Clinical outcomes and inflammatory response to single-incision laparoscopic (SIL) colorectal surgery: a single-blinded randomized controlled pilot study

PROcedure-SPECific postoperative pain management guideline for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: A systematic review with recommendations for postoperative pain management

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer diagnosed in women and third most common in men. Laparoscopic resection has become the standard surgical technique worldwide given its notable benefits, mainly the shorter length of stay and less postoperative pain. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current literature on postoperative pain management following laparoscopic colorectal surgery and update previous procedure-specific pain management recommendations. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain scores and opioid requirements. We also considered study quality, clinical relevance of trial design, and a comprehensive risk-benefit assessment of the analgesic intervention. We performed a literature search to identify randomised controlled studies (RCTs) published before January 2022. Seventy-two studies were included in the present analysis. Through the established PROSPECT process, we recommend basic analgesia (paracetamol for rectal surgery, and paracetamol with either a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific inhibitor for colonic surgery) and wound infiltration as first-line interventions. No consensus could be achieved either for the use of intrathecal morphine or intravenous lidocaine; no recommendation can be made for these interventions. However, intravenous lidocaine may be considered when basic analgesia cannot be provided.

Single incision laparoscopy versus conventional multiport laparoscopy for colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There has been an increase in colorectal cancer resections worldwide and in the UK. Initially conducted as an open procedure, this was replaced with the conventional multiport technique. Laparoscopic colectomy became the standard surgical technique in 1991. With innovation in surgical technology, single incision laparoscopy (SIL) has attracted more attention as the possible next step in colorectal resection. The aim of this review was to compare outcomes between SIL and conventional laparoscopy (CL).

METHODS

A literature search was carried out in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The PubMed®, MEDLINE®, Embase®, Google Scholar™ and Cochrane Library databases were used to extract randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2000 and May 2021. Statistical analysis was performed with RevMan software.

RESULTS

A total of 11 RCTs were extracted with 1,370 patients (686 SIL, 684 CL). There was no significant difference between SIL and CL for operative time (standardised mean difference [SMD]: 0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.19 to 0.22, z=0.11, p=0.91), length of hospital stay (SMD: -0.10, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.02, z=1.61, p=0.11) or overall complications (odds ratio [OR]: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.75 to 1.30, z=0.09, p=0.93). SIL had a shorter mean incision (SMD: -0.99, 95% CI: -1.35 to -0.62, z=5.25, p<0.00001). Patients undergoing SIL had a higher conversion rate to CL or an open approach (OR: 3.10, 95% CI: 0.95 to 10.14, z=1.87, p=0.06) but this just missed statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

SIL can be considered a safe alternative to CL if performed by experienced surgeons.

A propensity score matching investigation of short-term results of single-incision laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection via ileostomy site

Aims

The study was performed to verify the results of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) through the ileostomy site for low rectal cancer compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

Materials and Methods

From January 2019 to November 2021, 133 patients with low rectal cancer underwent single-incision (n = 27) or conventional (n = 106) methods of low anterior rectal resection surgery with ileostomy. All patients were balanced by propensity score matching for basic information in a ratio of 1:2, resulting in 27 and 54 in SILS and CLS groups, respectively.

Results

Relative to the CLS group, the SILS group exhibited fewer leucocyte changes, shorter time to first exhaust and first bowel sounds, shorter length of hospital stay and lower Visual Analogue Score on post-operative days (POD2) and POD3. Intraoperative or post-operative complications or readmissions were comparable between the two groups. The oncologic results remained consistent between the two groups other than the number of lymph nodes dissected in group no. 253.

Conclusions

Single-incision laparoscopic low rectal resection surgery through the ileostomy site has advantages in terms of reduced post-operative pain, shorter post-operative exhaust time and length of hospital stay while also achieving oncologic outcomes similar to those of conventional laparoscopy. It can be an alternative procedure for patients with low rectal cancer who require ileostomy.

Long-term Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Single-incision Versus Multi-port Laparoscopic Colectomy for Colon Cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes that were the secondary endpoints of a RCT of multi-port laparoscopic colectomy (MPC) versus SILC in colon cancer surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The actual long-term outcomes, such as the 5-year RFS, OS, and recurrence patterns after surgery, have not been evaluated by a RCT.

METHODS

Patients with histologically proven colon carcinoma located in the cecum, ascending, sigmoid or rectosigmoid colon clinically diagnosed as stage 0-III were eligible for this study. Patients were preoperatively randomized and underwent complete mesocolic excision. The 5-year RFS, OS, and recurrence patterns were analyzed (UMIN-CTR 000007220).

RESULTS

Between March 1, 2012, and March 31, 2015, a total of 200 patients were randomly assigned to either the MPC arm (n = 100) or SILC arm (n = 100). The median follow-up for all patients was 61.0 months. An intention-to-treat analysis showed that the 5-year RFS was 91.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 85.1%-96.9%] in the MPC arm and 88.0% (95% CI 82.1%-93.9%) in the SILC arm (hazard ratio: 1.37; 95% CI 0.58-3.24; P = 0.479). The 5-year OS was 95.0% (95% CI 91.1%-98.9%) in the MPC arm and 93.0% (87.1%-98.9%) in the SILC arm (hazard ratio: 1.39; 95% CI 0.44-4.39; P = 0.568). There were no significant differences in the recurrence patterns between the 2 arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though the results of the 5-year OS and RFS in this trial were exploratory and underpowered, there were no statistically significant differences between the SILC and MPC arms. SILC may be an acceptable treatment option for select patients with colon cancer.

The comparison of health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction between single-incision and multiport laparoscopic colectomy for cancer: A sub-study of a randomized, prospective clinical trial

AIM

The present study clarified the effect on the health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy compared with multiport laparoscopic colectomy for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, randomized, control trial comparing single-incision and multiport laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer. We performed a pre-planned secondary analysis of health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction data of 200 patients. Health-related quality of life was evaluated using the Japanese 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) version 2.0 before surgery and at 1 month after surgery. Patient satisfaction was compared using seven questionnaires at 1 month after surgery.

RESULTS

One hundred patients were assigned to each group. After excluding 18 patients (9.0%) who did not complete the SF-36, 182 patients (91.0%) were included in the analysis (92 cases of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy and 90 cases of multiport laparoscopic colectomy). The SF-36 scores at 1 month after surgery were not significantly different between the two arms. The role physical, bodily pain, vitality and physical component summary were significantly lower at 1 month after surgery than before in both groups. However, the role emotional was significantly lower after surgery than before only in the single-incision laparoscopic colectomy group. In terms of patient satisfaction at 1 month after surgery, there were no significant differences in any of the seven items on the questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy was similar to multiport laparoscopic colectomy in terms of health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction. However, single-incision laparoscopic colectomy may be inferior than multiport laparoscopic colectomy in terms of the role emotional.

Single-incision laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's operation through the stoma site: comparative outcomes with conventional laparoscopic and open surgery

AIM

Restoration of bowel continuity after Hartmann's procedure (RoH) can be challenging and associated with considerable morbidity. A technique using single-incision laparoscopic surgery through the stoma site (SIL RoH) has been shown to be feasible and safe. In this study, we compared clinical outcomes of SIL RoH with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CL) and open surgery (OS).

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database between 2007 and 2017 in a UK colorectal unit. The access technique was decided by the surgeon on a case by case basis.

RESULTS

A total of 106 patients underwent RoH. It was carried out for diverticular disease (n = 71, 67.6%), cancer (n = 19, 17.9%) and anastomotic leak (n = 4, 3.8%). The remainder (n = 12, 11.3%) were for miscellaneous reasons including trauma. Most RoHs were performed via OS (n = 87, 81.1%). The most common intended approaches for RoH were SIL (n = 56, 52.8%) and OS (n = 34, 32.1%) with fewer starting with CL (n = 16, 15.1%). Conversion to OS took place in five (8.9%) patients with SIL and six (37.5%) with CL (P = 0.005). Postoperative complications occurred in 17 (30.4%) for SIL, seven (43.8%) for CL and 17 (50.0%) for OS (P = 0.162). Median operating time for SIL was 146 min (range 44-389), 211 min (109-320) for CL and 211 min (85-420) for OS (P < 0.001). Median length of stay was 4 days (2-44) for SIL compared to 6 (3-34) for CL and 7 (4-34) for OS (P < 0.001). Discharge on or before day 5 was achieved in 41 (74.5%) patients for SIL compared to six (37.5%) for CL and seven (20.6%) for OS (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Compared to OS and CL, SIL RoH appears to have shorter operating times and hospitalization, with no discernible difference in morbidity; this finding requires further evaluation in a randomized setting.

Laparoscopy adjuvant total colorectal resection for the treatment of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP)

OBJECTIVE

To discuss and evaluate the safety and value of laparoscopy adjuvant total colorectal resection for the treatment of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP).

METHODS

From March 2010 to June 2015, 38 cases were retrospectively analyzed and divided into 2 groups, of which 17 cases used laparoscopy adjuvant total colorectal resection, and 21 cases used conventional laparotomy. Clinical data were obtained, and the safety and prognosis were observed.

RESULTS

Seventeen cases using laparoscopy adjuvant total colorectal resection achieved success with no conversion to laparotomy and intraoperative complications. There was no significant difference in operation time between the two groups. There were significant differences in blood loss, the length of incision, postoperative recovery time of intestinal function and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups (P < 0.05). The trauma in laparoscopy group was less, and could recover faster, and there was no significant difference in complications between the two groups. In addition, there were no recurrence, distant metastasis and death in the follow-up period from 6 to 56 months.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy adjuvant total colorectal resection is more safe and feasible, which has minimal invasion and can recover fast.