Conventional Multiport Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Research Articles

Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis according to disease severity: single center retrospective study in Korea.

The safety of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) for acute cholecystitis (AC) has not yet been confirmed. This single-center retrospective study included patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for AC between April 2010 and December 2020. Propensity scores were used to match patients who underwent SILC with those who underwent conventional multiport LC (CMLC) in the entire cohort and in the two subgroups. A total of 1,876 patients underwent LC for AC, and 427 (22.8%) underwent SILC. In the propensity score-matched analysis of the entire cohort (404 patients in each group), the length of hospital stay (2.9 days vs. 3.5 days, p = 0.029) was shorter in the SILC group than in the CMLC group. No significant differences were observed in other surgical outcomes. In grade I AC (336 patients in each group), the SILC group showed poorer surgical outcomes than the CMLC group, regarding operation time (57.6 minutes vs. 52.4 minutes, p = 0.001) and estimated blood loss (22.9 mL vs. 13.1 mL, p = 0.006). In grade II/III AC (58 patients in each group), there were no significant differences in surgical outcomes between the two groups. Postoperative pain outcomes were also not significantly different in the two groups, regardless of severity. This study demonstrated that SILC had similar surgical and pain outcomes to CMLC in patients with AC; however, subgroup analysis showed that SILC was associated with poor surgical outcomes than CMLC in grade I AC. Therefore, SILC should be carefully performed in patients with AC by experienced hepatobiliary surgeons.

Robotic single-site cholecystectomy is better in reducing postoperative pain than single-incision and conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

To compare the short-term outcomes of robotic single-site cholecystectomy (RSSC) with single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CMLC), focusing on postoperative pain outcomes. This single-center retrospective study included consecutive patients with benign gallbladder disease who underwent cholecystectomy by a single surgeon between June 2019 and December 2021. Exclusion criteria were acute cholecystitis (AC) and other combined surgeries. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed between the RSSC and SILC or CMLC. Of the 157 patients included, 39 (24.8%) underwent RSSC, 32 (20.4%) underwent SILC, and 86 (54.8%) underwent CMLC. In a propensity score-matched cohort between RSSC and SILC (32 patients in each group), the number of additional analgesic injections was significantly lower in the RSSC group than in the SILC group (0.7 vs. 1.3, p = 0.002), and postoperative pain scores were also significantly lower at 6h (2.8 vs. 3.6, p = 0.004) and 24h (2.6 vs. 3.3, p = 0.021) after surgery in the RSSC group than in the SILC group. In a propensity score-matched cohort between RSSC and CMLC (23 patients in each group), the number of additional analgesic injections was significantly lower in the RSSC group than in the CMLC group (0.7 vs. 1.3, p = 0.005), and postoperative pain scores were also significantly lower at 6h after surgery (2.9 vs. 3.7, p = 0.025) in the RSSC group than in the CMLC group. This study demonstrated that RSSC is helpful in reducing postoperative pain and the use of additional analgesics compared to both SILC and CMLC.

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Using the Marionette Transumbilical Approach Is Safe and Efficient with Careful Patient Selection: A Comparative Analysis with Conventional Multiport Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Objectives The "marionette technique" for transumbilical laparoscopic cholecystectomy (m-TLC) offers improved cosmesis and possibly shorter postoperative recovery for patient undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus the four-port conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). We compared the outcomes of m-TLC and CLC at a tertiary care facility in New York. Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted and data on patients who underwent m-TLC and CLC were retrieved. Hospital length of stay (LOS), operative time, and complications were compared between the two groups using linear and logistic regression, as appropriate. Results M-TLC group patients were significantly younger, predominantly females with lower body mass index. They were less likely to have previous abdominal surgery and more likely to have noninflammatory pathology ( p < 0.05 for all). Nonadjusted LOS (1 vs. 3 days, p -value < 0.0001) and operative time (50 vs. 56 minutes, p -value = 0.007) were significantly lower among patients who underwent m-TLC; however, there was no significant difference on multivariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, there was no difference in the overall complication rate (odds ratio: 1.63; 95% confidence interval 0.02-2.39). Conclusion With careful patient selection, m-TLC offers better cosmesis with comparable safety outcomes. Level of evidence Level III.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials

Background: Conventional multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CMLC) has become the current ‘gold standard’ technique in gallbladder disease. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has gained attention due to its benefits in improving patient cosmetic results and pain reduction. We aim to assess the latest evidence on the feasibility, safety and surgical outcomes of SILC and CMLC. Methods: We conducted searches for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), and Europe PMC between December 2011 and 2021. The latest search was conducted in January 2022. We analyzed several outcomes, including perioperative complications, estimated blood loss, operation time, conversion to open surgery, hospital stay, pain score, cosmesis, and days of return to work. Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 tool was used to evaluate quality of studies. Mantel-Haenszel's formula and Inverse Variance method were conducted to synthesize results. This study was accomplished in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Results: A total of 37 studies were eligible, with a total of 2,129 and 2,392 patients who underwent SILC and CMLC. Our study demonstrated a superiority of SILC for the visual analog score (VAS) at six hours post-operation [mean difference (MD) -0.58 (95% CI -1.11, -0.05), p=0.03], cosmesis one-month post-operation [standard MD 2.12 (95% CI 1.10, 3.13), p&lt;0.0001], and cosmesis six months post-operation [standard MD 0.53 (95% CI 0.06, 0.99), p&lt;0.0001]. Meanwhile, SILC showed a longer operation time [MD 10.45 (95% CI 6.74, 14.17), p&lt;0.00001]. In terms of VAS at four time points (4, 8, 12, and 24 hours), perioperative complications, estimated blood loss, conversion to open surgery, hospital stay and days to return to work, SILC did not differ from CMLC. Conclusions: SILC is a safe, feasible and favorable procedure in terms of pain reduction and cosmetic results. The option between both procedures is based on surgeon preferences. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42022306532; 23 February 2022).

Randomized controlled trial of single incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy with long-term follow-up

BackgroundWithin the last years, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) emerged as an alternative to multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC). SLC has advantages in cosmetic results, and postoperative pain seems lower. Overall complications are comparable between SLC and MLC. However, long-term results of randomized trials are lacking, notably to answer questions about incisional hernia rates, long-term cosmetic impact and chronic pain.MethodsA randomized trial of SLC versus MLC with a total of 193 patients between December 2009 and June 2011 was performed. The primary endpoint was postoperative pain on the first day after surgery. Secondary endpoints were conversion rate, operative time, intraoperative and postoperative morbidity, technical feasibility and hospital stay. A long-term follow-up after surgery was added.ResultsNinety-eight patients (50.8%) underwent SLC, and 95 patients (49.2%) had MLC. Pain on the first postoperative day showed no difference between the operative procedures (SLC vs. MLC, 3.4 ± 1.8 vs. 3.7 ± 1.9, respectively; p = 0.317). No significant differences were observed in operating time or the overall rate of postoperative complications (4.1% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.731). SLC exhibited better cosmetic results in the short term. In the long term, after a mean of 70.4 months, there were no differences in incisional hernia rate, cosmetic results or pain at the incision between the two groups.ConclusionsTaking into account a follow-up rate of 68%, the early postoperative advantages of SLC in relation to cosmetic appearance and pain did not persist in the long term. In the present trial, there was no difference in incisional hernia rates between SLC and MLC, but the sample size is too small for a final conclusion regarding hernia rates.Trial registrationGerman Registry of Clinical Trials DRKS00012447

Evolution of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: From Multiport to Single Port

Context: Laparoscopic approach with its several techniques has become the standard method for cholecystectomy over the past decades. As technical instruments have improved and varied, the interest in endoscopic surgery has turned towards minimal invasive single site access surgery with fewer instruments, thus resulting in minimal pain, minimal scarring and better cosmesis. Evidence Acquisition: A systematic literature searching of databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar was done from 1982 and updated in December 2015. Search terms were “cholecystectomy”, “laparoscopic cholecystectomy”, “four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy”, “single-incision laparoscopic surgery”. Results: Four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy was accepted as the “gold standard” in the treatment of patients with cholelithiasis before millennium. Thereafter, two-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy was reported as a novel, safe and rapid method of gallbladder removal in consecutive reports. Single-site laparoscopic cholecystectomy with non-conventional multi-channel port method was first introduced as an alternative to the standard multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in adult patients in the last decade. Success rates of performing conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy were ranging from 93% to 100% and single site laparoscopic cholecystectomy was ranging from 84% to 100%. Conclusions: Currently, it has been widely accepted that laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the gold standard for cholecystectomy. Although single site laparoscopic cholecystectomy is becoming more popular with the recent advancements, conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy is being widely used as the primary treatment modality for the gallbladder removal.

The Incidence of Trocar Site Hernia After Single-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy-A Single Center Analysis and Literature Review.

Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) requires a larger initial umbilical incision than conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC). In this retrospective analysis study we compared the demographics, clinical data, and incidence of postoperative trocar site hernias (TSH) in patients undergoing SLC with those in patients undergoing MLC. A total of 161 patients were included in this study. Of these patients, 104 underwent MLC, 57 SLC. Patients in the MLC group were operated on using the four-trocar technique, patients in the SLC-port group using a fully reusable multi-trocar port system (X-Cone™). The earliest follow-up point was 12 months, the average follow-up period was 16.4 months (range 12-24 mos). The follow-up examinations for all patients consisted of a review of their medical history, a thorough physical examination, and an ultrasound examination of all existing trocar site scars. Patients in the SLC group had a lower mean American Society of Anesthesiologists score and a lower mean body mass index compared to patients in the MLC group. The average operating time was shorter for the patients in the SLC group, but the difference was not statistically significant. Ten (9.6%) patients in the MLC group and 3 (5.3%) in the SLC group developed a TSH (p = .55). At midterm follow-up the incidence of umbilical incisional hernias was not greater for SLC compared to MLC. The incidence of TSH after MLC was significantly higher than expected.

Outcomes in laparoscopic cholecystectomy by single incision with SPIDER surgical system are comparable to conventional multiport technique: one surgeon's experience.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy has emerged as an alternative to conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Technical difficulty, prolonged surgical times and increased complication rates have been reported in single-incision laparoscopic surgery. One of the concerns is lack of triangulation of instruments. The SPIDER® surgical system is a single-incision laparoscopic device that utilizes flexible instruments with the purpose of achieving adequate triangulation. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of SPIDER versus LC. A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent LC and SPIDER cholecystectomy by a single surgeon during a concurrent 44-month period at Baptist Health South Florida hospitals was performed focusing on demographics, indication for surgery, complications and incisional hernia rates. Exclusion criteria were concomitant surgery and hernia repair at the time of surgery. A total of 612 patients underwent minimally invasive cholecystectomy: 279 cases for SPIDER cholecystectomy and 333 for multiport LC. Baseline differences in patient characteristics between the SPIDER and LC groups were statistically significant. The SPIDER group had younger and healthier patients (lower ASA classification scores) with predominant diagnosis of cholelithiasis (69%) compared to the LC group which had more complex cases. Total complications rate for both SPIDER and LC were 0.4% (n=1) and 3% (n=10), respectively. Conversion to open cholecystectomy occurred in one patient from the LC group (0.3%). Conversion rate from SPIDER to additional ports or LC was performed in 5 cases (1.8%) with no conversions to open surgery. Hemoperitoneum was reported in 2 cases, one for each approach, requiring reoperation. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with SPIDER is a safe and feasible technique with similar outcomes to multiport LC. However, statistical significant difference was reported in baseline characteristics of both groups. No incisional hernias were reported in this case series for either technique.

Prospective Observational Study of Single-Site Multiport Per-umbilical Laparoscopic Endosurgery versus Conventional Multiport Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Critical Appraisal of a Unique Umbilical Approach.

Purpose. This prospective observational study compares an innovative approach of Single-Site Multi-Port Per-umbilical Laparoscopic Endo-surgery (SSMPPLE) cholecystectomy with the gold standard—Conventional Multi-port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (CMLC)—to assess the feasibility and efficacy of the former. Methods. In all, 646 patients were studied. SSMPPLE cholecystectomy utilized three ports inserted through three independent mini-incisions at the umbilicus. Only the day-to-day rigid laparoscopic instruments were used in all cases. The SSMPPLE cholecystectomy group had 320 patients and the CMLC group had 326 patients. The outcomes were statistically compared. Results. SSMPPLE cholecystectomy had average operative time of 43.8 min and blood loss of 9.4 mL. Their duration of hospitalization was 1.3 days (range, 1–5). Six patients (1.9%) of this group were converted to CMLC. Eleven patients had controlled gallbladder perforations at dissection. The Visual Analogue Scores for pain on postoperative days 0 and 7, the operative time, and the scar grades were significantly better for SSMPPLE than CMLC. However, umbilical sepsis and seroma outcomes were similar. We had no bile-duct injuries or port-site hernias in this study. Conclusion. SSMPPLE cholecystectomy approach complies with the principles of laparoscopic triangulation; it seems feasible and safe method of minimally invasive cholecystectomy. Overall, it has a potential to emerge as an economically viable alternative to single-port surgery.

A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing 4-Port, 3-Port, and Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

ABSTRACTBackgrounds: Despite increasing trend in single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC), there is still controversy regarding its global acceptance as a routine practice. Our study aimed to compare surgical events, early in-hospital and later outcomes of SILC with conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Methods: Through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) between June and December 2011, 90 consecutive patients with documented biliary diseases waiting for LC were equally allocated to 3-port, 4-port, and single incision LC group. Operative time, surgical adverse events, postoperative pain according to visual analogue scale (VAS), total morphine administration, length of hospital stay, and cosmetic outcomes were compared between these three groups. Results: A total of 27 males (30%) and 63 females (70%) were enrolled in this study. The average patients’ age and BMI were 42.6 ± 12.1 years and 26.2 ± 2.7 kg/m2, respectively. Operative time in SILC group was significantly longer than other groups. Total intraoperative adverse events and postoperative complications did not differ significantly between the three groups. Mean ± SD VAS score at rest was significantly lower (p < 0.05) in SILC group. The average VAS at coughing was significantly lower in SILC group in all time intervals except the first 6 hr (p < 0.05). In addition, total morphine dose showed significantly lower amount in SILC group (p = 0.02). 12-month follow-up did not reveal significant difference between the study groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: SILC is associated with less postoperative pain in later hours, reduces in-hospital analgesic dosages, has longer procedure time, but does not increase intraoperative and postoperative adverse events It seems that SILC has no obvious advantages in terms of later outcomes.

Single-Port Versus Conventional Multiport Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Nonrandomized Studies

Although current guidelines recommend performing cholecystectomy via laparoscopy, consensus on the application of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for cholecystectomy is still lacking. The aim of the current study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized comparative studies (NRCSs), comparing single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) and conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CMLC) for benign gallbladder diseases. A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies published between January 1997 and December 2012 comparing SPLC and CMLC. Operative outcomes, postoperative parameters, complications, cosmetic results, and quality of life were evaluated. Forty studies were included in the analyses (16 RCTs, 24 NRCSs) that included 3711 patients (1865 SPLCs, 1846 CMLCs). SPLC had higher conversion rates (odds ratio [OR], 4.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.71-6.56; P<.001), longer operating time (mean difference [MD], 16.1; 95% CI, 9.93-22.26 minutes; P<.001), and shorter hospital stay (MD, 0.16; 95% CI, -0.28 to -0.04 day; P=.01) than CMLC. There were no significant differences between the two procedures for early (MD, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.44 to 0.24; P=.57) or late (MD, -0.13; 95% CI, -0.45 to 0.19; P=.42) visual analog scale pain scores and overall complications (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.92-1.61; P=.18). Cosmetic outcomes favored SILC at 2 weeks (MD, -1.39; 95% CI, -2.66 to -0.12; P=.03) and 1 month (MD, -0.13, 95% CI, -2.05 to 0.55; P=.0007) after surgery (index score, 0-10). SPLC can be performed safely and effectively with better cosmetic results than with the CMLC technique for benign gallbladder diseases.

The comparison of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and three port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective randomized study

PurposeLaparoscopic techniques have allowed surgeons to perform complicated intra-abdominal surgery with minimal trauma. Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) was developed with the aim of reducing the invasiveness of conventional laparoscopy. In this study we aimed to compare results of SILS cholecystectomy and three port conventional laparoscopic (TPCL) cholecystectomy prospectively.MethodsIn this prospective study, 100 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallbladder disease were randomly allocated to SILS cholecystectomy (group 1) or TPCL cholecystectomy (group 2). Demographics, pathologic diagnosis, operating time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, complications, pain score, conversion rate, and satisfaction of cosmetic outcome were recorded.ResultsForty-four SILS cholesystectomies (88%) and 42 TPCL cholecystectomies (84%) were completed successfully. Conversion to open surgery was required for 4 cases in group 1 and 6 cases in group 2. Operating time was significantly longer in group 1 compared with group 2 (73 minutes vs. 48 minutes; P < 0.05). Higher pain scores were observed in group 1 versus group 2 in postoperative day 1 (P < 0.05). There was higher cosmetic satisfaction in group 1 (P < 0.05).ConclusionSILS cholecystectomy performed by experienced surgeons is at least as successful, feasible, effective and safe as a TPCL cholecystectomy. Surgeons performing SILS should have a firm foundation of advanced minimal access surgical skills and a cautious, gradated approach to attempt the various procedures. Prospective randomized studies comparing single access versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy, with large volumes and long-term follow-up, are needed to confirm our initial experience. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01772745.)

Cosmetic outcome is an important parameter when comparing single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC)

It was interesting to read the meta-analysis by Markar et al. [1] that compared single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). They studied postoperative pain during first day after surgery and postoperative complications as the primary parameters and length of hospital stay and operative time as the secondary parameters. However, we fail to understand why the cosmetic result was not taken as one of the primary outcome parameters. SILS is an endeavor to reduce multiple incisions by using a least visible intraumbilical incision, thus making SILS look like a scarless operation to the patient. SILS is also seen as a step forward toward natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). However, to the patient, the cosmetic benefit is the main attraction of SILS and NOTES. Additional instrumentation, increased operating time, the need to learn new skills, and added costs can be justified only if they add value to the patient’s outcome, which is primarily the cosmetic result in these cases. Postoperative pain is also an important outcome measure. In an interesting study, Blinman et al. [2] demonstrated that the total tension across a wound rises nonlinearly with increasing wound length. They further established that the total tension across multiple incisions is always less than the total tension for an incision of the same total length. Based on this concept, Garg et al. [3] calculated total tension across two 10 mm and two 5 mm port wounds of CLC and a single SILS wound of 24.9 mm and found the tension to be quite similar. Therefore, it is probable that postoperative pain may not differ much in SILS and CLC groups as has also been concluded in the meta-analysis [1]. Second, the authors included the study by Asakuma et al. [4] in the meta-analysis. Asakuma et al. mentioned in their methods that no attempt was made to randomize patients and the patient’s request for a particular procedure (SILS or CLC) was honored. In such a scenario, is it justified to include this study in the meta-analysis? Third, the authors indicated that in the study by Lee et al. [5] none of the patients had a bile leak, whereas the study’s authors reported that a bile leak occurred in six SILS patients and four CLC patients.

Single incision vs. conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A comparison of two approaches

Background and aimsLaparoscopic techniques are rapidly evolving and trends towards a more minimally invasive approach have led to the introduction of single incision and natural orifice laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) to conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MPLC). We compared intra-operative complications, operative time, postoperative complications, pain score, readmission rate and conversion to open amongst both groups. MethodsA retrospective review of data of patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy between May 2009 and November 2011 was performed. All procedures were performed by a single surgeon. ResultsA total of 184 patients underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy. 76 patients from MPLC were excluded from comparison based on exclusion criteria. The remaining 62 patients in MPLC and 45 patients in the SILC group were compared. The two groups were similar with respect to patients' demographics and American Society of Anaesthesiology grades.The median operative time for SILC was 75 min (range 42–120) compared to 60 min (range 26–117) in MPLC (p = 0.02). There was no conversion to open procedure. One patient in SILC group was converted to MPLC and two patients required a second port insertion. Postoperative pain-score and length of hospital stay were comparable in both groups. One patient in each group had minor bleeding from gall bladder bed controlled with diathermy. ConclusionSILC is a safe and feasible approach in selected patients. There was no difference in complication rate amongst the two approaches with a longer operative time in the SILC approach.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparison with the gold standard

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) may be a comparable alternative to conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). This study compared procedural outcomes and costs between SILC and LC. A retrospective review of patients undergoing SILC over an 8-month period was performed. A cohort of LC patients from the same surgeons over the preceding 8months was used as historic controls. Demographics, comorbidities, diagnosis, operative data, pain control in the recovery room, complications, length of hospital stay, and cost were compared between the two groups. Of the 285 patients, 177 underwent LC and 108 underwent SILC. The mean age was 49.7years for the LC patientsand 48.2years for the SILC patients (p=0.44). Two of the LC patients underwent conversion to open surgery. None of SILC patients were converted to open procedure, although nine had additional ports placed. After multivariate adjustment, SILC was associated with a 15% longer operative time (p=0.053) and a 66% shorter hospital stay (p=006) than LC. Biliary dyskinesia and biliary colic were independently associated with shorter operative times and a reduced hospital stay. No significant differences were noted in pain score, narcotics used in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), 30-day complication rates (1.7 vs 1.9%; p=1), hospital charges, or cost between the two groups. Single-incision LC is safe, significantly reduces the hospital stay, and is an acceptable alternative to traditional LC. Although further study is warranted, initial results indicate that SILC may offer the most benefit for outpatient procedures.