Single port access (SPA) cholecystectomy: two year follow-up

Solo single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy using the parallel method; Surgical technique reducing a steep learning curve

Backgrounds/Aims

To describe the techniques, short-term outcomes, and learning curve of solo single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Solo-SILC) using a laparoscopic scope holder.

Methods

A total of 591 patients who underwent Solo-SILC from July 2014 to December 2016 performed by four experienced hepatobiliary surgeons were retrospectively assessed. Solo-SILC was performed using the parallel method using a scope holder. The moving average method was used to investigate the learning curve in terms of operative time.

Results

In total, 590 Solo-SILC procedures were performed. Very few procedures were converted to multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. There was one case of bile duct injury. The mean operative time (59.93±25.77 min) was shorter than that in other studies of SILC. Three postoperative complications, delaying bile leakage, occurred in the patients treated by one surgeon. These cases were resolved by ultrasound-guided puncture and drainage. The learning curve for surgeons A, B, and C was overcome after 14, 12, and 12 cases. Surgeon D, who had the most experience with SILC, had no obvious learning curve.

Conclusions

Hepatobiliary surgeons experienced in LC can perform Solo-SILC almost immediately. Solo-SILC using the parallel technique represents a more stable option and is a promising treatment for gallbladder disease.

Single-Incision Pediatric Endosurgery Cholecystectomy Performed by Residents in Children with Sickle Cell Disease

Introduction: Few centers worldwide have advanced single-incision pediatric endosurgery (SIPES) for pediatric age group. Up to our knowledge this is the first study assessing the safety of SIPES cholecystectomy in children with sickle cell disease (SCD) done by surgical residents. Aims: To determine the feasibility, safety, and expediency of SIPES cholecystectomy in children with SCD performed by surgical residents. Materials and Methods: Retrospective study of all SIPES cholecystectomies performed in our unit from April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2018. We compared the outcome of SIPES cholecystectomy done by fellows and residents. SIPES Covidien 5-12 mm port was inserted through umbilicus. Long 50 cm laparoscope, straight regular instruments, and transabdominal gallbladder traction suture were used in all patients. The cystic duct and artery were identified and divided. The gallbladder is then dissected off the liver and extracted from the abdomen through the port. Results: Forty-three SCD patients underwent SIPES cholecystectomy for 7 years. Mean HbS was 37.56%. Mean age was 10 years. Twenty-four cases (56%) and 19 (44%) were performed by 8 fellows and 10 residents, respectively. Nine other procedures were done simultaneously with cholecystectomy and were excluded from the mean operative time (MOT). The MOT for all cases was 85 minutes, 78 minutes for fellows and 94 minutes for residents (P value is <.001). One extra port was inserted in 2 patients at the beginning of the series. Conclusion: SIPES cholecystectomy in children with SCD is safe and feasible if done by residents under supervision. Stepwise training is essential in this challenging surgery. Involving residents with other SIPES procedures and hands-on minimally invasive surgery single port workshops help them in improving their skills.

Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy with Single Port Access System in 15 Dogs

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the outcome of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed with a single port access system (SPAS) in dogs.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

ANIMALS

Fifteen client-owned dogs with nonobstructive gallbladder disease.

METHODS

Medical records were reviewed for signalment, clinical signs, diagnostic imaging, surgical findings, and outcome until suture removal.

RESULTS

The SPAS was placed 1 cm caudal to the umbilicus. The procedure was completed with the SPAS alone in two cases. An additional cannula was added in 12 cases. In the last 10 cases, the additional cannula was placed at the beginning of the procedure. Dissection began at the cystic duct in 11 dogs (73%). In three cases (20%), the SPAS procedure was converted to a laparotomy; two of these conversions were elective, and one was emergent. The risk of conversion was affected by the experience of the surgeon (odds ratio = 0.53; P = .0105), and the rate of conversion was reduced when a cannula was added at the beginning of the procedure (P = .022). Fourteen dogs were discharged from the hospital. One dog died after being discharged due to severe cholangiohepatitis, and another dog died due to leakage of a gastrostomy tube.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of SPAS for cholecystectomy in dogs has an acceptable outcome. The experience gained by the surgeon and the addition of a cannula reduced the risk of conversion.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE/IMPACT

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be performed with a SPAS. The placement of an additional cannula at the beginning of the procedure is highly recommended.

Single-port and multi-port laparoscopic left lateral liver sectionectomy for treating benign liver diseases: a prospective, randomized, controlled study

BACKGROUND

The use of single-port laparoscopy for left-lateral liver sectionectomy (LLLS) has been reported in the literature, but the effectiveness and safety of LLLS has not been validated in randomized, controlled trials. This prospective randomized controlled trial compared the effectiveness and safety of single-port and multi-port laparoscopic LLLS for the surgical treatment of benign liver disease.

METHODS

Altogether, 38 patients aged 17-65 years (16 men, 22 women) with benign liver diseases were hospitalized for elective laparoscopic LLLS between January 2010 and December 2012. Patients were randomly assigned to either single-port (n = 19) or multi-port (n = 19) laparoscopic LLLS. Main outcome measures were operative time, volume of intraoperative blood loss, complication rates, and postoperative hospitalization.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. Single-port and multi-port laparoscopies were successfully completed in all but one patient (1/19, 5.3 %) who required conversion from a single-port to a multi-port procedure. The two groups had similar mean operative times and volumes of intraoperative blood loss. There were no clinically significant postoperative complications or deaths. The single-port group had a significantly shorter postoperative hospitalization than the multi-port group (2.5 ± 1.7 vs. 4.0 ± 2.1 days; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Single-port laparoscopic LLLS is a technically feasible, effective, safe alternative to multi-port laparoscopy for the treatment of benign liver diseases in cautiously selected patients.

Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy using Konyang Standard Method

Purpose

Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is a minimally invasive surgery that is growing rapidly among surgical procedures. However, there is no standard method for SILC. Therefore, we evaluated the adequacy and feasibility of SILC using Konyang Standard Method.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed our series of 307 SILCs performed between April 2010 and August 2012. Initially we excluded the patients who were more than 70 years old, had cardiologic or pulmonologic problems and complications of acute cholecystitis. After 50 cases, we did not apply the exclusion criteria. We performed SILC by Konyang Standard Method using three-trocar single port (hand-made) and long articulated instruments.

Results

Three hundred and seven patients underwent SILC. Male were 131 patients and female were 176 patients. Mean age was 51.6 ± 13.7 years old and mean body mass index was 24.8 ± 3.6 kg/m². Ninety-three patients had histories of previous abdominal operation. Patient's pathologies included: chronic cholecystitis (247 cases), acute cholecystitis (30 cases), gall bladder (GB) polyps (24 cases), and GB empyema (6 cases). Mean operating time was 53.1 ± 25.4 minutes and mean hospital stay was 2.9 ± 3.4 days. There were four cases of 3-4 ports conversion due to cystic artery bleeding. Complications occurred in 5 cases including wound infection (2 cases), bile duct injury (1 case), duodenal perforation (1 case), and umbilical hernia (1 case).

Conclusion

SILC using Konyang Standard Method is safe and feasible. Therefore, our standard procedure can be applied to almost all benign GB disease.

Remains of the day: Biliary complications related to single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy

AIM: To assesse the rate of bile duct injuries (BDI) and overall biliary complications during single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) compared to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC).

METHODS: SPLC has recently been proposed as an innovative surgical approach for gallbladder surgery. So far, its safety with respect to bile duct injuries has not been specifically evaluated. A systematic review of the literature published between January 1990 and November 2012 was performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing SPLC versus CLC reporting BDI rate and overall biliary complications were included. The quality of RCT was assessed using the Jadad score. Analysis was made by performing a meta-analysis, using Review Manager 5.2. This study was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A retrospective study including all retrospective reports on SPLC was also performed alongside.

RESULTS: From 496 publications, 11 RCT including 898 patients were selected for meta-analysis. No studies were rated as high quality (Jadad score ≥ 4). Operative indications included benign gallbladder disease operated in an elective setting in all studies, excluding all emergency cases and acute cholecystitis. The median follow-up was 1 mo (range 0.03-18 mo). The incidence of BDI was 0.4% for SPLC and 0% for CLC; the difference was not statistically different (P = 0.36). The incidence of overall biliary complication was 1.6% for SPLC and 0.5% for CLC, the difference did not reached statistically significance (P = 0.21, 95%CI: 0.66-15). Sixty non-randomized trials including 3599 patients were also analysed. The incidence of BDI reported then was 0.7%.

CONCLUSION: The safety of SPLC cannot be assumed, based on the current evidence. Hence, this new technology cannot be recommended as standard technique for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Development of a novel controllable, multidirectional, reusable metallic port with a wide working space

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic surgery is currently a standard procedure in many countries. Furthermore, conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy is developing into a single-port procedure. However, in many developing countries, disposable medical products are expensive and adequate medical waste disposable facilities are absent. Advanced medical treatments such as laparoscopic or single-port surgeries are not readily available in many areas of developing countries, and there are often no other sterilization methods besides autoclaving. Moreover, existing reusable metallic ports are impractical and are thus not widely used.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We developed a novel controllable, multidirectional single-port device that can be autoclaved, and with a wide working space, which was employed in five patients.

RESULTS

In all patients, laparoscopic cholecystectomy was accomplished without complications.

CONCLUSION

Our device facilitates single-port surgery in areas of the world with limited sterilization methods and offers a novel alternative to conventional tools for creating a smaller incision, decrease postoperative pain, and improve cosmesis. This novel device can also lower the cost of medical treatment and offers a promising tool for major surgeries requiring a wide working space.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with improved cosmesis scoring at the cost of significantly higher hernia rates: 1-year results of a prospective randomized, multicenter, single-blinded trial of traditional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive techniques have become an integral part of general surgery with recent investigation into single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC). This study presents the final 1-year results of a prospective, randomized, multicenter, single-blinded trial of SILC vs multiport cholecystectomy (4PLC).

STUDY DESIGN

Patients with biliary colic and documented gallstones or polyps or with biliary dyskinesia were randomized to SILC vs 4PLC. Data measures included operative details, adverse events, and conversion to 4PLC or laparotomy. Patients were followed for 12 months.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients underwent randomization to SILC (n = 119) or 4PLC (n = 81). Enrollment ranged from 1 to 50 patients with 4 sites enrolling >25 patients. Total adverse events were not significantly different between groups (36% 4PLC vs 45% SILC; p = 0.24), as were severe adverse events (4% 4PLC vs 10% SILC; p = 0.11). Incision-related adverse events were higher after SILC (11.7% vs 4.9%; p = 0.13), but all of these were listed as mild or moderate. Total hernia rates were 1.2% (1 of 81) in 4PLC patients vs 8.4% (10 of 119) in SILC patients (p = 0.03). At 1-year follow-up, cosmesis scores continued to favor SILC (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this trial show SILC to be a safe and feasible procedure when compared with 4PLC, with similar total adverse events but with an identified significant increase in hernia formation. Cosmesis scoring and patient preference at 12 months continue to favor SILC, and more than half of the patients were willing to pay more for a single-site surgery over a standard laparoscopic procedure. Additional longer-term population-based studies are needed to clarify if this increased rate of hernia formation as compared with 4PLC will continue to hold true.

Double incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (DILC) with routinary intra-operative cholangiography (IOC) : less trauma, same safety. Report on 30 consecutive non-selected cases

Laparoscopic approach for cholecystectomy is, actually, the gold standard for gallbladder surgical benign diseases. Single transumbilical incision can further reduce abdominal wall trauma. Two main related issues are still to be enlighten: difficulty in obtaining a clear exposure of the Calot's triangle and routinely use of intra-operative cholangiography (IOC). A standardized technique of double incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (DILC) with routine IOC is described. Between January and May 2012, 30 consecutive patients scheduled for elective cholecystectomy underwent DILC with IOC. Exclusion criteria were: clinical and/or radiological suspect of gallbladder malignancy/acute cholecystitis (AC)/common duct stones; ASA > 3; previous extensive abdominal surgery. Follow-up was performed at 7, 30 and 60 days postoperatively. Three 5-mm trocars through the umbilicus and one 3-mm subcostally on the right are used, along with a 30° laparoscopic camera. IOC is performed through the 3-mm channel. Median age was 49.5 years (range 24-78); female/male was 21/9. Median BMI was 27.4 (range 16.2-38.9). AC was encountered in five cases (17 %). Synchronous AC and choledocolithiasis occurred in one case (3 %), requiring conversion to laparoscopic choledocolithotomy. Additional ports were required in these latter five patients (17 %). IOC was routinely attempted in all patients, succeeding in 26 (86 %). Median operative 'skin to skin' time was 47.8 min (range 25-75). In the subgroup not receiving IOC, median operative time was 35 min (range 25-45); 51.5 min as median time (range 25-75) was reported for the subgroup undergone the entire planned procedure. No intraoperative complications occurred. Median length of stay was 1.51 days (range 1-5). Postoperative minor complications occurred in three patients (10 %) and wound umbilical infection occurred in one (3.4 %). DILC with the routine use of IOC seems to be repeatable and safe. Even if DILC seems more easily learnt, further studies are needed to address this issue.

Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus standard multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a case-control study comparing the long-term quality of life and body image

PURPOSE

To study the postoperative quality of life and body image of patients who underwent either single-port cholecystectomy (SPC) or standard multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SMLC) in a long-term assessment.

METHODS

Fifty patients who underwent SPC using the reusable X-Cone™ Laparoscopic Device were compared with a matched group (age, sex, body mass index) of 50 patients after SMLC. The health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and body image at 17 months postoperatively (median, range 9-23) was analysed by means of the Short-Form 12 Health Survey and the Body Image Questionnaire, respectively.

RESULTS

Both patient groups had comparable baseline characteristics, clinical courses, and postoperative complication rates. SPC patients were significantly more satisfied with the cosmetic result of their scar at 17 months postoperatively, in comparison to SMLC patients (cosmetic scale: 22.6 ± 2.8 vs. 19.5 ± 3.7, p < 0.001). However, the HRQOL did not differ between the SPC and SMLC patients (physical component scale: 50.0 ± 8.9 vs. 48.8 ± 9.4, p = 0.48; mental component scale: 53.8 ± 6.5 vs. 51.3 ± 8.5, p = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

Although the overall postoperative HRQOL was comparable, this study suggests that the cosmetic result of SPC after complete wound healing is superior to the standard multiport laparoscopic procedure.

Consensus statement of the consortium for LESS cholecystectomy

Many surgeons attempting Laparo-Endoscopic Single Site (LESS) cholecystectomy have found the operation difficult, which is inconsistent with our experience. This article is an attempt to promote a standardized approach that we feel surgeons with laparoscopic skills can perform safely and efficiently. This is a four-trocar approach consistent with the four incisions utilized in conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. After administration of general anesthesia, marcaine is injected at the umbilicus and a 12-mm vertical incision is made through the already existing anatomical scar of the umbilicus. A single four-trocar port is inserted. A 5-mm deflectable-tip laparoscope is placed through the trocar at the 8 o'clock position, a bariatric length rigid grasper is inserted through the trocar at the 4 o'clock position (to grasp the fundus), and a rigid bent grasper is placed through the 10-mm port (to grasp the infundibulum). This arrangement of the instruments promotes minimal internal and external instrument clashing with simultaneous optimization of the operative view. This orientation allows retraction of the gallbladder in a cephalad and lateral direction, development of a window between the gallbladder and the liver which promotes the "critical view" of the cystic duct and artery, and provides triangulation with excellent visualization of the operative field. The operation is concluded with diaphragmatic irrigation of marcaine solution to minimize postoperative pain. Standardization of LESS cholecystectomy will speed adoption, reduce intraoperative complications, and improve the efficiency and safety of the approach.

Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A review on the complications

BACKGROUND:

The aim of this study was to establish the incidence of postoperative complications after single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

A literature search was performed using the PubMed database. Search terms included single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, single port cholecystectomy, minimal invasive laparoscopic cholecystectomy, nearly scarless cholecystectomy and complications.

RESULTS:

A total of 38 articles meeting the selection criteria were reviewed. A total of 1180 patients were selected to undergo single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Introduction of extra ports was necessary in 4% of the patients. Conversion to open cholecystectomy was required in 0.4% of the patients. Laparoscopic cholangiography was attempted in 4% of the patients. The incidence of major complications requiring surgical intervention or ERCP with stenting was 1.7%. The mortality rate was zero.

CONCLUSION:

Although the number of complications after single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy seems favourable, it is too early to conclude that single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a safe procedure. Large randomised controlled trials will be necessary to further establish its safety.

Laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) vs. conventional laparoscopic fundoplication for GERD: is there a difference?

BACKGROUND

This report details our experience with laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) fundoplication for GERD and provides a comparison to earlier contiguous patients undergoing conventional laparoscopic fundoplication.

METHODS

With institutional review board approval, symptoms before and after LESS fundoplications and conventional laparoscopic fundoplications were scored by patients. Outcomes after 130 consecutive LESS fundoplications were compared to 130 contiguous consecutive outcomes after conventional laparoscopic fundoplications.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing conventional laparoscopic vs. LESS fundoplication were very similar. There were no conversions to "open" operations and no notable complications with LESS fundoplication. Symptom reduction was broad and dramatic for patients undergoing LESS or conventional laparoscopic fundoplication; 96 % of patients who underwent LESS fundoplication scored their incision as ≥8 (1 = revolting to 10 = beautiful).

CONCLUSIONS

Relative to conventional laparoscopy, LESS surgery provides excellent resolution of symptoms without an apparent scar. In comparison to conventional laparoscopy, LESS fundoplication is as safe with similar symptom improvement and superior cosmesis.

Comparative study of safety and outcomes of single-port access versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Single-port access (SPA) offers cosmetic advantages in addition to the well-recognised benefits of conventional multi-port laparoscopic (CL) surgery, and can be carried out using standard straight instruments. We report the outcomes of our early experience with SPA colorectal resections in comparison with CL surgery.

METHODS

We compared the following data, patient characteristics, operating time, morbidity, operative mortality, length of hospital stay and tumour variables, of patients who underwent SPA right, left, sigmoid and total colon resections, as well as high anterior resections and panproctocolectomies, with that of patients who underwent equivalent conventional laparoscopic (CL) operations. The 40 SPA and 78 CL patients studied underwent surgery between February 2008 and September 2011.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the SPA and CL operations, as regards the patient's sex (55.0 vs. 62.8% males, p = 0.411), comorbidity (ASA I 10.0 vs. 12.8%; ASA II 57.5 vs. 59.0%; ASA III 32.5 vs. 25.6%; ASA IV 0 vs. 2.6%, p = 0.722) and body mass index (26.2 vs. 28.0 kg/m(2), p = 0.073). However, SPA patients were younger (mean age 54.1 vs. 64.8 years, p = 0.001), and malignancy was a less common indication for surgery (25.0 vs. 71.8%, p < 0.001). There were no conversions to open surgery, and one death occurred in the CL group (1.3%). Mean operating time (162 vs. 170 min, p = 0.547), median post-operative hospital stay (4 vs. 4 days, p = 0.255) and morbidity (7.5 vs. 12.8%, p = 0.538) were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

SPA laparoscopic surgery appears safe in the hands of experienced laparoscopic surgeons, with no increase in operating time, length of stay, morbidity and mortality. Selection of patients with indications for surgery for benign disease may be of importance to ensure an oncologically safe initial uptake of SPA colorectal practice.

Intermediate results of a prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive techniques have become an integral part of general surgery, with recent investigation into single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC). This study presents a prospective, randomized, multicenter, single-blind trial of SILC compared with four-port cholecystectomy (4PLC) with the goal of assessing safety, feasibility, and factors predicting outcomes.

METHODS

Patients with biliary colic and documented gallstones or polyps or with biliary dyskinesia were randomized to SILC or 4PLC. Data measures included operative details, adverse events, and conversion to 4PLC or laparotomy. Pain, cosmesis, and quality-of-life scores were documented. Patients were followed for 12 months.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients were randomized to SILC (n = 117) or 4PLC (n = 80) (3 patients chose not to participate after randomization). Patients were similar except for body mass index (BMI), which was lower in the SILC patients (28.9 vs. 31.0, p = 0.011). One SILC patient required conversion to 4PLC. Operative time was longer for SILC (57 vs. 45 min, p < 0.0001), but outcomes, including total adverse events, were similar (34% vs. 38%, p = 0.55). Cosmesis scores favored SILC (p < 0.002), but pain scores were lower for 4PLC (1 point difference in 10-point scale, p < 0.028) despite equal analgesia use. Wound complications were greater after SILC (10% vs. 3%, p = 0.047), but hernia recurrence was equivalent for both procedures (1.3% vs. 3.4%, p = 0.65). Univariate analysis showed female gender, SILC, and younger age to be predictors for increased pain scores, while SILC was associated with improved cosmesis scores.

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicenter randomized controlled trial of SILC versus 4PLC, SILC appears to be safe with a similar biliary complication profile. Pain scores and wound complication rates are higher for SILC; however, cosmesis scores favored SILC. For patients preferring a better cosmetic outcome and willing to accept possible increased postoperative pain, SILC offers a safe alternative to the standard 4PLC. Further follow-up is needed to detail the long-term risk of wound morbidities, including hernia recurrence.

Traditional versus single-site placement of adjustable gastric banding: a comparative study and cost analysis

In bariatric surgery, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has proven effective in reducing weight and improving obesity-associated comorbidities. Recently, however, laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery has been proposed to minimize the invasiveness of laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study is to compare the operative cost and peri-operative outcomes of these two approaches. We undertook a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing either LAGB or LESS between March 2006 and October 2009. The outcomes and cost of 25 LESS gastric bandings were compared to 121 standard LAGB. Costs included operative time, consumables, and laparoscopic tower depreciation. Both groups had similar patient demographics, body mass index, and comorbidities; with the exception of age (37 year for single site vs. 44 years for standard; P=0.002). There were no statistical differences for operative time (78 vs. 76 min, P=0.69), blood loss (8.4 vs. 9 ml, P=0.76), pain score (0.81 vs. 0.84 at 1 week, P=0.95) or complication rates (12% vs. 14%, P=1). Length of stay was shorter for the LESS group (0.5 day vs. 1.5 days, P=0.02). The mean operative cost for the LESS banding was $20,502/case vs. $20,346/case for the standard LAGB, with no statistically significant difference between the approaches (P=0.73). Operative costs and peri-operative outcomes of LESS gastric banding are comparable with those of the standard LAGB procedure. As a result, single-site surgery can be proposed as a valid alternative to the standard procedure with cosmetic advantage and comparable complication rate.

Are natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and single-incision surgery viable techniques for cholecystectomy?

BACKGROUND

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and single-incision surgery (SIS) are less invasive alternatives to traditional laparoscopic techniques. Concerns exist over the safety of these new approaches, and randomized controlled trials have yet to confirm a net benefit. If NOTES and SIS techniques are to become standard practice, then they should be shown to be safe and hold clear benefits to patients. We aim at comparing the available results by using these techniques in a standard laparoscopic operation (cholecystectomy).

METHODS

A systematic review using available databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register) and the published English language medical literature was performed. All the archived articles were cross-referenced. Outcome data obtained from a Cochrane review of laparoscopic cholecystectomy were used as the control group. All the operations performed via a single incision were grouped under SIS, and operations in which a natural orifice (alone or as a hybrid technique) was analyzed, under NOTES group. Mortality and complications were the primary outcome measures.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-five papers including 4703 patients (714 NOTES, 3989 SIS) were selected for analysis. Overall complication rate was 4.2% in the NOTES group versus 4.3% in the SIS group, with a distinct complication profile. No mortality was reported in either group. NOTES procedures had a longer mean operative time than SIS techniques (107 versus 79 minutes). The conversion rate between NOTES and SILS was similar (3.4% versus 3.3%, respectively).

DISCUSSION

No difference in the incidence of complications was observed with the newer techniques. Adequately powered randomized control trials are needed to clarify whether SIS/NOTES cholecystectomy has a similar length of hospital stay to traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The increased occurrence of specific types of complications and their use in acute pathology needs further investigation to warrant further use in routine surgical practice.

The road to reduced port surgery: from single big incisions to single small incisions, and beyond

Single-port surgery has seen almost as rapid an application as multiport laparoscopy during the early 1990s. Hopefully, we will learn from our predecessors to apply the dictums of safety and science as we move forward with this new technique to ensure adequate adoption and successful outcomes with limited errors and concerns along the way.

Trocar-site hernia after single-port cholecystectomy: not an exceptional complication?

BACKGROUND

When compared with standard multiport laparoscopy, the larger fascial incision in single-port surgery (SPS) may imply a potentially increased risk of surgical-site complications, such as herniation. The long-term risk of access-site complications in SPS is still unpredictable.

METHODS

Between July 2009 and May 2011, n=78 patients (n=54 females), with a median age of 42 years (range: 18-85 years), underwent single-port cholecystectomy. The median body mass index was 25.4 kg/m(2) (range: 17-39 kg/m(2)). All surgeries were performed by a single surgeon (K.K.) using a completely reusable single-port access device (X-Cone™; KARL STORZ GmbH, Tuttlingen, Germany), and fascial closure technique was comparable in all patients. The first 50 patients (n=32 females) attended a structured follow-up examination including a meticulous clinical examination and ultrasonography of the access site at a median follow-up time of 17 months (range: 9-23 months).

RESULTS

We recorded postoperative complications in 5 of the 50 patients (10%) after single-port cholecystectomy. Four occurred in the early postoperative course and presented as mild wound complications. One of the 50 patients (2%) experienced a symptomatic trocar-site hernia (TSH) 4 months after surgery. No biliary complications (bile leakage, retained stones, etc.) were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

Although potentially biased by a relatively small number of patients, our study provides evidence that TSH after single-port cholecystectomy is (i) not less frequent when compared with standard laparoscopy, (ii) not as infrequent as suggested by the current literature, and (iii) not only associated with technical failure or patients' comorbidity.

Single-port versus multi-port cholecystectomy for patients with acute cholecystitis: a retrospective comparative analysis

BACKGROUND

Trans-umbilical single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy for chronic gallbladder disease is becoming increasingly accepted worldwide. But so far, no reports exist about the challenging single-port surgery for acute cholecystitis. The objective of this study was to describe our experience with single-port cholecystectomy in comparison to the conventional laparoscopic technique.

METHODS

Between August 2008 and March 2010, 73 patients with symptomatic gallbladder disease and histopathological signs of acute cholecystitis underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy at our institution. Thirty-six patients were operated on with the single-port technique (SP group) and the data were compared with a control group of 37 patients who were treated with the multi-port technique (MP group).

RESULTS

The mean age in the SP group was 61.5 (range 21-81) years and in the MP group was 60 (range 21-94) (P=0.712). Gender, ASA status and BMI were not significantly different. The number of white blood cells was different before [SP: 9.2 (range 2.8-78.4); MP: 13.2 (range 4.4-28.6); P=0.001] and after the operation [SP: 7.8 (range 3.5-184.8); MP: 11.1 (range 5-20.8); P=0.002]. Mean operating time was 88 (range 34-174) minutes in the SP group vs 94 (range 39-209) minutes in the MP group (P=0.147). Four patients (5%) required conversion to an open procedure (SP: 1; MP: 3; P=0.320). During the follow-up period of 332 (range 29-570) days in the SP group and 428 (range 111-619) days in the MP group (P=0.044), eleven (15%) patients developed postoperative complications (P=0.745) and two patients in the SP group required reoperation (P=0.154).

CONCLUSIONS

Trans-umbilical single-port cholecystectomy for beginning acute cholecystitis is feasible and the complication rate is comparable with the standard multi-port operation. In spite of our good results, these operations are difficult to perform and should only be done in high-volume centers for laparoscopic surgery with experience in single-port surgery.

Single-port laparoscopic pelvic and para-aortic lymph node sampling or lymphadenectomy: development of a technique and instrumentation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Innovations in minimally invasive surgery have allowed surgeons to perform increasingly complex surgeries through smaller incisions. We describe the feasibility and the technique of single-port laparoscopic pelvic and para-aortic lymph node sampling or lymphadenectomy in gynecologic malignancies.

METHODS

The study was approved by the institutional review board at the Cleveland Clinic (Cleveland, Ohio). Inclusion criterion was patients with apparent early-stage gynecologic malignancies who required pelvic and/or para-aortic lymph node sampling or lymphadenectomy and were candidates for single-port laparoscopy. Procedures were performed through a single 2.0- to 3.0-cm umbilical incision using a single-port device, deflecting-tip laparoscope, and multifunctional instrumentation.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients underwent single-port surgery/staging performed during the study period. The median patient age was 58 years (range, 17-80 years), and the median patient body mass index was 30 mg/kg² (range, 19-46 mg/kg²). Median overall operating time was 120 minutes (range, 60-185 minutes). Median pelvic and para-aortic node counts were 14 (range, 7-19) and 6 (range, 2-14), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this preliminary report, the technique was feasible, and no morbidity was noted. Further studies are needed to better define the ideal gynecologic oncology procedures for single-site surgery and to assess the relative benefits of this new technique compared with more conventional minimally invasive approaches.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery - current status and controversies

Scarless surgery is the Holy Grail of surgery and the very raison d’etre of Minimal Access Surgery was the reduction of scars and thereby pain and suffering of the patients. The work of Muhe and Mouret in the late 80s, paved the way for mainstream laparoscopic procedures and it rapidly became the method of choice for many intra-abdominal procedures. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is a very exciting new modality in the field of minimal access surgery which works for further reducing the scars of standard laparoscopy and towards scarless surgery. Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) was developed for scarless surgery, but did not gain popularity due to a variety of reasons. NOTES stands for natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery, a term coined by a consortium in 2005. NOTES remains a research technique with only a few clinical cases having been reported. The lack of success of NOTES seems to have spurred on the interest in single-incision laparoscopy as an eminently doable technique in the present with minimum visible scarring, rendering a ‘scarless’ effect. Laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) is, a term coined by a multidisciplinary consortium in 2008 for single-incision laparoscopic surgery. These are complementary technologies with similar difficulties of access, lack of triangulation and inadequate instrumentation as of date. LESS seems to offer an advantage to surgeons with its familiar field of view and instruments similar to those used in conventional laparoscopy. LESS remains a evolving special technique used successfully in many a centre, but with a significant way to go before it becomes mainstream. It currently stands between standard laparoscopy and NOTES in the armamentarium of minimal access surgery. This article outlines the development of LESS giving an overview of all the techniques and devices available and likely to be available in the future.

Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Using a “Two-Port” Technique Is Safe and Feasible: Experience in 101 Consecutive Patients

Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is a new minimally-invasive technique that has recently been developed to address several disease processes of the gallbladder. However, the safety and feasibility of this technique are still being evaluated. Utilizing a “two-port” technique with transabdominal suture retraction and a rigorous adherence to the critical view of safety, we evaluated our experience in a prospectively maintained database and compared this with standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) over the same period. SILC was completed successfully in 87 per cent of patients. Operative times were found to be similar between SLC and SILC (75 and 76 minutes, respectively; P = 0.12). Operative blood loss, hospital stay, and short-term complications were not statistically different between SILC and SLC. Cholangiograms, obtained on a selective basis, were performed in 19 per cent of SILCs. No bile duct injuries occurred during SILC or SLC. Although our aggregate number is not enough to accurately assess the rate or safety of bile duct injuries, SILC seems to be safe and feasible when evaluating other metrics and does not seem to interfere with operative efficiency compared with SLC.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a retrospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

Recent reports have suggested that single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is technically feasible. We present our initial retrospective comparative study between SILC and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) with respect to perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

The authors reviewed 100 SILC and 100 CLC performed by a single surgeon from May 2009 to July 2010 at the Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University. All the procedures were completed by using the standard trocars and rigid laparoscopic instruments. Demographic data, operating time, estimated blood loss, analgesics requirements, days to oral food intake, and complications were compared.

RESULTS

Of the attempted SILC cases, 99 cases (99%) were successfully performed, with 1 case requiring three additional trocars for safe dissection because of existence of accessory bile duct. In the CLC group, all the procedures were successfully completed (three trocars) without conversion to open cholecystectomy. Compared with the CLC group, there was a lower mean estimated blood loss (17.9 ± 15.8 mL versus 27.5 ± 13.9 mL; P = .000) and analgesic requirement (10 versus 23; P = .024) in the SILC group. However, there was no difference between SILC and CLC in operating time (53.5 ± 24.0 minutes versus 49.2 ± 13.8 minutes; P = .163), days to oral food intake (1.8 ± 0.8 days versus 1.8 ± 0.7 days; P = .873), and postoperative complication rate (2% versus 0%; P = .155).

CONCLUSION

SILC is feasible using the standard trocars and rigid laparoscopic instruments, and it is an effective alternative to CLC in selected patients. However, further clinical studies are necessary to confirm its real benefits.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a cost comparison

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) should not cost more or less than traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

METHODS

Retrospective cost data were collected from the accounting records of a single institution. A direct comparison of LC and SILC was conducted. Data on the SILC cases converted to LC were included. The total operating room (OR) cost (actual cost to the hospital for equipment, time, and personnel) and the total OR charges (total derived from the OR cost plus a margin to cover overhead costs beyond material costs) were examined. The total hospital charges (OR charges plus hospital charges accrued in the perioperative period) also were included. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data, with p values less than 0.05 considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Over a period of 19 months, 116 cases of minimally invasive cholecystectomy were evaluated. Of the 116 patients, 48 underwent LC during the first half of that period, and 68 patients underwent SILC during the second half of that period. Nine of the single-incision procedures were converted to traditional LC, for a 13% conversion rate. The groups were well matched from a demographics standpoint, with no significant differences in age, gender, body mass index (BMI), diagnoses, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class, or payment. Comparison of all attempted SILCs, including those converted, with all LCs showed no significant difference in cost category totals. A significant difference among all cost variables was found when SILCs were compared with SILCs that required conversion to LC. A significant difference among the cost variables also was found when LCs were compared with converted SILCs.

CONCLUSION

The cost for SILC did not differ significantly from that for LC when standard materials were used and the duration of the procedure was considered. Converted cases were significantly more expensive than completed SILC and LC cases.

The role of single-incision laparoscopic surgery in abdominal and pelvic surgery: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to determine the role of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) in abdominal and pelvic operations.

DATA SOURCES

The Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases were systematically searched until October 2009 using "single-incision laparoscopic surgery" and related terms as keywords. References from retrieved articles were reviewed to broaden the search

STUDY SELECTION

The study included case reports, case series, and empirical studies that reported SILS in abdominal and pelvic operations.

DATA EXTRACTION

Number of patients, type of instruments, operative time, blood loss, conversion rate, length of hospital stay, length of follow-up evaluation, and complications were extracted from the reviewed items

DATA SYNTHESIS

The review included 102 studies classified as level 4 evidence. Most of these studies investigated SILS in cholecystectomy (n=34), appendectomy (n=24), and nephrectomy (n=17). For these procedures, operative time, hospital stay, and complications were comparable with those of conventional laparoscopy. Conversion to conventional laparoscopy was seldom performed in cholecystectomy (range, 0-24%) and more frequent in appendectomy (range, 0-41%) and nephrectomy (range, 0-33%).

CONCLUSION

The potential benefits of SILS include superior cosmesis and possibly shorter operative time, lower costs, and a shortened time to full physical recovery. Careful case selection and a low threshold of conversion to conventional laparoscopic surgery are essential. Multicenter, randomized, prospective studies are needed to compare short- and long-term outcome measures against those of conventional laparoscopic surgery.