Oncologic outcomes of single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic anterior resection for sigmoid colon cancer: a propensity-score matching analysis

Single-incision plus one-port laparoscopy surgery versus conventional multi-port laparoscopy surgery for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colorectal cancer treatment remains unclear. This study compares the short-term and long-term outcomes of SILS + 1 and CLS using a high-quality systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHOD

Literature search followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, drawing from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library until December 10, 2023. Statistical analysis was conducted using RevMan and Stata.

RESULT

The review and meta-analysis included seven studies with 1740 colorectal cancer patients. Compared to CLS, SILS + 1 showed significant improvements in operation time (WMD =  - 18.33, P < 0.00001), blood loss (WMD =  - 21.31, P < 0.00001), incision length (WMD =  - 2.07, P < 0.00001), time to first defecation (WMD =  - 14.91, P = 0.009), time to oral intake (WMD =  - 11.46, P = 0.04), and time to ambulation (WMD =  - 11.52, P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in lymph node harvest, resection margins, complications, anastomotic leakage, hospital stay, disease-free survival, overall survival, and postoperative recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to CLS, SILS + 1 demonstrates superiority in shortening the surgical incision and promoting postoperative recovery. SILS + 1 can provide a safe and feasible alternative to CLS.

Long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy for right-sided colon cancer utilising a craniocaudal approach

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) for right-sided colon cancer (CC) using a craniocaudal approach.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The data of patients who underwent SILC for right-sided CC at our hospital between January 2013 and December 2022 were retrospectively collected. Surgery was performed using a craniocaudal approach. Short- and long-term operative outcomes were analysed.

RESULTS

In total, 269 patients (127 men, 142 women; median age 74 years) underwent SILC for right-sided CC. The cases included ileocaecal resection (n = 138) and right hemicolectomy (n = 131). The median operative time was 154 min, and the median operative blood loss was 0 ml. Twenty-seven cases (10.0%) required an additional laparoscopic trocar, and 9 (3.3%) were converted to open surgery. The Clavien-Dindo classification Grade III post-operative complications were detected in 7 (2.6%) cases. SILC was performed by 25 surgeons, including inexperienced surgeons, with a median age of 34 years. The 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) was 96.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 91.3%-98.2%), and CSS per pathological disease stage was 100% for Stages 0-I and II and 86.2% (95% CI 71.3%-93.7%) for Stage III. The 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 90.6% (95% CI 85.7%-93.9%), and RFS per pathological disease stage was 100% for Stage 0-I, 91.7% (95% CI 80.5%-96.6%) for Stage II and 76.1% (95% CI 63.0%-85.1%) for Stage III.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC for right-sided CC can be safely performed with a craniocaudal approach, with reasonable short- and long-term outcomes.

Short-term and long-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a propensity-matched cohort study with conventional laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1) has been demonstrated to be minimally invasive while possessing better cosmesis and less pain compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). However, SILS + 1 as an alternative to CLS for colorectal cancer is still controversial.

METHODS

A total of 1071 patients who underwent curative laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer between 2015 and 2018 were included. Of these patients, 258 SILS + 1 cases and 516 CLS cases were analyzed using propensity score matching. The baseline characteristics, surgical outcomes, pathologic findings and recovery course, morbidity and mortality within postoperative 30 days and 3-year disease-free and overall survival were compared.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were balanced between the groups. The mean operating time was significantly shorter in SILS + 1 group, with less estimated blood loss. Tumor size, tumor differentiation, number of harvested lymph nodes, resection margin and pathologic T, N, TNM stage was similar between the groups. There was no significant difference in overall perioperative complications. Uni- and multivariate analyses revealed that SILS + 1 was not a risk factor for complications. Postoperatively, SILS + 1 group showed faster recovery than CLS group in terms of ambulation, bowel function, oral intake and discharge. The 3-year disease-free survival rates of SILS + 1 and CLS groups were 90.1% and 87.3%(p = 0.59), respectively and the 3-year overall survival rates were 93.3% vs. 89.8%(p = 0.172).

DISCUSSION

Our study revealed that SILS + 1 is safe, feasible, oncologically efficient, and may be considered as a surgical option for selected patients with colorectal cancer.

Initial experience of single-incision plus one port total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

The use of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (SILPD + 1) has been never reported, and its safety and efficacy remain unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the short-term outcomes of SILPD + 1 compared with those of conventional laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (CLPD).

METHOD

Fifty-seven cases of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) were performed between November 2021, and March 2022. Among them, 10 cases of LPD were performed using a single-incision plus one-port device. Based on the same inclusion and exclusion criteria, 47 cases of LPD performed using traditional 5-trocar were included as a control group. The patient's demographic characteristics, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Three men and seven women were included in the SILPD + 1 group. All baseline parameters of both groups were comparable, except for age. Patients were younger in the SILPD + 1 group (47.2 ± 18.3 years vs. 60.6 ± 11.7 years, P = 0.05) than that in the CLPD group. Compared with the CLPD group, median operation time (222.5 (208.8-245.0) vs. 305.0 (256.0-37.0) min, P < 0.001) was shorter, median postoperative VAS scores on days 1-3 were lower, and median cosmetic score (21.0 (19.0-23.5) vs. 17.0 (16.0-20.0), P = 0.026) was higher one month after the surgery in the SILPD + 1 group. The estimated blood loss, conversion rate, blood-transfusion rate, exhaust time, time of drainage tube removal, postoperative hospital stays, and perioperative complications were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In a high-volume LPD center, SILPD + 1 is safe and feasible for well-selected patients without increasing the operation time and complications. It even has the advantages of reduced postoperative pain and improved cosmetic results.

Comparison of robotic reduced-port and laparoscopic approaches for left-sided colorectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

The reduced-port approach can overcome the limitations of single-incision laparoscopic surgery while maintaining its advantages. Here, we compared the effects of robotic reduced-port surgery and conventional laparoscopic approaches for left-sided colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Between January 2015 and December 2016, the clinicopathological characteristics and treatment outcomes of 17 patients undergoing robotic reduced-port surgery and 49 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for left-sided colorectal cancer were compared.

RESULTS

The two groups were comparable in almost all outcome measures except for the distal resection margin, which was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.001). The between-group differences in reoperation, incisional hernia development, and overall and progression-free survival were nonsignificant; however, the total hospital cost was significantly higher in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (US$13779.6 ± US$3114.8 vs. US$8556.3 ± US$2056.7, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Robotic reduced-port surgery for left-sided colorectal cancer is safe and effective but more expensive with no additional benefit compared with the conventional laparoscopic approach. This observation warrants further evaluation.

Outcomes after natural orifice extraction vs conventional specimen extraction surgery for colorectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) via the anus or vagina replaces conventional transabdominal specimen retrieval via the transabdominal route through a limited mid-line laparotomy or Pfannenstiel incision. Reducing the number of laparoscopic ports further decreases operative abdominal wall trauma. These techniques reduce the surgical wound size as well as the risk of incision-related morbidity.

AIM

To compare short-term outcomes following 3-port NOSE surgery with a matched cohort of conventional non-NOSE colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent elective 3-port laparoscopic colorectal NOSE surgery between February to October 2021 were identified. Selection criteria for NOSE surgery was adapted from the 2019 International Consensus on Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery for colorectal cancer. Patients with clinical T4 or N2 tumors on staging computed tomography were also excluded. The propensity score-matched cohort was identified amongst patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic colorectal surgery from January 2019 to December 2020. Matching was performed in the ratio of 1:4 based on age, gender, type of resection, and p - tumor node metastasis staging.

RESULTS

Over the eight-month study duration, 14 consecutive cases (nine female, five male) of elective 3-port laparoscopic surgery with NOSE were performed for colorectal cancer. Median age and body mass index were 70 (range 43-82) years and 24.1 (range 20.0-31.7) kg/m² respectively. Six patients underwent transanal NOSE and eight had transvaginal NOSE. Median operative time, intraoperative blood loss and postoperative length of stay were 208 (range 165-365) min, 30 (range 10-150) mL and 3 (range 2-6) d respectively. Two (14%) suffered minor postoperative compilations not attributable to the NOSE procedure. Median follow-up duration was 12 (range 8-15) mo. No instances of mortality, local or distant disease recurrence were recorded in this cohort. Compared to the conventional surgery cohort of 56 patients, the 3-port NOSE cohort had significantly quicker mean return of bowel function (2.6 vs 1.2 d, P < 0.001), reduced postoperative pain and patient-controlled analgesia use, and decreased length of hospital stay (6.4 vs 3.4 d, P < 0.001). There were no statistical differences in surgical duration and perioperative complication rates between the NOSE and non-NOSE cohorts.

CONCLUSION

3-port laparoscopic colorectal surgery with NOSE is a feasible technique, augmenting the minimally invasive nature of surgery and producing good outcomes. Appropriate patient selection and expertise in conventional laparoscopy are required.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Studies find similar perioperative outcomes between single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colon cancer. However, few have reported long-term outcomes of SILS versus CLS. We aimed to compare long-term postoperative and oncologic outcomes as well as perioperative outcomes between SILS and CLS for colon cancer.

METHODS

A total of 641 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer from July 2009 to September 2014 were eligible for the study. Data from 300 of these patients were used for analysis after propensity score-matching (n = 150 per group). Variables associated with short- and long-term outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

The SILS group had a shorter mean total incision length, less postoperative pain, and a similar mean rate of incisional hernia (2.7% versus 3.3%) compared with the CLS group. The 7-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 92.7% versus 94% (p = 0.673) and 85.3% versus 84.7% (p = 0.688) in the SILS and CLS groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CLS, SILS for colon cancer appeared to be safe in terms of perioperative and long-term postoperative and oncologic outcomes. The results suggested that SILS is a reasonable treatment option for colon cancer for a selected group of patients.

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.

Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies

PURPOSE

To compare single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and multiport laparoscopic surgery (MLS) for colorectal cancer in terms of short- and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies comparing SILS and MLS for colorectal cancer were enrolled. Outcomes of interests included intraoperative, postoperative, pathological, and survival outcomes.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies (6 RCTs and 10 PSM studies) published between 2012 and 2020 with a total of 2425 patients were enrolled. Compared with MLS, SILS was associated with less postoperative pain at postoperative day (POD) 1 (P = 0.02, MWD = -0.73, 95%CI: -1.37, -0.09) and POD2 (P < 0.001, MWD= -1.10, 95%CI: -1.45, -0.74) and shorter length of total incision length (P < 0.001, MWD = -3.31, 95%CI: -3.95, -2.67). No differences were observed in terms of operative time, blood loss, intraoperative and postoperative complications, incision hernia, and pathological or survival outcomes between SILS and MLS. Subgroup analysis for right-sided colon cancer, sigmoid colon cancer, and rectosigmoid colon cancer showed that the SILS group was only associated with less postoperative pain and shorter total incision length. The surgical and pathological outcomes were comparable between SILS and MLS.

CONCLUSIONS

SILS is a beneficial alternative to MLS in select colorectal cancer patients, especially for right-sided colon cancer, sigmoid colon cancer, and rectosigmoid cancer, with better cosmetic effects and less postoperative pain. Simultaneously, SILS does not compromise intraoperative and postoperative complications, surgical quality, or long-term outcomes.

Short-term Outcomes of Single-port Versus Multiport Laparoscopic Surgery for Colon Cancer: The SIMPLE Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare short-term perioperative outcomes of single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) and multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) for colon cancer.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Although many studies reported short- and long-term outcomes of SPLS for colon cancer compared with MPLS, few have reported results of randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial with a noninferiority design. It was conducted between August 2011 and June 2017 at 7 sites in Korea. A total of 388 adults (aged 19-85 yrs) with clinical stage I, II, or III adenocarcinoma of the ascending or sigmoid colon were enrolled and randomized. The primary endpoint was 30-day postoperative complication rates. Secondary endpoints were the number of harvested lymph nodes, length of the resection margin, postoperative pain, and time to functional recovery (bowel movement and diet). Patients were followed for 30 days after surgery.

RESULTS

Among 388 patients, 359 (92.5%) completed the study (SPLS, n = 179; MPLS, n = 180). The 30-day postoperative complication rate was 10.6% in the SPLS group and 13.9% in the MPLS group (95% confidence interval, -10.05 to 3.05 percentage points; P < 0.0001). Total incision length was shorter in the SPLS group than in the MPLS group (4.6 cm vs 7.2 cm, P < 0.001), whereas the length of the specimen extraction site did not differ (4.4 cm vs 4.6 cm, P = 0.249). There were no significant differences between groups for all secondary endpoints and all other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though there was no obvious benefit to SPLS over MPLS when performing colectomy for cancer, our data suggest that SPLS is noninferior to MPLS and can be considered an option in selected patients, when performed by experienced surgeons.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01480128.

Quality of life and patient satisfaction after single- and multiport laparoscopic surgery in colon cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial (SIMPLE Trial)

BACKGROUND

The clinical benefits of single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) in patients with colon cancer patients are unclear because only a few studies have reported on the quality of life (QoL) of such patients. This study aimed to compare the QoL and patient satisfaction between SPLS and multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) in colon cancer.

METHODS

The multicentre randomised controlled SIngle-port versus MultiPort Laparoscopic surgEry (SIMPLE) trial included patients with colon cancer who underwent radical surgery at seven hospitals in South Korea. We performed a pre-planned secondary analysis of the QoL data of 359 patients from that trial. The QoL was surveyed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Patient satisfaction was measured with a 5-point questionnaire at these postoperative time points.

RESULTS

Overall, 145 and 147 patients were included in the SPLS and MPLS groups, respectively. Most QoL domains were similar between the groups. In the subgroup analysis of patients without adjuvant chemotherapy, patients in the SPLS group presented with significantly better global health status (p = 0.017), fatigue (p = 0.047), and pain (p = 0.005) scores and tended to have improved physical (p = 0.055), emotional (p = 0.064), and social (p = 0.081) functioning, with marginal significance at 1 month postoperatively, compared to those in the MPLS group. Patient satisfaction regarding surgery (p = 0.002) and appearance of the abdominal scar (p = 0.002) was significantly higher with SPLS than with MPLS at 12 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent SPLS without adjuvant chemotherapy had better global health status, fatigue status, and pain at 1 month postoperatively; however, these improvements were minimal and temporary. In the near future, the effect of SPLS on postoperative QoL should be confirmed through a randomised controlled trial targeting the QoL in colon cancer patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01480128.

Feasibility of Single-Incision Plus One Port Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer

PURPOSE

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is a recently developed minimally invasive surgical technique. We aimed to compare the feasibility and safety of single-incision plus one port laparoscopic low anterior resection (S+1-LAR) with those of multi-port laparoscopic low anterior resection (M-LAR) for mid-to-low rectal cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patient characteristics and surgical outcomes by assessing data collected from the medical records of patients who underwent elective laparoscopic low anterior resection for mid-to-low rectal cancer at the Gangneung Asan Hospital.

RESULTS

From April 2015 to April 2019, 52 patients underwent S+1-LAR (n=28) or M-LAR (n=24) for mid-to-low rectal cancer at Gangneung Asan Hospital. There were no significant between-group differences in clinical characteristics. The mean postoperative 1-day pain score was significantly lower in the S+1-LAR group. Surgical outcomes and postoperative complications did not differ significantly between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

S+1-LAR is a feasible and safe technique and is comparable with M-LAR in terms of surgical outcomes of patients with mid-to-low rectal cancer.

Hernia incidence following a randomized clinical trial of single-incision versus multi-port laparoscopic colectomy

BACKGROUND

The short-term results of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) showed the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness when performed by skilled laparoscopic surgeons. However, the long-term complications, such as SILC-associated incisional hernia, have not been evaluated. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of incisional hernia after SILC compared with multi-port laparoscopic colectomy (MPC) for colon cancer.

METHODS

From March 2012, to March 2015, a total of 200 patients were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomized to the MPC arm and SILC arm. A total of 200 patients (MPC arm; 100 patients, SILC arm; 100 patients) were therefore analyzed. In all cases the specimen was extracted through the umbilical port, which was extended according to the size of the specimen. A diagnosis of incisional hernia was made either based on a physical examination or computed tomography.

RESULTS

The baseline factors were well balanced between the arms. The median follow-up period was 42.4 (range 9.4-70.0) months. Twenty-one patients were diagnosed with incisional hernia, giving an incidence rate of 12.1% in the MPC arm and 9.0% in the SILC arm at 36 months (P = 0.451). In the multivariate analysis, the body mass index (≥ 25 kg/m²) (hazard ratio [HR] 3.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-8.92; P = 0.044), umbilical incision (≥ 5.0 cm) (HR 3.22; 95% CI 1.16-8.93; P = 0.025), and history of umbilical hernia (HR 3.16; 95% CI 1.02-9.77; P = 0.045) were shown to be correlated with incisional hernia.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no significant difference in the incidence of incisional hernia after SILC arm versus MPC arm with a long-term follow-up. However, this result may be biased because all specimens were harvested through the umbilical port. The study was registered with the Japanese Clinical Trials Registry as UMIN000007220.

Impact of single-incision laparoscopic surgery on postoperative analgesia requirements after total colectomy for ulcerative colitis: a propensity-matched comparison with multiport laparoscopy

AIM

To compare the requirements for postoperative analgesia in patients with ulcerative colitis after single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic total colectomy.

METHOD

All patients undergoing single-incision or multiport laparoscopic total colectomy as a first stage in the surgical treatment of ulcerative colitis between 2010 and 2016 at the University Hospital of Leuven were included. The cumulative dose of postoperative patient-controlled analgesia was used as the primary end-point. A Z-transformation was performed combining values for patient-controlled epidural analgesia and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia, resulting in one hybrid outcome variable. The two groups were matched using propensity scores. Subgroup analysis was performed to analyse the impact of extraction site on postoperative pain.

RESULTS

A total of 81 patients underwent total colectomy for ulcerative colitis (median age 35 years). Thirty patients underwent single-incision laparoscopy, while 51 patients had a multiport approach. The mean normalized patient-controlled analgesia dose was significantly lower in patients undergoing single-incision laparoscopy (-0.33 vs 0.46, P < 0.001). This difference was no longer significant in subgroup analysis for patients with stoma site specimen extraction (P = 0.131). The odds of receiving tramadol postoperatively was 3.66 times lower after single-incision laparoscopy (P = 0.008). The overall morbidity rate was 32.1% (26/81). The mean Comprehensive Complication Index in single-incision and multiport laparoscopy group was 18.33 and 21.39, respectively (P = 0.506). Hospital stay was significantly shorter after single-incision laparoscopic surgery (6.3 days vs 7.6 days, P = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

Single-incision total colectomy was associated with lower postoperative analgesia requirements and shorter hospital stay, with comparable morbidity. However, the specimen extraction site played a significant role in postoperative pain control.

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

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Long-term oncological outcomes of single-port laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer

BACKGROUND

We retrospectively reviewed our consecutive experience from the introduction of single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPS) for colon cancer, and its 5-year oncological outcomes are evaluated.

METHODS

A total of 288 patients (140 males) with a mean age of 71.5 years were treated with the single-port laparoscopic colectomy for stage I, II and III colon cancers. Exclusion criteria of SPS were patients with unresolved bowel obstruction, T4b tumour, tumour perforation and severe medical illness.

RESULTS

In 20 patients (6.9%), we inserted an extra port mainly to transect the rectum. The median follow-up period was 52 months. The 5-year relapse-free survival rates in stage I, II and III patients were 95.8%, 80.2% and 61.6%, respectively. The 5-year overall survival rates for stage I, II and III patients were 97.4%, 85.3% and 72.9%, respectively. The 5-year cancer-specific survival rates in patients diagnosed pathologically T1, T2, T3 and T4 were 100%, 100%, 92.1% and 73.9%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

SPS colectomy can be applied to the treatment of colon cancer with good long-term oncological outcomes. However, we should pay more attention when we treat the pathologically diagnosed T4 tumours.

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.

Clinical impact of single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal resection for advanced colon cancer: propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy has become an acceptable treatment for right-sided colon cancer. Most centers use multiport laparoscopic right hemicolectomy extracorporeally (MRHE), whereas single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy intracorporeally (SRHI) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare these two techniques using propensity score matching analysis.

METHODS

We analyzed the data from 111 patients who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy between December 2015 and December 2016. The propensity score was calculated according to age, gender, body mass index, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score, previous abdominal surgery, and D3 lymph node dissection. Postoperative pain was evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and postoperative analgesic use was an outcome measure.

RESULTS

The length of skin incision in SRHI was significantly shorter than in MRHE [3 (3.5-6) versus 4 (3-6) cm, respectively; P = 0.007]. The VAS score on day 1 and day 2 after surgery was significantly less in SRHI than in MRHE [30 (10-50) versus 50 (20-69) on day 1, P = 0.037; 10 (0-50) versus 30 (0-70) on day 2, P = 0.029]. Significantly fewer patients required analgesia after SRHI on day 1 and day 2 after surgery [1 (0-3) versus 2 (0-4) on day 1, P = 0.024; 1 (0-2) versus 1 (0-4) on day 2, P = 0.035]. There were no significant differences in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph nodes removed, and postoperative course between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SRHI appears to be safe and technically feasible. Moreover, SRHI reduces the length of the skin incision and postoperative pain compared with MRHE.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS AND PATIENTS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Multidimensional analyses of the learning curve for single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Single-incision plus one port surgery (SILS + 1) provides the advantages of being minimally invasive and easier to perform than pure single-incision laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate the learning curve (LC) for SILS + 1 for sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer.

METHOD

From November 2012 to May 2014, a series of 85 consecutive patients underwent selective SLIS + 1 for sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer performed by a single surgeon at Nanfang Hospital. The LC for SILS + 1 was evaluated using cumulative sum control chart (CUSUM) and risk-adjusted CUSUM methods. Data for all the perioperative variables and pathologic results among the phases were compared.

RESULTS

The LC had three phases: phase 1 (cases 1-13) was the initial learning period; phase 2 (cases 14-44) was the learning plateau period; and phase 3 (cases 45-85) was the competent period. The differences in total operating time among the three phases were significant. The number of harvested lymph nodes increased along with increases in the surgeon's experience.

CONCLUSIONS

For experienced CLS surgeons, the learning process reached the plateau period after the 13th case, and technical competence was achieved after the 44th case.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Multicenter, randomized single-port versus multiport laparoscopic surgery (SIMPLE) trial in colon cancer: an interim analysis

BACKGROUND

Single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) was recently introduced as an innovative minimally invasive surgery method. Retrospective studies have revealed the safety and feasibility of SPLS for colon cancer treatment. However, no prospective randomized trials have been performed. The multicenter, randomized SIMPLE (single-port versus multiport laparoscopic surgery) trial aimed to investigate short-term perioperative outcomes of SPLS for colon cancer treatment, compared with multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS).

METHODS

Between August 2011 and April 2014, a total of 194 patients with colon cancer were recruited from seven hospitals in Korea. Patients were randomly allocated into the SPLS group (n = 99) or MPLS group (n = 95). The primary endpoint was postoperative complications. Operative, postoperative, and pathologic outcomes were analyzed after 50% of the patient study population had been recruited.

RESULTS

The patients' demographic characteristics, operative times, estimated blood volume losses, numbers of harvested lymph nodes, and lengths of both resection margins were not significantly different between groups. In the SPLS group, the rates of conversion to MPLS and open surgery were 12.9 and 2.2%, respectively. Postoperative complications occurred in 10.8% of the SPLS, and 12.5% of the MPLS patients (p = 0.714). Times to functional recovery, pain scores, and amounts of analgesia were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

The results of this interim analysis suggested that SPLS is technically safe and appropriate when used for radical resection of colon cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01480128).

Oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for right colon cancer: A propensity score-matching analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate oncologic, perioperative, and pathologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (SILRC) compared to conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (CLRC) for right colon cancer using propensity score-matching analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From November 2009 through September 2014, 260 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic surgery for right colon cancer. Data on short-term and long-term outcomes were collected and reviewed. Propensity score-matching was applied at a ratio of 1:2 to compare the SILRC (n = 40) and the CLRC (n = 80) groups.

RESULTS

Operation time, estimated blood loss, time to diet were not different; however, the SILRC group showed less pain on operative day and postoperative day #2 (4.8 vs. 5.9, p < 0.001 and 3.6 vs. 4.6, p = 0.006, respectively) as well as shorter incision lengths (4.0 vs. 7.3 cm, p < 0.001). Morbidity, mortality, and pathologic outcomes were similar between groups. The 3-year overall survival rates were 96.0% vs. 97.5% (p = 0.740), and disease-free survival rates were 93.5% vs. 97.5% (p = 0.444) in the SILRC and the CLRC groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The long-term oncologic outcomes as well as short-term outcomes of SILRC were comparable to CLRC. It appears to be a safe and feasible option with shorter incision lengths.

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Anterior Resection Using a Curved Stapler

INTRODUCTION

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy is technically limited because of such factors as instrument crowding, in-line viewing, and insufficient countertraction. In particular, it is technically difficult to cut the distal rectum from the umbilicus using an articulating linear stapler in single-incision laparoscopic anterior resection.

TECHNIQUE

After treating the mesorectum, the 5-mm trocar is replaced with a 12-mm trocar. The cartridge of the curved stapler is mounted while the shaft of the stapler is inserted into the 12-mm port extracorporeally. The curved stapler is inserted through the umbilical incision with the cartridge. A multichannel port is then mounted, and the abdominal cavity is reinsufflated. The curved stapler can then be operated intracorporeally. This procedure facilitates the vertical dissection of the rectum from the umbilicus.

RESULTS

A total of 27 consecutive patients were analyzed in this study. All the procedures were safely performed without any complications. The median distance from the peritoneal reflection to the transection point of the distal bowel in single-incision laparoscopic anterior resection was 5.0 cm (range, -2.0 to 15.0). One stapler firing was required to achieve distal bowel division in 26 patients (96.3 %), whereas 2 firings were required in 1 patient (3.7 %). The median distal margin was 7.0 cm (range, 3.0-13.0). The time from the insertion of the stapler to transection was 180 seconds (range, 100-420). There were no cases of anastomotic leakage.

CONCLUSIONS

In single-incision laparoscopic anterior resection, it is feasible to perform rectal transection from the umbilicus by using a curved stapler. This technique may allow for the omission of 1 trocar from the operation.

Assessment of treatment options for rectosigmoid cancer: single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery, single-incision laparoscopic surgery, and conventional laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

The advantages of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) for rectosigmoid cancer treatment have been disputed. This study evaluated the outcomes of RPLS compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for rectosigmoid cancer.

METHODS

Data from 211 patients who underwent a selective sigmoidectomy or anterior resection from August 2011 to June 2014 at a single institution were collected and analyzed via propensity score matching. Operative outcomes, inflammatory responses, pain intensity, oncologic outcomes, quality of life, and cosmetic results were compared between groups.

RESULTS

After matching, 96 patients (48 CLS and 48 RPLS) were evaluated. Sixteen RPLS cases underwent single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), and 32 underwent single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1). Baseline clinical characteristics were comparable between the RPLS and the CLS groups. Morbidity, pathologic outcomes, and 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival rates were also comparable between the 2 groups. Compared with the CLS group, the RPLS group had a shorter total incision length (p < 0.001); shorter time to liquid diet (p = 0.027), ambulation (p = 0.026), and discharge (p < 0.001); and lower visual analogue scale scores during mobilization at postoperative days 3-5 (p < 0.05). The total operation times, C-reactive protein levels at 24 h and 96 h, and interleukin-6 levels at 24 h postoperatively were significantly lower in the SILS + 1 group than those in the CLS and SILS groups (p < 0.05). Compared with the CLS group, the RPLS group showed better social functioning at 6 months postoperatively (p = 0.011). The SILS and SILS + 1 groups showed similar cosmetic results, and both groups showed better results than the CLS group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RPLS for rectosigmoid cancer is feasible, with short-term safety and long-term oncological safety comparable to that of CLS. Better cosmesis and accelerated recovery can be expected. SILS + 1 is a better choice than CLS or SILS for rectosigmoid cancer because it minimizes invasiveness and reduces technical difficulties.

Oncologic Outcomes of Single-incision Laparoscopic Surgery Compared With Conventional Laparoscopy for Colon Cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to document perioperative results and mid-term oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic (SIL) colectomy compared to conventional laparoscopic (CL) colectomy.

BACKGROUND

SIL surgery is an advance in minimally invasive operative techniques and is widely accepted for various types of surgery.

METHODS

We prospectively collected data from 767 patients who underwent radical colectomy (250 SIL colectomy and 517 CL colectomy) between 2010 and 2011 due to primary colon cancer and retrospectively analyzed these patients with propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Before matching, patients with CL surgery had a significantly higher percentage of comorbidities (49.2% vs 57.8%, P = 0.024). Tumor location significantly differed between 2 groups: SIL surgery was performed more frequently in patients with right colon cancer. After propensity score matching, each group included 239 patients, and there was no difference between the SIL and CL surgery groups. Estimated blood loss was more in the patients with SIL colectomy, but the rate itself of intraoperative complications was not statistically different (P = 0.662). The median follow-up period was 37 months. There were 20 recurrences in the SIL surgery group (8.4%), including 3 locoregional recurrences and 18 (7.5%) in the CL surgery group. Disease-free survival at 48 months did not differ significantly between the SIL and CL surgery groups (89.8% vs 89.9%, P = 0.548).

CONCLUSIONS

SIL colectomy for colon cancer shows probably higher, but an acceptable complication rate and can provide resection and oncologic outcomes equal to those of CL colectomy.

Randomized clinical trial of single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic colectomy

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) for colonic cancer remain unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes of SILC compared with multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MPLC) for colonic cancer.

METHODS

Patients with histologically proven colonic carcinoma located in the caecum, ascending, sigmoid or rectosigmoid colon, clinically diagnosed as stage 0-III by CT, were eligible for this study. Patients were randomized before surgery and underwent tumour dissection with complete mesocolic excision. Safety analyses were conducted according to randomization groups.

RESULTS

A total of 200 patients were enrolled and randomized to the MPLC (100 patients) or SILC (100 patients) arm. Surgical outcomes were similar between the MPLC and SILC arms, including duration of operation (mean 162 versus 156 min respectively; P = 0·273), blood loss (mean 8·8 versus 21·4 ml; P = 0·102), conversion to open laparotomy (2·0 versus 1·0 per cent; P = 0·561), reoperation (3·0 versus 3·0 per cent; P = 1·000), time to first flatus (both median 1 day; P = 0·155) and postoperative hospital stay (both median 6; P = 0·372). The total skin incision length was significantly shorter in the SILC arm (mean 4·4 cm versus 6·8 cm in the MPLC arm; P < 0·001). The median duration of analgesia use was 5 days in the MPLC and 4 days in the SILC arm (P = 0·485). Overall complication rates were equivalent (15·0 versus 12·0 per cent respecitvely; P = 0·680).

CONCLUSION

SILC is not superior to MPLC.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000007220 (http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm).

Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS AND RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Learning curve for single-incision laparoscopic resection of right-sided colon cancer by complete mesocolic excision

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is cosmetically beneficial, but technically challenging. In this study, the learning curve (LC) for single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (SILRC), incorporating complete mesocolic excision to resect right-sided colon cancer, was investigated through multidimensional techniques. Between December 2009 and May 2015, 64 patients each underwent SILRC of right-sided colon cancer at Severance Hospital, performed in all instances by the same surgeon. Moving average and cumulative sum control chart (CUSUM) were used for LC analyses retrospectively. Surgical failure was defined as conversion to conventional laparoscopic surgery, postsurgical morbidity within 30 days, harvested lymph node count <12, or local tumor recurrence. Both moving average and CUSUM graphics of operative time registered nadirs at the 24th patient, with slight ascent thereafter, reaching a plateau at the 40th patient. The CUSUM for surgical success peaked at the 23rd patient. Operative time for 23 patients in phase 1 (1-23) and for 41 patients in phase 2 (24-64) of the LC did not differ significantly. By comparison, significant differences in patients of phase 2 included larger tumor size, higher harvested lymph node counts, longer proximal resection margins, and more advanced disease. As indicated by multidimensional statistical analyses, the LC for SILRC of right-sided colon cancer was 23 patients. In terms of operative time and surgical success, SILRC is feasible for surgeons experienced in LS, but may prove more challenging for novices, given the fundamental technical difficulties of this procedure.

Comparison of single-port and reduced-port totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for patients with early gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) is a treatment method for patients with early gastric cancer; however, single- or reduced-port LADG for these patients has been rarely reported.

OBJECTIVE

To compare surgical outcomes of patients with gastric cancer undergoing single-port totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) to those of patients undergoing reduced-port (three ports) TLDG.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 94 patients with early gastric cancer who underwent single-port or reduced-port TLDG at Samsung Medical Center between May 2014 and December 2014. Surgical outcomes were compared between operation methods.

RESULTS

There are more female patients (54.2 vs. 19.6 %, p = 0.001) and less obese patients (21.1 ± 2.1 vs. 24.6 ± 3.2 kg/m(2), p = 0.001) in the single-port TLDG group. There were no significant differences in blood loss during surgery, the number of dissected lymph nodes, and the pain score at postoperative first day between two groups. The variance in operation time for the reduced-port TLDG was significantly greater than that for single-port TLDG (p = 0.01). Complication rates in the single-port and reduced-TLDG groups were similar (20.8 vs. 21.7 %, p = 1.000). No postoperative deaths occurred in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-port TLDG might be considered as a treatment option for a limited subset, such as females or less obese patients with early gastric cancer.

A safety study of transumbilical single incision versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is an emerging minimally invasive surgery to reduce abdominal incisions. However, despite the increasing clinical application of SILS, no evidence from large-scale, randomized controlled trials is available for assessing the feasibility, short-term safety, oncological safety, and potential benefits of SILS compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colorectal cancer.

Methods/Design

This is a single-center, open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial. A total of 198 eligible patients will be randomly assigned to transumbilical single incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery (SILS plus one) group or to a CLS group at a 1:1 ratio. Patients ranging in age from 18 to 80 years with rectosigmoid cancer diagnosed as cT1-4aN0-2 M0 and a tumor size no larger than 5 cm are considered eligible. The primary endpoint is early morbidity, as evaluated by an independent investigator. Secondary outcomes include operative outcomes (operative time, estimated blood loss, and incision length), pathologic outcomes (tumor size, length of proximal and distal resection margins, and number of harvested lymph nodes), postoperative inflammatory and immune responses (white blood cells [WBC], neutrophil percentage [NE %], C-reactive protein [CRP], interleukin-6 [IL-6], and tumor necrosis factor-α [TNF-α]), postoperative recovery (time to first ambulation, flatus, liquid diet, soft diet, and duration of hospital stay), pain intensity, body image and cosmetic assessment, 3-year disease free survival (DFS), and 5-year overall survival (OS). Follow-up visits are scheduled for 1 and 3 months after surgery, then every 3 months for the first 2 years and every 6 months for the next 3 years.

Discussion

This trial will provide valuable clinical evidence for the objective assessment of the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of SILS plus one compared with CLS for the radical resection of rectosigmoid cancer. The hypothesis is that SILS plus one is feasible for the radical resection of rectosigmoid cancer and offers short-term safety and long-term oncological safety comparable to that of CLS, and that SILS plus one offers better cosmetic results and faster convalescence compared to CLS.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02117557 (registered on 16 April 2014).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-1067-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Reduced-port robotic anterior resection for left-sided colon cancer using the Da Vinci single-site(®) platform

BACKGROUND

Single-Site(®) port plus one conventional robotic port, a reduced-port robotic surgery (RPRS) for left-sided colorectal cancer, can enable lymphovascular dissection using the Endowrist(®) function; this allows safe rectal transection through an additional port and maintains the cosmetic advantage of single-incision laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

Between August 2014 and December 2014, the study group included 11 patients who underwent a RPRS for left-sided colon cancer.

RESULTS

There was one (9.1%) case of descending colon cancer, six (54.5%) cases of sigmoid colon cancer, and four (36.4%) cases of rectosigmoid colon cancer. The mean total operation time and docking time were 289±77 and 17±7 min. The mean times to soft diet and possible length of stay were 5.6±0.8 and 7.4±0.7 days. The mean total number of lymph nodes harvested was 18.7±7.9. The mean proximal and distal resection margins were 7.8±4.7 and 4.7±2.4 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

Reduced-port robotic surgery for left-sided colon cancer using the Single-Site(®) system appears to be feasible and safe using the new robotic single-access platform. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.