Single-incision versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an ambulatory surgery setting: A prospective randomised double-blind controlled trial

Single-port laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Performing a single-port laparoscopic pancreatectomy is technically challenging. Single-port laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (SPLPD) is rarely reported in English literature.

METHODS

Eighty-seven cases of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) were performed by a single surgical team in the Department of Pancreatic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University between February 2020 and December 2020. Among these, 13 cases of LPD (group 1) were performed using a single-port device. Basing on the same inclusion and exclusion criteria, 68 cases of LPD performed using traditional 5-trocar were included as a control group (group 2). The patient's demographic characteristics, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Five men and eight women were included in the SPLPD group. The median age of these patients was 57 years. The patients who underwent SPLPD required a longer operative time (332.7 ± 38.1 min vs. 305.8 ± 64.7 min; p = 0.03) than those in the LPD group. The estimated blood loss, conversion rate, blood transfusion rate, time to oral intake, postoperative hospital stays, and perioperative complications were comparable between the two groups. The short-term oncological outcomes, such as R0 rate and lymph node harvested, were comparable between the two groups. The 90-day mortality of all patients was zero.

CONCLUSIONS

SPLPD is a safe and feasible procedure for well-selected patients in an experienced minimally invasive pancreatic surgery team. SPLPD may provide several potential advantages, such as the requirement of fewer trocars, fewer abdominal complications, and reduced participation of assistants than conventional LPD.

Evidence-based surgery for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is frequently performed for acute cholecystitis and symptomatic cholelithiasis. Considerable variation in the execution of key steps of the operation remains. We conducted a systematic review of evidence regarding best practices for critical intraoperative steps for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods

We identified 5 main intraoperative decision points in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: (1) number and position of laparoscopic ports; (2) identification of cystic artery and duct; (3) division of cystic artery and duct; (4) indications for subtotal cholecystectomy; and (5) retrieval of the gallbladder. PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were queried for relevant studies. Randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews were included for analysis, and evidence quality was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework.

Results

Fifty-two articles were included. Although all port configurations were comparable from a safety standpoint, fewer ports sometimes resulted in improved cosmesis or decreased pain but longer operative times. The critical view of safety should be obtained for identification of the cystic duct and artery but may be obtained through fundus-first dissection and augmented with cholangiography or ultrasound. Insufficient evidence exists to compare harmonic-shear, clipless ligation against clip ligation of the cystic duct and artery. Stump closure during subtotal cholecystectomy may reduce rates of bile leak and reoperation. Use of retrieval bag for gallbladder extraction results in minimal benefit. Most studies were underpowered to detect differences in incidence of rare complications.

Conclusion

Key operative steps of laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be informed by both compiled data and surgeon preference/patient considerations.

Comparison of outcomes of single incision robotic cholecystectomy and single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Backgrounds/Aims

Multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the standard surgical procedure for symptomatic gallbladder diseases. However, as a result of the ongoing trend toward minimally invasive laparoscopy, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has evolved. Single-incision robotic cholecystectomy (SIRC) can overcome several limitations of manual SILC. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the safety and feasibility of SIRC and SILC.

Methods

This study retrospectively reviewed data for all patients who underwent SIRC or SILC from March 2018 to July 2019 in a single institution. The following variables were analyzed: age, sex, body mass index, pain scale, length of stay, and complications. The data were analyzed using the Independent two sample t-test or the Fisher’s exact test.

Results

A total of 343 patients underwent SIRC or SILC during the study period. After excluding patients with acute cholecystitis, 197 SIRC and 103 SILC patients were analyzed in this study. The surgery time and postoperative hospital stay did not differ between SIRC and SILC. However, the SIRC patients experienced less bile spillage during the surgery than did the SILC patients (SIRC vs. SILC: 24 (23.3%) vs. 11 (5.6%) cases, respectively; p<0.001). Although there was no difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between procedures, additional pain control was administered more frequently in SILC patients (SILC 1.08±0.893, SIRC 0.58±0.795; p<0.001).

Conclusions

While both SILC and SIRC are effective for single-incision cholecystectomy, SIRC was superior to SILC in terms of technical stability. Moreover, it has the advantage of postoperative pain control.