Multiport Laparoscopic Colectomy Research Articles

A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Single-Port vs. Multi-Port Laparoscopic Total Abdominal Colectomy with End Ileostomy for Medically Refractory Ulcerative Colitis.

Medically refractory ulcerative colitis (UC) necessitates surgical intervention, with total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy being a definitive treatment. The comparison between single-port and multi-port laparoscopic surgery outcomes remains underexplored. To compare the surgical outcomes of single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy for medically refractory UC. A retrospective analysis comparing single-port to multi-port surgery in UC patients from 2010 to 2020. Patients were propensity score-matched 3:1 (multi-port to single-port) on baseline characteristics. Single center academic hospital. Binary outcomes were compared using a multivariable logistic regression model, and a subset analysis was conducted for postoperative stump leak based on stump implantation during surgery. These metrics were compared between the single-port and multi-port groups to assess the differences in surgical outcomes. The multi-port and single-port groups included 642 and 114 patients, respectively. Matched cohort included 342 multi-ports and 114 single-ports. We observed a statistically significant difference in mean operation time, with the single-port procedure taking 43 minutes less than the multi-port laparoscopy. There were no significant differences between the two groups in postoperative stump leaks, postoperative ileus, stoma site complications, postoperative readmission within 30 days, postoperative reoperation within 30 days, and subsequent IPAA surgery. In the subset analysis, stump implantation was associated with a higher risk of stump leak in the multiport group. The single-port group had a shorter hospital stay. Retrospective nature, being conducted at a single center. Single-incision laparoscopic total abdominal colectomy in the treatment of mucosal ulcerative colitis is a safe, effective, and efficient approach. In our cohort, as compared to multi-port approach, single incision laparoscopy has shown shorter operation times and better overall length of stay. Taking into account less invasive approach, decreased abdominal trauma, and faster recovery, single-port surgery is a viable alternative to multi-port surgery. See Video Abstract.

Single-incision Laparoscopic Colonic Surgery: A Systemic Review, Meta-analysis, and Future Prospect.

Although single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has gained some attention as a feasible alternative to conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) in colonic surgery, it became less prevalent than expected. Hence, we conducted this systematic review to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and oncological outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) with meta-analysis and discussion of the future prospect of SILS. The search was conducted from September to October 2023 using PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Articles on colorectal cancer comparing SILC with multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MPLC) from all randomized controlled trials and comparative studies with 50 patients or more per arm were examined. The primary outcomes were the intra- and postoperative complication rates, and the secondary outcomes were the perioperative and oncological outcomes. The trends of the SILS number in Japan and the trends of the number of articles on SILS in PubMed were also reviewed. There were no significant differences in perioperative complication rates, operative factors, and oncological outcomes between SILC and MPLC, although heterogeneity was observed mainly in operative factors and the total length of the skin incision was significantly shorter in SILC. Therefore, SILC is technically and oncologically feasible and safe when performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons. The case number of SILS was gradually increasing but the rate of SILS was decreasing in Japan. The number of articles on SILS was also decreasing. SILS has gained foothold to some extent but has plateaued. The emerging new robotic platform may reappraise the concept of SILS.

Short-term outcomes of single-incision robotic colectomy versus conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer.

Since the da Vinci SP (dVSP) surgical system was introduced, single-incision robotic surgery (SIRS) for colorectal diseases has gained increasing acceptance. Comparison of the short-term outcomes between SIRS using dVSP and those of conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery (CMLS) was performed to verify its efficacy and safety in colon cancer. The medical records of 237 patients who underwent curative resection for colon cancer by a single surgeon were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups according to surgical modality: SIRS (RS group) and CMLS (LS group). Intra- and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Of the 237 patients, 140 were included in the analysis. Patients in the RS group (n = 43) were predominantly female, younger, and had better general performance than those in the LS group (n = 97). The total operation time was longer in the RS group than in the LS group (232.8 ± 46.0 vs. 204.1 ± 41.7min, P < 0.001). The RS group showed faster first flatus passing (2.5 ± 0.9 vs. 3.1 ± 1.2days, P = 0.003) and less opioid analgesic requirement (analgesic withdrawal within 3 postoperative days: 37.2% vs. 18.6%, P = 0.018) than the LS group. The RS group showed a higher immediate postoperative albumin level (3.9 ± 0.3 vs. 3.6 ± 0.4g/dL, P < 0.001) and lower C-reactive protein level (6.6 ± 5.2 vs. 9.3 ± 5.5mg/dL, P = 0.007) than the LS group during the postoperative period. On multivariate analysis after adjusting for deviated patient characteristics, no significant difference was observed in short-term outcomes, except for operation time. SIRS with dVSP showed short-term outcomes comparable with those of CMLS for colon cancer.

Comparative Effectiveness of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Program Combined With Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery in Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis.

BackgroundRecently, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been widely used in the perioperative management of colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of ERAS combined with single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) in CRC surgery.MethodsThis was a retrospective study of patients with CRC who underwent surgery between April 2018 and April 2020 in Ruijin Hospital(North), Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine. The patients were divided into three groups: group A (n=138), patients who underwent traditional multiport laparoscopic colectomy with conventional perioperative management; group B (n=63), patients who underwent SILS; and group C (n=51), patients who underwent SILS with ERAS.ResultsOverall, 252 participants were included in the retrospective study. The median operation time (min) in group B and group C was shorter than that in group A (group A 134.0 ± 42.5; group B 117 ± 38.9; group C 111.7 ± 35.4, p=0.004). The estimated surgical blood loss (ml) was lower in groups B and C than in group A (group A 165.1 ± 142.2; group B 122.0 ± 79.4; group C 105.2 ± 55.8, p=0.011). The length of surgical incision (cm) was shorter in groups B and C than in group A (group A 7.34 ± 1.05; group B 5.60 ± 0.80; group C 5.28 ± 0.52, p<0.001). The time before first flatus (hours) in group C was shorter than in groups A and B (group A 61.85 ± 21.14; group B 58.30 ± 20.08; group C 42.06 ± 23.72; p<0.001). The days prior to the administration of free oral fluids in group C was shorter than in groups A and B (group A 4.79 ± 1.28; group B 4.67 ± 1.11; group C 2.62 ± 0.64; p<0.001). The days of prior solid diet was less in group C than in groups A and B (group A 7.22 ± 3.87; group B 7.08 ± 3.18; group C 5.75 ± 1.70; p=0.027). The postoperative length of stay (LOS) was less in group C compared with that in groups A and B (group A 9.46 ± 4.84 days; group B 9.52 ± 7.45 days; group C 7.20 ± 2.37 days; p=0.023). The visual analog scale (VAS) scores on day 0, 1, and 2 in groups B and C were lower than those in group A (day 0, p<0.001; day 1, p<0.001; day 2, p=0.002), while the VAS score on day 3 showed no differences in the three groups (group A 1.29 ± 1.38; group B 0.98 ± 1.24; group C 0.75 ± 0.64, p=0.018).ConclusionThe findings suggest that SILS combined with ERAS may be a feasible and safe procedure for CRC surgery because it provides favorable cosmetic results, early dietary resumption, shorter hospital stays, and appropriate control of postoperative pain without increases in complications or readmission rates compared to conventional perioperative care with SILS or conventional laparoscopic surgery(CLS) of CRC. Further prospective randomized controlled studies are needed to enhance evidence-based medical evidence.

Long-term outcomes of single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer: results of a propensity score-based analysis

Long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) for colon cancer (CC), as practiced in real-world settings, especially in relation to disease stage, have not been established. We examined, retrospectively, both short- and long-term outcomes of SILC versus those of multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MPLC) performed for CC in a propensity-score-matched cohort. The study involved 263 patient pairs matched 1:1 from among 691 patients who, between January 2008 and May 2014, underwent either SILC or MPLC for a primary solitary CC at our hospital. Short-term and long-term operative outcomes were compared between the two groups. Operation time was the only surgical outcome that varied significantly between the two groups (p = 0.0004). Overall 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) in the SILC group was 93.7 (95% CI 89.6-96.2)%, and CSS per pathological stage (I, II and III) was 98.5 (90.0-99.8)%, 96.0 (88.2-98.7)%, and 88.3 (79.6-93.6)%, respectively, whereas overall 5-year CSS in the MPLC group was 93.3 (89.4-95.9)%, and CSS per pathological stage was 100%, 95.4 (88.3-98.3)%, and 84.1 (74.1-90.8)% (p = 0.5278, 0.2679, 0.7666, and 0.9073), respectively. Overall 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) in the SILC group was 94.0 (90.2-96.4)%, and 3-year DFS per pathological stage was 98.6 (90.4-99.8)%, 90.1 (81.4-95.0)%, and 79.0 (69.4-86.2)%, respectively, whereas overall 3-year DFS in the MPLC group was 93.2 (89.4-95.7)%, and 3-year DFS per pathological disease stage was 100%, 94.5 (87.4-97.7)% and 75.5 (64.7-83.8)% (p = 0.2829, 0.7401, 0.4335 and 0.8518), respectively. Thus, oncological outcomes did not differ significantly between groups. Incisional hernia occurred in 21 (8.0%) SILC group patients and 17 (6.5%) MPLC group patients, without a significant between-group difference (p = 0.6139). Our data indicate that perioperative and oncological outcomes of SILC performed for CC are comparable to those of MPLC performed for CC.

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

AimThe present study clarified the effect on the health‐related quality of life and patient satisfaction of single‐incision laparoscopic colectomy compared with multiport laparoscopic colectomy for colorectal cancer.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, randomized, control trial comparing single‐incision and multiport laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer. We performed a pre‐planned secondary analysis of health‐related quality of life and patient satisfaction data of 200 patients. Health‐related quality of life was evaluated using the Japanese 36‐item Short Form Health Survey (SF‐36) version 2.0 before surgery and at 1 month after surgery. Patient satisfaction was compared using seven questionnaires at 1 month after surgery.ResultsOne hundred patients were assigned to each group. After excluding 18 patients (9.0%) who did not complete the SF‐36, 182 patients (91.0%) were included in the analysis (92 cases of single‐incision laparoscopic colectomy and 90 cases of multiport laparoscopic colectomy). The SF‐36 scores at 1 month after surgery were not significantly different between the two arms. The role physical, bodily pain, vitality and physical component summary were significantly lower at 1 month after surgery than before in both groups. However, the role emotional was significantly lower after surgery than before only in the single‐incision laparoscopic colectomy group. In terms of patient satisfaction at 1 month after surgery, there were no significant differences in any of the seven items on the questionnaire.ConclusionsSingle‐incision laparoscopic colectomy was similar to multiport laparoscopic colectomy in terms of health‐related quality of life and patient satisfaction. However, single‐incision laparoscopic colectomy may be inferior than multiport laparoscopic colectomy in terms of the role emotional.

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

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. 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. 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 36months (P = 0.451). In the multivariate analysis, the body mass index (≥ 25kg/m2) (hazard ratio [HR] 3.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-8.92; P = 0.044), umbilical incision (≥ 5.0cm) (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. 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.

Long-term Outcomes of Single-Site Laparoscopic Colectomy With Complete Mesocolic Excision for Colon Cancer: Comparison With Conventional Multiport Laparoscopic Colectomy Using Propensity Score Matching.

Complete mesocolic excision has been suggested to improve oncological outcomes for patients with colon cancer. However, the long-term outcomes of single-site laparoscopic colectomy with complete mesocolic excision remain unclear. We evaluated the long-term outcomes of single-site laparoscopic colectomy with complete mesocolic excision compared with conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer, as well as the short-term outcomes. This is a single-center, retrospective study. The study was conducted at Osaka University Hospital in Japan. A total of 971 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer between 2008 and 2014 were included. Of these patients, 517 were analyzed using propensity score matching (231 with single-site laparoscopic colectomy and 286 with conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy). Recurrence, survival, intraoperative morbidity, and postoperative complications were analyzed. Before propensity score matching, the single-site laparoscopic colectomy group had greater proportions of women and of patients with right-sided and early stage tumors compared with the conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy group. After matching, the 2 groups each included 200 patients and did not significantly differ in any patient characteristics. The median follow-up period was 41.4 months. The 2 groups showed similar rates of intraoperative morbidity (p = 0.22) and postoperative complications (p = 0.87). Rates of 3-year disease-free and overall survival in single-site laparoscopic colectomy and conventional, multiport, laparoscopic colectomy groups were 95.5% and 91.3% (p = 0.44) and 100.0% and 98.7% (p = 0.24). The 3-year disease-free and overall survival rates in each stage did not significantly differ between the 2 groups. This study was limited by its retrospective nature. Single-site laparoscopic colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for colon cancer provided acceptable perioperative outcomes and oncological outcomes, similar to those achieved with conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy. Evidence accumulation from randomized controlled trials will be necessary to promote the wide acceptance of single-site laparoscopic colectomy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A326.

Single-incision versus standard multi-incision laparoscopic colectomy in patients with malignant or benign colonic disease: a systematic review, meta-analysis and assessment of the evidence.

BackgroundSingle-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) requires only one umbilical port site and (depending on technique) a specimen extraction site.The aim of this study was the assessment of the available evidence for the comparison of SILC to conventional multi-port laparoscopic colectomy (MLC) in adult patients, in whom elective colectomy is indicated because of malignant or benign disease. First, previous meta-analyses on this topic were assessed. Secondly, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, was performed.MethodsElectronic literature searches (CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE; up to March 2016) were performed. Additionally, we searched clinical trials registries and abstracts from surgical society meetings. For meta-analysis, risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95 % confidence intervals were calculated and pooled. The quality of previous meta-analyses was evaluated against established criteria (AMSTAR) and their reported results were investigated for consistency.ResultsWe identified 6 previous meta-analyses of mostly low methodological quality (AMSTAR total score: 2 − 5 out of 11 items). To fill the evidence gaps, all these meta-analyses had included non-randomised studies, but usually without assessing their risk of bias. In our systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials exclusively, we included two randomised controlled trials with a total of 82 colorectal cancer patients. There was insufficient evidence to clarify whether SILC leads to less local complications (RR = 0.52, 95 % CI 0.14 − 1.94) or lower mortality (1 death per treatment group). Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the SILC group (MD = -1.20 days, 95 % CI -1.95 to -0.44). One of the two studies found postoperative pain intensity to be lower at the first day. We also identified 7 ongoing trials with a total sample size of over 1000 patients.ConclusionThe currently available study results are too sparse to detect (or rule out) relevant differences between SILC and MLC. The quality of the current evidence is low, and the additional analysis of non-randomised data attempts, but does not solve this problem. SILC should still be considered as an experimental procedure, since the evidence of well-designed randomised controlled trials is too sparse to allow any recommendation.

Comparative analysis of outcomes after multiport and single-port laparoscopic colectomy in emergency situations: Is single-port laparoscopic colectomy safe and feasible?

Although consensus has been reached on the superiority of laparoscopy for a majority of conditions underlying acute abdominal pain, the safety and feasibility of single-port laparoscopic colectomy (SPLC) in emergency situations have not been determined. A prospective electronic database of all emergency patients who underwent either multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MPLC) or SPLC between April 2006 and December 2014 was used to compare the surgical outcomes of these operative methods. During the study period, 31 MPLCs and 76 SPLCs were performed. These two operative methods resulted in similar operating times, transfusion amounts, lengths of stay, postoperative complications, attainment of lymph nodes, and proximal and distal cut margins. However, the SPLC group had a shorter time to first flatus (2.8±1.9 days vs. 3.8±1.5 days, p=0.005), earlier reinitiation of free oral fluids (3.2±2.1 days vs. 4.4±1.8 days, p=0.002), and lesser requirement of narcotic analgesics (2.5±3.9 times vs. 4.7±4.8 times, p=0.017). SPLC could be a safe and effective alternative to MPLC, even in emergency situations when performed by surgeons who have overcome the learning curve associated with single-port laparoscopic techniques. The tendency toward earlier returns to bowel function and decreased incidence of postoperative analgesic use would be potential benefits of SPLC in emergency situations.

Randomized clinical trial of single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic colectomy

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. 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. 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). SILC is not superior to MPLC. UMIN000007220 (http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm).

Short-term outcomes following reduced-port, single-port, and multi-port laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer: tailored laparoscopic approaches based on tumor size and nodal status.

Surgeons have recently developed more minimally invasive surgical procedures to reduce surgical stress and improve cosmesis. Although single-port laparoscopic colectomy (SPLC) has potential benefits over multi-port laparoscopic colectomy (MPLC), there are concerns about the increased technical difficulties associated with SPLC. Therefore, we attempted reduced-port laparoscopic colectomy (RPLC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the difference in perioperative outcome following tailored laparoscopic approaches for colon cancer on the basis of tumor characteristics. The prospectively collected data of 170 patients who underwent only minimally invasive colectomy for colon cancer from July 2010 to June 2013 were reviewed. The MPLC, SPLC, and RPLC groups comprised 92 (54.1 %), 40 (23.5 %), and 38 (22.4 %) patients, respectively. The number of harvested lymph nodes was significantly higher in the RPLC group than in the MPLC and SPLC groups (29.9 ± 21.5, 21.9 ± 12.1, and 24.2 ± 13.8, respectively; p = 0.027). The mean operating time was significantly different among the MPLC, SPLC, and RPLC groups (243.5 ± 59.0, 207.2 ± 49.6, and 216.2 ± 53.7 min, respectively; p = 0.001). The time to first flatus was also significantly different among the MPLC, SPLC, and RPLC groups (3.1 ± 1.2, 3.6 ± 1.3, and 3.4 ± 1.1 days, respectively; p = 0.039). No significant differences in the other short-term surgical outcomes were observed among the three groups. SPLC and RPLC according to tailored laparoscopic approaches for colon cancer appear to be beneficial in terms of operative time and lymph node retrieval, and may be considered as surgical options in laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer patients with favorable tumor characteristics.

Resident training in single-incision laparoscopic colectomy

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SLC) is touted as an improved approach to minimally invasive surgery, although no data currently exist regarding the acquisition of this technique. The aim of this study was to evaluate resident performance and outcomes in patients undergoing SLC performed by residents vs. staff colorectal surgeons. A retrospective case-control study was conducted, including 220 patients who underwent elective surgical intervention with multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MLC, n=141) or SLC (n=79) for colon cancer over a 24-month period at Yao Municipal Hospital (Yao, Japan). Data on patient demographics, operative data, oncological outcomes and short-term outcomes were evaluated for statistical significance. To investigate issues regarding the surgical procedures, the entire operation was recorded on video for all patients and was divided into 6 procedures, with each procedure measured in seconds. Senior-level residents were able to safely perform MLC under appropriate experienced supervision. For SLC, 1 case required conversion to an open procedure. No case required additional trocar placement. The mean operative times were similar for the staff and resident groups for total colon cancer (192.5 and 217.5 min, respectively; P=0.88), whereas the operative times of the staff group for right-sided colon cancer were significantly longer, and the operative times of the resident group for left-sided colon cancer were significantly longer. In addition, the overall perioperative outcomes, including blood loss, number of harvested lymph nodes, length of the surgical margin and complications, were similar between the two groups. When video recordings were evaluated by dividing the surgical process for the right colon into 4 procedures and that for the left colon into 6 procedures, the results demonstrated that the residents required more time to close the mesenteric margin for the left colon compared with the staff performing the same procedure (3,470.1±1,258.5 vs. 5,218.6±2,341.2 sec; P=0.01). Therefore, senior-level residents were able to safely perform SLC under appropriate experienced supervision. For the left colon, the main challenge for the residents appeared to be the closure of the mesenteric margin. Our data support that it is possible to train senior residents to complete a SLC safely and with the same efficacy as staff surgeons.

Initial experience of reduced port surgery using a two-surgeon technique for colorectal cancer.

BackgroundWith the decreasing number of surgeons on surgical teams, reduced port surgery (RPS) operations have become popular. We herein present our initial experience with RPS, which was successfully performed using a two-surgeon technique. A retrospective analysis was performed to compare the two-surgeon technique with conventional laparoscopic colectomy and evaluate its efficacy.MethodsA total of 535 patients were eligible among 749 registered patients. Conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy with three surgeons and RPS using the two-surgeon technique with a surgeon and surgeon’s assistant were performed in 429 and 106 cases, respectively. The patient characteristics, short-term outcomes (including intraoperative and postoperative findings) and pathological results were recorded and analyzed.ResultsThe two groups were similar with respect to age, gender, BMI, history of abdominal surgery, depth of tumor invasion and TNM classification. Reconstruction via extracorporeal functional end-to-end anastomosis was performed in a significantly higher number of patients in the two-surgeon technique group (74 %) than in the conventional laparoscopic colectomy group (57 %). Furthermore, the mean operative time in the two-surgeon technique group (117.9 min) was significantly shorter than that observed in the conventional laparoscopic colectomy group (170 min), and the median postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the two-surgeon technique group (6 days) than in the conventional laparoscopic colectomy group (7 days). There were no major postoperative complications. The final TNM stage was similar in both procedures.ConclusionRPS using the two-surgeon technique compares favorably with conventional laparoscopic colectomy and is considered to be a safe and successful procedure.

Single-Port Colectomy vs Multi-Port Laparoscopic Colectomy. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of More Than 2800 Procedures

ObjectiveMultiport laparoscopic surgery in colon pathology has been demonstrated as a safe and effective technique. Interest in reducing aggressiveness has led to other procedures being described, such as SILS. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate feasibility and security of SILS technique in colonic surgery. Material and methodsA meta-analysis of 27 observational studies and one prospective randomised trial has been conducted by the use of random-effects models. ResultsA total amount of 2870 procedures was analysed: 1119 SILS and 1751 MLC. We did not find statistically significant differences between SILS and MLC in age (WMD 0.28 [−1.13, 1.68]; P=.70), BMI (WMD −0.63 [−1.34, 0.08]; P=.08), ASA score (WMD −0.02 [−0.08, 0.04]; P=.51), length of incision (WMD −1.90 [−3.95, 0.14]; P=.07), operating time (WMD −2.69 (−18.33, 12.95]; P=.74), complications (OR=0.89 [0.69, 1.15]; P=.37), conversion to laparotomy (OR=0.59 [0.33, 1.04]; P=.07), mortality (OR=0.91 [0.36, 2.34]; P=.85) or number of lymph nodes harvested (WMD 0.13 [−2.52, 2.78]; P=.92). The blood loss was significantly lower in the SILS group (WMD −42.68 [−76.79, −8.57]; P=.01) and the length of hospital stay was also significantly lower in the SILS group (WMD −0.73 [−1.18, −0.28]; P=.001). ConclusionSingle-port laparoscopic colectomy is a safe and effective technique with additional subtle benefits compared to multiport laparoscopic colectomy. However, further prospective randomised studies are needed before single-port colectomy can be considered an alternative to multiport laparoscopic surgery of the colon.

Colectomía mediante puerto único vs colectomía mediante laparoscopia multipuerto. Revisión sistemática y metaanálisis de más de 2.800 procedimientos

ObjectiveMultiport laparoscopic surgery in colon pathology has been demonstrated as a safe and effective technique. Interest in reducing aggressiveness has led to other procedures being described, such as SILS. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate feasibility and security of SILS technique in colonic surgery. Material and methodsA meta-analysis of twenty 7 observational studies and one prospective randomized trial has been conducted by the use of random-effects models. ResultsA total amount of 2870 procedures was analyzed: 1119 SILS and 1751 MLC. We did not find statistically significant differences between SILS and MLC in age (WMD 0.28 [−1.13, 1.68]; P=.70), BMI (WMD −0.63 [−1.34, 0.08]; P=.08), ASA score (WMD −0.02 [−0.08, 0.04]; P=.51), length of incision (WMD −1.90 [−3.95, 0.14]; P=.07), operating time (WMD −2.69 (−18.33, 12.95]; P=.74), complications (OR=0.89 [0.69, 1.15]; P=.37), conversion to laparotomy (OR=0.59 [0.33, 1.04]; P=.07), mortality (OR=0.91 [0.36, 2.34]; P=.85) or number of lymph nodes harvested (WMD 0.13 [−2.52, 2.78]; P=.92). The blood loss was significantly lower in the SILS group (WMD −42.68 [−76.79, −8.57]; P=.01) and the length of hospital stay was also significantly lower in the SILS group (WMD −0.73 [−1.18, −0.28]; P=.001). ConclusionSingle-port laparoscopic colectomy is a safe and effective technique with additional subtle benefits compared to multiport laparoscopic colectomy. However, further prospective randomized studies are needed before single-port colectomy can be considered an alternative to multiport laparoscopic surgery of the colon.

Single-port laparoscopic colectomy is safe and feasible in patients with previous abdominal surgery

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to assess the impact of previous abdominal surgery (PAS) on single-port laparoscopic colectomy (SPLC). MethodsWe studied 429 consecutive patients who underwent SPLC in our department from May 2009 to December 2013. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those with PAS (PAS group) and those with NPAS (NPAS group). Operative parameters and outcomes were analyzed between the 2 groups retrospectively. ResultsSPLC was performed in 152 PAS patients and 277 NPAS patients. Eight patients in the PAS group and 6 patients in the NPAS group were converted to multiport laparoscopic colectomy (5.3% vs 2.2%, respectively; P = .077). Three patients in the PAS group and 2 patients in the NPAS group had inadvertent enterotomy (2.0% vs .7%, respectively; P = .352). No patients were converted to open surgery. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of blood loss, operative time, and postoperative outcomes. ConclusionOur experience has demonstrated the safety and feasibility of SPLC in patients with PAS.

Single incision laparoscopic colectomy for colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional laparoscopic colectomy.

PurposeThe aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the feasibility of single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), and to compare the short-term surgical outcomes with those of conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.MethodsForty-four patients who underwent SILS were compared with 263 patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal adenocarcinoma between November 2011 and September 2012.ResultsIn the SILS group, eleven cases (25.0%) of right hemicolectomy, 15 (34.1%) anterior resections, and 18 (40.9%) low anterior resections were performed. Additional ports were required in 10 rectal patients during SILS operation. In the 32 patients with rectosigmoid and rectal cancer in the SILS group, patients with mid and lower rectal cancers had a tendency to require a longer operation time (168.2 minutes vs. 223.8 minutes, P = 0.002), additional ports or multiport conversion (P = 0.007), than those with rectosigmoid and upper rectal cancer. Both SILS and conventional groups had similar perioperative outcomes. Operation time was longer in the SILS group than in the conventional laparoscopic surgery group (185.0 minutes vs. 139.2 minutes, P < 0.001). More diverting stoma were performed in the SILS group (64.7% vs. 24.2%, P = 0.011). Multivariate analysis showed that tumor location in the rectum (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.858-10.560; P = 0.001), SILS (95% CI, 3.450-20.233; P < 0.001), diverting stoma (95% CI, 1.606-9.288; P = 0.003), and transfusion (95% CI, 1.092-7.854; P = 0.033) were independent risk factors for long operation time (>180 minutes).ConclusionSILS is a feasible, not inferior treatment option for colorectal cancer, and appears to have similar results as standard conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy, despite the longer operative time.

Feasibility of single-site laparoscopic colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for colon cancer: a prospective case–control comparison

BackgroundSingle-site laparoscopic colectomy (SLC) is an emerging concept that, compared with conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MLC), yields reduced postoperative pain and improved cosmesis. Complete mesocolic excision (CME) is a novel concept for colon cancer surgery that provides improved oncologic outcomes; however, there are no reports of SLC with CME. We conducted a prospective case–control study to evaluate the feasibility and safety of SLC with CME for colon cancer.MethodsProspectively collected data of patients with stage I-III colon cancer who underwent SLC (n = 150) or MLC (n = 150) between June 2008 and March 2012 were analyzed. Patients who underwent SLC were, in terms of clinical characteristics and tumor location, matched as closely as possible with those undergoing MLC. Within each group, patients were classified as having right-sided (n = 69 in each group) or left-sided (n = 81 in each group) colon cancer, and short-term outcomes were compared between the two procedures overall and per side.ResultsOverall perioperative outcomes, including operation time, blood loss, number of lymph nodes harvested, length of the resected specimen, and complications, were similar between the two procedures, whereas postoperative pain was significantly lower with SLC. Operation time for right-sided SLC was significantly shortened. SLC with CME was completed successfully in 94 % (65/69) of right-sided cases and in 88 % (71/81) of left-sided cases. Conversion rates were 1.4 % (1/69) and 1.1 % (1/81), respectively. The umbilical scars were nearly invisible 3 months after the procedure, and most patients reported being quite satisfied with the cosmetic outcomes.ConclusionsSLC with CME for colon cancer is feasible when performed by experienced surgeons in selected patients. Excellent cosmesis and reduced postoperative pain as well as oncologic clearance can be expected. A large-scale, prospective, randomized, controlled trial should be conducted to confirm the superiority of this procedure over MLC with CME.

A comparison of cosmetic outcomes following single-incision and multi-port laparoscopic colectomy

A comparison of cosmetic outcomes following single-incision and multi-port laparoscopic colectomy