicitis group: SAG). The clinical outcomes were compared with those in other published reports. The cost-effectiveness of gasless-TULAA was compared with that of conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (CMLA) in our hospital.

RESULTS

In MAG (n = 228), the operation time and postoperative hospital stay were 46.9 ± 22.7 min and 2.6 ± 1.2 days, respectively. The gasless-TULAA was completed without trocars in 91.2 % of patients. The surgical outcomes of SAG were significantly worse than those of MAG (p < 0.001). The surgical cost of gasless-TULAA was significantly lower than that of CMLA (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Gasless-TULAA is a cost-effective, safe, and readily available surgical technique for mild appendicitis, which can obviate the need for specialized equipment.

Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy versus conventional 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy for appendicitis: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and safety of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) and conventional 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy (3-port LA) for appendectomy.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Springer link, and the Cochrane library databases up to April, 2014, for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data were pooled by weighted mean differences (WMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

We found 11 RCTs, with a collective total of 731 patients treated with SILA and 725 patients treated with 3-point LA. Results indicated no significant differences between SILA and 3-port LA in primary outcomes, including wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus, and total postoperative complications, and some secondary outcomes, including postoperative pain scores and length of hospital stay. However, SILA was associated with significantly longer operative times (WMD = 6.78, 95% CI = 3.78-9.79, P < 0.00001) and higher doses of analgesia (WMD = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.45-1.47, P = 0.0002) than the 3-port LA.

CONCLUSION

Although there was no significant difference in the safety of SILA vs. that of 3-port LA, our findings do not support the application of SILA because of its significantly longer operative times and the higher doses of analgesia required compared with those for 3-point LA.

Single incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of single incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) in comparison with conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (CMLA) has not been conclusively determined.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (Medline, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) was performed. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SILA with CMLA were carried out by RevMan 5.0 software.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs comparing SILA and CMLA were included. Overall, 1,216 patients were operated on: 611 cases by SILA versus 605 cases by CMLA. Compared with CMLA, SILA was associated with increased procedural difficulty, prolonged procedural duration, shorter length of hospital stay, earlier return to normal activity and better cosmesis. There were no significant differences in postoperative pain scores and complication rates between SILA and CMLA.

CONCLUSION

The current best evidence shows SILA holds the promise of improving postoperative recovery and cosmetic result with equal efficacy and safety, whereas it is associated with higher surgical difficulty with longer surgical time when compared with CMLA.

Transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic combined cholecystectomy and appendectomy: a retrospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) developed rapidly in recent years. This report describes our initial experience on SILS combined cholecystectomy and appendectomy (SILSC&A) with a unique method of umbilical reconstruction. In addition, a retrospective comparison with conventional combined laparoscopic cholecystectomy and appendectomy (LC&A) was analyzed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between April 2009 and December 2013, 62 patients with benign gallbladder and appendix disease underwent laparoscopic combined cholecystectomy and appendectomy at our institution. Of these, 34 (54.8%) underwent SILSC&A (Group 1), and 28 (45.2%) underwent LC&A (Group 2). Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were analyzed retrospectively and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

No significant differences were identified in the preoperative patient characteristics between the two groups. SILSC&A was associated with a shorter operative time (62.2 ± 19.7 versus 77.5 ± 21.4 minutes, respectively; P = .005) and better cosmetic results (4.6 ± 0.7 versus 4.1 ± 0.6, respectively; P = .004). There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to other postoperative variables.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study suggests that SILSC&A is as safe and efficacious as conventional LC&A in experienced hands. A uniform method of umbilical reconstruction is helpful in improving cosmesis and decreasing hernia rate. Long-term follow-up and further prospective randomized trials are anticipated.

Efficacy of transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy for appendicitis: a four-year experience at a single center

PURPOSE

To compare the surgical outcomes after transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy (TULAA) and open appendectomy (OA) at a single institution.

METHODS

We compared the surgical outcomes for 94 consecutive patients who underwent TULAA between April 2010 and March 2014 to those for 91 consecutive patients who underwent OA between April 2006 and March 2010.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the clinicopathological backgrounds between the two groups. Although the lengths of the operations were similar in both groups, the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the TULAA group (4.7 days vs. 5.4 days, P = 0.02). The need for abdominal drain insertion was significantly reduced in the TULAA group owing to sufficient intraperitoneal exploration (P = 0.03). The incidence of postoperative complications was also lower in the TULAA group, but the difference was not significant (8.6 % vs. 12.1 %, P = 0.31). In complicated cases, a lower incidence of surgical site infection was confirmed in the TULAA group (6.7 % vs. 20.7 %, P = 0.12).

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrated that TULAA provided better surgical outcomes, especially a faster recovery. TULAA could be an effective procedure incorporating both open and laparoscopic techniques, and can be implemented as a standard procedure for the treatment of appendicitis, regardless of disease severity.