Laparoendoscopic Single Site Surgery Cholecystectomy Research Articles

Laparoscopic single site (LESS) and classic video-laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the elderly: A single centre experience

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold-standard surgical method used to treat gallbladder diseases. Recently Laparoendoscopic single site surgery (LESS) has gained greater interest and diffusion for the surgical treatment of several pathologies. In elderly patients, just few randomized controlled trials are present in the literature that confirm the clinical advantages of LESS compared with the classic laparoscopic procedures. We present in this paper the preliminary results of this randomized prospective study regarding the feasibility and safety of LESS cholecystectomy versus classic laparoscopic technique. We demonstrated that LESS technique compared with traditional technique show some advantages like: acceptable operative times, lower post-operative discomfort and sometimes reduction added complications. In addition we also demonstrate that fewer incisions and less scarring which mean less pain, and fewer parietal complications are related to this surgical procedure. In conclusion in the elderly LESS cholecystectomy technique is to be considered a suitable alternative to traditional three-port cholecystectomy.

Inflammation in Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) uses a multiple-entry portal in a single 3.0- to 4.0-cm incision in a natural scar, the umbilicus. The present study aimed to compare the inflammatory impact of classic video laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) versus LESS cholecystectomy. A prospective randomized controlled study was conducted from January to June 2011 at 2 university hospitals in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Fifty-seven patients (53 women, 4 men; mean age = 48.7 years) were randomly assigned to receive LC (n = 29) or LESS (n = 28) cholecystectomy. C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin 6 (IL-6) were measured from blood samples collected during induction of anesthesia and at 3 and 24 hours postoperatively. Median IL-6 levels in the LESS and LC groups, respectively, were 2.96 and 4.5 pg/mL preoperatively, 11.6 and 28.05 pg/mL at 3 hours postoperatively (P = .029), and 13.18 and 15.1 pg/mL at 24 hours postoperatively (P = .52). Median CRP levels in the LESS and LC groups, respectively, were 0.33 and 0.44 mg/mL preoperatively, 0.40 and 0.45 mg/mL (P = .73) at 3 hours postoperatively, and 1.7 and 1.82 mg/mL (P = .84) at 24 hours postoperatively. We did not find a significant association between IL-6 (and CRP) and body mass index in the LESS group. LESS cholecystectomy requires a larger size incision than LC. We found a tendency of less postoperative pain following LESS cholecystectomy than LC. There was also a tendency toward lower early inflammatory impact following LESS cholecystectomy versus LC.

Randomized clinical study for assessment of incision characteristics and pain associated with LESS versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) has emerged as a technique that uses a natural scar, the umbilicus, within which a multiple-entry portal is placed into a 3.0-4.0-cm single incision to perform operations. The objective of this study was to compare incision size, wound complications, and postoperative pain of LESS compared with those of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). A prospective randomized controlled study was conducted between January and June 2011 at two university hospitals in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Fifty-seven patients were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopic or LESS cholecystectomy. Skin and aponeurosis wound sizes were recorded. A 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) was used to assess pain at postoperative hours 3 and 24. Healing and wound complications were assessed at follow-up. A total of 57 patients, 53 women and 4 men with a mean age of 48.7 years, were randomly assigned to undergo LESS (n = 28) or LC (n = 29). The mean length of the umbilical skin incision was 4.0 cm (range = 2.1-5.8) in LESS and 2.7 cm (1.5-5.1) in LC (p < .0001). The mean internal aponeurosis diameter was 3.5 cm (2.0-5.5) in LESS and 2.3 cm (1.2-3.5) in LC (p < .0001). The mean operative time was 60.3 min (32-128) for LESS and 51.3 min (25-120) for LC (p = 0.11). Gallbladder perforation at detachment occurred in 15.69 % of the LESS cases and in 5.88 % of the LC cases (p = 0.028). The mean VAS score for pain at hour 3 was 2.0 points (0-7) for the LESS group and 4.0 (0-10) for the LC group (p = 0.07), and at postoperative hour 24 it was 0.3 points (0-6) for LESS and 2.3 (0-10) for LC (p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in wound complications. Incisional hernias were not found in either group. The LESS single-port (SP) operations demand a bigger incision than LC surgery. However, there were no differences in healing, wound infections, and hernia development. We found a tendency of less postoperative pain associated with LESS/SP than with LC.

Laparoendoscopic Single Site Surgery can be Performed Completely With Standard Equipment

To determine the feasibility of laparoendoscopic single site surgery (LESS) with nonarticulating instruments and conventional trocars. After Institutional Review Board approval, a prospective database was used to identify 30 patients who underwent LESS. All procedures were begun using three 5 mm trocars, nonarticulating instruments, and a 5 mm, 30-degree laparoscope. Twenty-six patients underwent LESS cholecystectomy. Four patients underwent LESS appendectomy; 2 for acute appendicitis and 2 for interval appendectomy. The mean patient age was 37.1 ± 14 years for the cholecystectomy group and 29.3 ± 2.2 years for the appendectomy group. Mean body mass index was 28.4 ± 7 kg/m2 for the cholecystectomy group and 25 ± 5.6 kg/m2 for the appendectomy group. Eight patients (31%) undergoing LESS cholecystectomy required an additional 5 mm port; 6 (26%) required 1 additional port for gallbladder retraction, 1 case (4%) required 2 additional ports to control cystic artery bleeding, and 1 case (4%) was converted to a traditional 4 trocar cholecystectomy because of chronic inflammation and multiple adhesions. None of the patients in the appendectomy group required an additional port. The mean operative time was 94 ± 19 minutes for cholecystectomy and 65 ± 19 minutes for appendectomy. Ninety-two percent (N=24) of patients in the laparoscopic cholecystectomy group were discharged within 24 hours. One patient underwent postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with bile duct stone removal and was discharged after 48 hours. One patient remained until postoperative day 2 for pain control. All patients in the LESS appendectomy group were discharged within 24 hours. There were no postoperative complications. Although operative time for LESS is increased compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy and appendectomy, LESS can be performed safely. In our institutional experience, LESS was successfully performed using standard laparoscopic instruments, laparoscope, and trocars. Although longer follow-up is necessary, early data supports the feasibility and safety of LESS. A low threshold should exist for the addition of extra trocars, especially during a surgeon's early experience with LESS.

Laparoendoscopic Single Site (LESS) Versus Classic Video-Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomized Prospective Study

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold-standard for the treatment of gallbladder stone disease. In recent years laparoendoscopic single site surgery (LESS) has gained greater interest and diffusion for the treatment of gallstones and also in bariatric and colonic surgery. However, no randomized controlled trials are present in the literature that confirm the clinical advantages of LESS compared with the classic laparoscopic procedures. For this reason, we present the preliminary results of this randomized prospective study regarding the feasibility and safety of LESS cholecystectomy versus classic laparoscopic technique. Between October 2009 and April 2010, 50 patients were randomly assigned to three-port classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 25) or LESS procedure (n = 25). Exclusion criteria were: (1) previous abdominal surgery, (2) signs of acute cholecystitis, choledocholithiasis, or acute pancreatitis, (3) ASA grade III or more, (4) lack of written informed consent, and (5) BMI ≥ 30 Kg/m(2).All the patients' details were recorded: age, weight, height, body mass index, operative time, length of hospital stay, patients' pain and wound satisfaction score. Abdominal pain was registered at 6, 12, and 24 h postoperatively. Wound satisfaction score (very unsatisfied = 1, unsatisfied = 2, acceptable = 3, satisfied = 4, very satisfied = 5) was registered for each patient at the seventh postoperative day. No differences were registered between the two groups about gender, age, weight, height, and BMI. Also postoperative hospital stay was similar (P = 0.71). In three patients (1 in group A and 2 in group B) a 5-mm trocar was added. Intraoperative cholangiography was performed in five patients (2 in group A and 3 in group B). Mean operative time was significantly longer in LESS procedures (41.3 ± 12.0 versus 35.6 ± 5.8; P = 0.04). Abdominal postoperative pain was similar in LC and LESS cholecystectomy. Wound satisfaction score showed statistically significant differences between the two groups: in LESS group, patients were more satisfied with the presence of a small umbilical medication (P < 0.05). In this randomized prospective study, we conclude that LESS cholecystectomy is an excellent alternative to traditional three-port cholecystectomy for patients with uncomplicated disease, and no previous abdominal surgery. Although no differences are present about hospital stay and postoperative pain compared with classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy, in our experience LESS has had a significant impact on patients' wound satisfaction.

Laparoendoskopische Single-Site-Cholezystektomie (LESS) bei einem 16-jährigen Mädchen: Ein Weg auch für die Kinderchirurgie?

The laparoscopic paradigm to place different ports according to ergonomic principles is presently challenged by laparoendoscopic single site surgery (LESS). Its objective is to perform a complex task with several instruments using only one access. However, this approach introduces distinct ergonomic problems and requires innovative technical solutions to allow for more complex surgical tasks. In paediatric surgery, this development has just begun. A 16-year-old girl presented with a symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. A multi-channel TriPort (Advanced Surgical Concepts) was introduced through a 20 mm umbilical incision for LESS cholecystectomy. Retraction of the gallbladder was facilitated by a straight grasper, which was inserted transabdominally. For exposition and triangulation a pre-bend dissector (5 mm, Olympus) was employed. Thus, the cystic duct and artery could be exposed, clipped (5mm) and divided. Finally, the gallbladder was dissected from its bed and extracted into a specimen bag. Operating time was 90 minutes and no intra- or postoperative complications occurred. In conclusion, a multi-channel port and angulated instruments during LESS cholecystectomy provided ergonomics close to conventional laparoscopic surgery. For smaller children though, this technology will have to be adapted to their geometry. Finally, even though LESS seems attractive, the present euphoria should not turn into scientific acceptance, until more experience is available and valid data have proven a benefit for patients of any age.

Laparoscoendoscopic single-site cholecystectomy and occult gallbladder cancer

Dear Sir, We read with interest the article by Gibbs and Kaleya [1] on the accidental discovery of gallbladder cancer during single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We comment on this issue considering a case of occult T3 gallbladder carcinoma managed through laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) with regard to specific issues of these developing single-access surgeries [LESS and natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES)]. Recently, a 66-year-old woman with a history of symptomatic gallbladder stones was treated with LESS cholecystectomy (Fig. 1). Gallbladder retraction was achieved without sling suture, and no bile spillage occurred. Pathologic examination showed a T3N1 gallbladder carcinoma, and the woman was offered a radical resection. At this writing, she has recovered well. This case and the article by Gibbs and Kaleya [1] urge us to consider some general principles established for cholecystectomy due to the risk of occult gallbladder cancer. History has shown us that surgical principles should be respected, especially for cholecystectomy in terms of biliary tract lesions and dramatic oncologic results for occult gallbladder carcinoma at the introduction of laparoscopy [2, 3]. Although the risk of gallbladder cancer accounts for only 0.2–2.9% of all cholecystectomies, [4] these principles should be strictly followed. The first surgical principle is to avoid bile spillage. Many groups have violated this principle by performing single-access cholecystectomy though placement of a sling suture (as we did during our preliminary experience [5]) or other transparietal device for exposition. This practice should now be avoided, which is made easier by the use of the newly developed multiport and instrumentation [3, 6, 7]. When exposition still remains a challenge, as could happen with patients who have a high body mass index (BMI), additional port placement should be strongly recommended and probably is safer. Is a 5-mm port scar worse than the risk of gallbladder carcinoma spillage? The second surgical principle dictates that the gallbladder specimen should be extracted from the abdominal

Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Cholecystectomy: A Safe and Reproducible Alternative

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy via the three-trocar technique is widely used for symptomatic gallbladder stones. In this article, we describe the initial experience with laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) cholecystectomy. Between February and April 2009, patients referred for cholecystectomy to the General Surgery Unit of our institution who agreed to undergo LESS were included in a prospective study. All operations were performed by the same surgical team that was specially trained in this type of surgery. The umbilicus was the sole point of entry for all patients. The same operative technique was used in all patients. Data of patients undergoing LESS cholecystectomy were compared with those from an uncontrolled group of patients undergoing standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy during the same study period. The LESS and standard cholecystectomy groups included 19 patients each. LESS was successfully performed in all patients and none required conversion to an open procedure or a conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy by adding more entry ports. The median operating time of 62 minutes in the LESS group was not significantly different than that in the standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy group. LESS cholecystectomy was technically feasible, safe, and represents a reproducible alternative to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy.