Single-incision Cholecystectomy Research Articles

Incidence of incisional hernias and cosmetic outcome after laparoscopic single-incision cholecystectomy: a long-term follow-up cohort study of 125 patients.

Studies have evaluated long-term occurrence of incisional hernia, cosmesis, and postoperative pain after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC). However, the follow-up periods were rarely defined longer than 12 months. The authors performed a cohort study to evaluate hernia rate and cosmesis in a prolonged follow-up period. All patients that underwent SILC at the University Hospital Brandenburg an der Havel Hospital between December 2008 and November 2014 were evaluated in terms of postoperative complications, and a follow-up telephone interview including the existence of hernias and chronic pain was performed. Cosmesis and the overall satisfaction of the scar was measured by POSAS (Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale). In total 125 patients underwent SILC. The single-incision approach was completed in 94.4%, an additional trocar was necessary in 3.2% (n=4) and a conversion to 4 trocar cholecystectomy was required in 2.4% (n=3). Intraoperative complications occurred in 0.8% and postoperative complication in 12.8% of all patients. Follow-up telephone interview was performed in 49.6% of 125 patients. The mean follow-up period was 138.9 months (11.6 years). Overall, in 3.6%, an incisional hernia was diagnosed. A total of 3.6% reported pain in the region of the umbilicus with a mean VAS (visual analog scale) of 2/10. The mean POSAS score was 7.8. Overall, 82.3% of this cohort rate their satisfaction of the scar with a 1/7, resembling the best possible result of the scar. The present study demonstrates that SILC is a safe alternative in terms of incisional hernia rate and complications with a high satisfaction of the scar even after one decade after surgery. In comparison to shorter follow-up period and multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy, our result is comparable.

A retrospective cohort report of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomies in Saudi Arabia: Postoperative outcomes and patient satisfaction

IntroductionSingle incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy has become more popular recently. Because it yields shorter hospitalization, less postoperative pain, and better cosmetic outcomes. As it minimizes the number of incisions, it causes less trauma to the anterior abdominal wall and this decreases the operative mortality and morbidity. In this study, our aim is to share our results from the procedure so that surgeons in the field may consider adopting this approach when performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. MethodsThis is a retrospective study of 125 patients that underwent single-incision cholecystectomy. These patients underwent the procedure in a specialized center. We extracted data and surveyed patients who underwent the procedure between 2017 and 2019, and that were performed by the same consultant using the standard tools of laparoscopic surgery. All patients were followed for 12 months. The postoperative survey includes; the cosmetic appearance of the surgical site, pain management after the procedure, and patient satisfaction with this experience. ResultsMost of the patients were satisfied with postoperative pain management and their cosmetic appearance. Most of the patients were females diagnosed with cholelithiasis preoperatively. The mean age of the patients was 37.43 ± 10.72 years, the mean BMI of the participants was 29.68 ± 6.51 kg/m2 and the mean operative time was 25.56 ± 10.42 min. ConclusionSingle incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy has the potential to become the procedure of choice for cholecystectomy.

Safety for using fluorescent cholangiography in robotic single incision cholecystectomy in both acute and chronic cholecystitis

Safety for using fluorescent cholangiography in robotic single incision cholecystectomy in both acute and chronic cholecystitis

Single Incision Cholecystectomies for Acute Cholecystitis: A Single Surgeon Series from the Caribbean.

Introduction Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is accepted as a safe alternative to conventional multiport laparoscopic (MPL) cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease. Since many surgeons carefully select patients without inflammation, there are limited data on SILS for acute cholecystitis. We report a single surgeon experience with SILS cholecystectomy for patients with acute cholecystitis. Materials and Methods After securing ethical approval, we performed an audit of all SILS cholecystectomies for acute cholecystitis by a single surgeon from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2019. The following data were extracted: patient demographics, intraoperative details, surgical techniques, specialized equipment utilized, conversions (additional port placement), morbidity, and mortality. Data were analyzed using SPSS 12.0. Results SILS cholecystectomy was performed in 25 females at a mean age of 35 ± 4.1 (SD) years and a mean BMI of 31.9 ± 3.8 (SD) using a direct fascial puncture technique without access platforms. The operations were completed in 83 ± 29.4 minutes (mean ± SD) with an estimated blood loss of 76.9 ± 105 (mean + SD). Three (12%) patients required additional 5 mm port placement (conversions), but no open operations were performed. The patients were hospitalized for 1.96 ± 0.9 days (mean ± SD). There were 2 complications: postoperative superficial SSI (grade I) and a diaphragmatic laceration (grade III). No bile duct injuries were reported. There were 9 patients with complicated acute cholecystitis, and this sub-group had longer mean operating times (109.2 ± 27.3 minutes) and mean postoperative hospital stay (1.3 ± 0.87 days). Conclusion The SILS technique is a feasible and safe approach to perform cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. We advocate a low threshold to place additional ports to assist with difficult dissections for patient safety.

Risk factors of incisional hernia after single-incision cholecystectomy and safety of barbed suture material for wound closure.

PurposeSingle-incision cholecystectomy is a surgical method that offers comparable results to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, a high risk of postoperative incisional hernia is an issue in single-incision cholecystectomy. This study evaluated the risk factors and incidences of incisional hernia after single-incision cholecystectomy and the advantage issue of using barbed suture material during wound closures.MethodsA total of 1,111 patients underwent laparoscopic or robotic single-incision cholecystectomy between March 2014 and February 2020 at our institution at CHA Bundang Medical Center. During this period, there were 693 patients who underwent wound closure with monofilament suture material (Monosyn 2-0; B. Braun) and the other 418 patients used barbed suture material (Stratafix 2-0; Ethicon).ResultsThe two patient groups were comparable in age, body mass index, and diagnosis. The total incidence of incisional hernia after single-incision cholecystectomy was 0.5% (five cases). All patients who developed incisional hernia were in the monofilament suture material group (0.7% vs. 0%, p = 0.021). The influence of predictive and possible risk factors on incisional hernia rate was analyzed. Among these factors, only old age was an independent predictive risk factor of incisional hernia.ConclusionOur study showed a low incidence of incisional hernia, all of which occurred in the monofilament suture material group. If technically appropriate, single-incision cholecystectomy does not appear to present a high incidence of hernia. Barbed suture material can be safely applied in wound closure showing comparable incisional hernia incidence to monofilament suture material.

Comparison of short- and long-term postoperative occurrences after robotic single-incision cholecystectomy versus multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Long-term outcomes of SIRC are not well established. Furthermore, SIRC is only now being considered more frequently for patients with independent risk factors for PSH, such as obesity. As such, the paucity of data on longer-term post-surgical outcomes of SIRC is particularly notable as it pertains to obese patients. All patients undergoing cholecystectomy performed by two surgeons at our institution from 2008-2018 were reviewed. Our inclusion criteria were patients who underwent SIRC or multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MPLC) and had at least one month of postoperative follow-up. Patients who underwent additional procedures at the time of cholecystectomy were excluded. Our outcomes of interest were the 30-day POC rate and the long-term PSH rate. Analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat basis, using logistic regression analysis for POC and time-to-event analysis for PSH. We examined 584 patients who underwent either SIRC (51%) or MPLC (49%). Of the 296 patients who underwent SIRC, 15 (5%) developed a POC and 23 (8%) developed a PSH. Of the 288 patients who underwent MPLC, 11 (4%) developed a POC, and 28 (10%) developed a PSH. Procedure group and obesity was not associated with the risk of POC (p = 0.29, p = 0.21, respectively). Procedure group was not associated with an increased risk of PSH (p = 0.29). Obese patients, however, were 1.94 times more likely to develop PSH compared to non-obese patients overall (p = 0.02). There is no statistically significant difference in POC and PSH rate following SIRC when compared with MPLC in patients in the same BMI group. Male gender and prior abdominal surgery are risk factors for POC, while advancing age and obesity are risk factors for PSH.

Comparison of outcomes of single incision robotic cholecystectomy and single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Backgrounds/AimsMultiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the standard surgical procedure for symptomatic gallbladder diseases. However, as a result of the ongoing trend toward minimally invasive laparoscopy, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has evolved. Single-incision robotic cholecystectomy (SIRC) can overcome several limitations of manual SILC. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the safety and feasibility of SIRC and SILC.MethodsThis study retrospectively reviewed data for all patients who underwent SIRC or SILC from March 2018 to July 2019 in a single institution. The following variables were analyzed: age, sex, body mass index, pain scale, length of stay, and complications. The data were analyzed using the Independent two sample t-test or the Fisher’s exact test.ResultsA total of 343 patients underwent SIRC or SILC during the study period. After excluding patients with acute cholecystitis, 197 SIRC and 103 SILC patients were analyzed in this study. The surgery time and postoperative hospital stay did not differ between SIRC and SILC. However, the SIRC patients experienced less bile spillage during the surgery than did the SILC patients (SIRC vs. SILC: 24 (23.3%) vs. 11 (5.6%) cases, respectively; p<0.001). Although there was no difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between procedures, additional pain control was administered more frequently in SILC patients (SILC 1.08±0.893, SIRC 0.58±0.795; p<0.001).ConclusionsWhile both SILC and SIRC are effective for single-incision cholecystectomy, SIRC was superior to SILC in terms of technical stability. Moreover, it has the advantage of postoperative pain control.

Fluorescent cholangiography significantly improves patient outcomes for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the most common elective abdominal surgery in the USA, with over 750,000 performed annually. Fluorescent cholangiography (FC) using indocyanine green dye (ICG) permits identification of extrahepatic biliary structures to facilitate dissection without requiring cystic duct cannulation. Achieving the "critical view of safety" with assistance of ICG cholangiogram may support identification of anatomy, safely reduce conversion to open procedures, and decrease operative time. We assess the utility of FC with respect to anatomic visualization during LC and its effects on patient outcomes. A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database identified patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy at a single academic center from 2013 to 2019. Exclusion criteria were primary open and single incision cholecystectomy. Patient factors included age, sex, BMI, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Outcomes included operative time, conversion to open procedure, length of stay (LOS), mortality rate, and 30-day complications. A multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine independent predictors for open conversion. A total of 1389 patients underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy. 69.8% were female; mean age 48.6years (range 15-94), average BMI 29.4kg/m2 (13.3-55.6). 989 patients (71.2%) underwent LC without fluorescence and 400 (28.8%) underwent FC with ICG. 30-day mortality detected 2 cases in the non-ICG group and zero with ICG. ICG reduced operative time by 26.47min per case (p < 0.0001). For patients with BMI ≥ 30kg/m2, operative duration for ICG vs non-ICG groups was 75.57 vs 104.9min respectively (p < 0.0001). ICG required conversion to open at a rate of 1.5%, while non-ICG converted at a rate of 8.5% (p < 0.0001). Conversion rate remained significant with multivariable analysis (OR 0.212, p = 0.001). A total of 19 cases were aborted (1.35%), 8 in the ICG group (1.96%) and 11 in the non-ICG group (1.10%), these cases were not included in LC totals. Average LOS was 0.69 vs 1.54days in the ICG compared to non-ICG LCs (p < 0.0001), respectively. Injuries were more common in the non-ICG group, with 9 patients sustaining Strasberg class A injuries in the non-ICG group and 2 in the ICG group. 1 CBDI occurred in the non-ICG group. There was no significant difference in 30-day complication rates between groups. ICG cholangiography is a non-invasive adjunct to laparoscopic cholecystectomy, leading to improved patient outcomes with respect to operative times, decreased conversion to open procedures, and shorter length of hospitalization. Fluorescence cholangiography improves visualization of biliary anatomy, thereby decreasing rate of CBDI, Strasberg A injuries, and mortality. These findings support ICG as standard of care during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Robotic surgery enables safe and comfortable single-incision cholecystectomy: A comparison of robotic and laparoscopic approaches for single-incision surgery.

Background:Although single-incision robotic cholecystectomy (SIRC) overcomes various limitations of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC), it is associated with high cost. In this study, we intended to investigate if SIRC is recommendable and advantageous to patients despite its high cost.Materials and Methods:We prospectively collected and analysed data of patients who had undergone either SILC (n = 25) or SIRC (n = 50) for benign gallbladder diseases, with identical inclusion criteria, between November 2017 and February 2019.Results:SILC and SIRC showed similar operative outcomes in terms of intra- and post-operative complications and verbal numerical rating scale (VNRS) for pain. However, the SIRC group exhibited significantly longer operation time than the SILC group (83.2 ± 32.6 vs. 66.4 ± 32.8, P = 0.002). The SIRC group also showed longer hospital stay (2.4 ± 0.7 vs. 2.2 ± 0.6, P = 0.053). Although the SILC and SIRC groups showed no significant difference in VNRS, the SIRC group required a higher amount (126.0 ± 88.8 mg vs. 87.5 ± 79.7 mg, P = 0.063) and frequency (3.0 ± 2.1 vs. 2.0 ± 1.8, P = 0.033) of intravenous opioid analgesic administration. During surgery, the critical view of safety (CVS), the prerequisite for safe cholecystectomy, was identified in only 24% (n = 6) of patients undergoing SILC and in 100% (n = 50) of patients undergoing SIRC (P < 0.05).Conclusion:We conclude that although SILC and SIRC have similar operative outcomes, SIRC is advantageous over SILC because of its potential to markedly enhance the safety of patients by proficiently acquiring CVS.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Case-Control Outcome Analysis and Surgical Resident Training Implications.

BackgroundThe robotic approach in surgery is becoming more widely used in many subspecialties. Robot-assisted laparoscopic procedures provide potential improvements in clinical outcomes due to improved visualization and enhanced surgical ergonomics. In this study, we measured and compared outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy with the conventional laparoscopic technique, as well as the implications for the training of surgical residents.MethodWe compared a total of 244 patients undergoing minimally invasive cholecystectomies performed by one surgeon between July 2013 and June 2016 examining relevant clinical outcomes including operative room (OR) time, length of hospital stay (LOS), readmission to the hospital, post-operative emergency department (ED) visits, and post-operative pain between laparoscopic single-incision cholecystectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A chi-square test and Student’s t-test were used to compare these variables between the two groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used using gender, age, and body mass index (BMI) as variables.ResultsFrom the total number of procedures of 244, 144 were included in the laparoscopic group and 100 in the robot-assisted group. The robot-assisted patients had a shorter post-operative LOS (mean: 0.8 vs. 1.6 days; p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the OR time (mean: 64.8 vs. 65.0 minutes; p = 0.945), readmissions (4.0% vs. 3.5%; p = 0.830), post-operative ED visits (7.0% vs. 7.6%; p = 0.851), or post-operative pain (13.0% vs. 21.3%; p= 0.137). Robotic cholecystectomy patients were younger (mean: 46 vs. 52 years; p = 0.023) and had lower BMIs (mean: 31 vs. 33; p = 0.038). Because of these differences, we compared the two groups using PSM that confirmed the shorter LOS in the robotic group (mean: 0.9 vs. 1.9; p = 0.009).ConclusionsThese results demonstrate that robotic cholecystectomies can reduce LOS for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, without increasing OR time. Increased surgeon experience with robotic procedures and improved OR efficiency will allow greater opportunities for resident participation. Robotic training curricula need to be employed and objectively evaluated to improve surgical resident skill acquisition and provide earlier and progressive clinical participation in robotic procedures.

Morbidity and Mortality of Single Incision Cholecystectomy: Results of a 3-Year Register Analysis

Two decades ago, single-incision surgery was established as a new concept in minimally invasive surgery. Single incision cholecystectomy is the most frequently performed procedure in clinical routine. Most of the results have been based on randomised trials. Large prospective multicentre observational datasets from clinical routine do not exist. This analysis of clinical health service research is based on the SILAP study (single-incision multiport/single port laparoscopic abdominal surgery study). The data of the register were collected in 47 hospitals in the period of 2012 to 2014. Overall morbidity and mortality were the primary outcome. Multiple linear and logistic regression analyses were performed. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Data from 975 patients in clinical routine with single incision cholecystectomy were collected. Intraoperative complications were recorded in 3.2% of cases. Bile duct injuries were registered in 0.1% of cases. Postoperative complications were detected in 3.7% of cases. The mortality rate was 0.2%.The median operating time dropped from 60.0 to 51.5 min (p < 0.001) during the study. The use of an extra trocar was necessary in 10.3% of cases. Conversion to open surgery was performed in 0.7% of cases. Body mass index (p = 0.024), male gender (p = 0.012) and operating time (p < 0.001) had a significant effect on intraoperative complications in multivariate analysis. Classification of ASA III (p = 0.001) and modification or conversion of single incision technique (p = 0.001) were significantly associated with postoperative complications. The register analysis of the prospective multicentre data shows that single incision cholecystectomy is feasible in clinical routine even outside the selective criteria of randomised studies. The only limitation is a BMI > 30 kg/m2 which has a significant influence on the intraoperative rate of complications in mild adverse events.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic single-incision cholecystectomy: results of a randomized controlled trial.

Although single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is safe and effective, inherent surgeons' discomfort has prevented a large-scale adaptation of this technique. Recent advances in robotic technology suggest that da Vinci Single-Site™ cholecystectomy (dVSSC) may overcome this issue by reducing the stress load of the surgeon compared to SILC. However, evidence to objectively assess differences between the two approaches is lacking. 60 patients [36 women, 24 men (mean age 52years)] with benign gallbladder disease were randomly assigned to dVSSC (n = 30) or SILC (n = 30) in this single-centre, single-blinded controlled trial. The primary endpoint was surgeon's stress load. Secondary endpoints included operating time, conversion rates, additional trocar placement, blood loss, length of hospital stay, procedure costs, health-related quality of life, cosmesis and complications. Data were collected preoperatively, during the hospital stay, and at 1 and 12 months' follow-up. The dVSSC group showed a significant reduction of mental stress load of the surgeon compared to SILC [Subjective Mental Effort Questionnaire (SMEQ) score: median 25.0 (range 8-89) vs. 42.5 (range 13-110) points; p = 0.002] and a trend towards reduced physical stress load [Local Experienced Discomfort (LED) score: median 8 (range 2-27) vs. 12 (range 0-64) points; p = 0.088]. The length of hospital stay was longer in the SILC group [mean 3.06 (median 2; range 1-26) vs. 1.9 (median 2; range 1-4) days, p = 0.034] but overall hospital costs were higher for dVSSC [median 9734 (range 5775-16729) vs. 6900 (range 4156-99977) CHF; p = 0.001]. There were no differences in the rate of postoperative complications that required re-intervention (Dindo-Clavien grade ≥ IIIa; SILC n = 2 vs. dVSSC n = 0, p = 0.492) or other secondary endpoints. Da Vinci Single-Site™ cholecystectomy provides significant benefits over Single-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in terms of surgeon's stress load, matches the standards of the laparoscopic single-incision approach with regard to patients' outcomes but increases expenses. Clinicaltrials.gov registration-No.: NCT02485392.

Robot-assisted single-site compared with laparoscopic single-incision cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease: results of a single-blinded randomized controlled trial

Background: Recent advances in robotic technology suggest that da Vinci Single-Site cholecystectomy (dVSSC) is safe, feasible and reduces the stress load of the surgeon compared to single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC). However, evidence needed to objectively assess differences based on high-quality comparative data is lacking to date. Methods: This single centre, single-blinded controlled trial included 60 patients with benign gallbladder disease randomly assigned to dVSSC (n=30) or SILC (n=30). The primary endpoint surgeon's physical and mental stress load was assessed using the validated Local Experienced Discomfort (LED) and Subjective Mental Effort Questionnaires (SMEQ). Secondary endpoints included operating time, conversion rates, additional trocar placement, intra-operative blood loss, length of hospital stay, procedure costs, health-related quality of life, cosmesis and complications. Patients and ward staff were blinded until 12 months postoperatively. Results: The dVSSC-group showed a significant reduction of mental stress load of the surgeon compared to SILC (SMEQ: median 25.0 vs. 42.5 points; p=0.002) and a trend toward reduced physical stress load (LED: median 8 vs. 12 points; p=0.088). The rate of postoperative complications that required a re-intervention (Dindo-Clavien grade≥IIIa) was similar in both groups (SILC n=2 vs dVSSC n=0, p=0.492). The length of stay was longer in the SILC group (3.06 vs 1.9 days, p=0.034) but overall hospital costs were higher for dVSSC (9831 vs. 6900 CHF; p=0.001). Conclusions: dVSSC provides significant benefits over SILC in terms of surgeon's stress load, matches the standards of the laparoscopic single-incision approach with regard to patients' outcomes but increases overall expenses. Clinicaltrials.gov trial-no: NCT02485392.

Minilaparoscopic versus single incision cholecystectomy for the treatment of cholecystolithiasis: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BackgroundOver the past decade, mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) and single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) have been the two main successful mini-invasive surgical interventions for the treatment of cholecystolithiasis since the advent of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the two treatment alternatives.MethodsWe searched PubMed, CNKI and the Cochrane library for trials that compared MLC and SILC. Risk difference (RD) and mean difference (MD) were calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsFour randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 2 non-randomized comparative studies (nRCSs) involving 2764 patients were identified. A longer operating time (MD -10.49; 95% CI -18.10, −2.88; P = 0.007) and a shorter wound length (MD 3.65; 95% CI 0.51, 6.78; P = 0.02) were found to be associated with SILC compared with MLC. No significant differences were revealed in conversion, hospital stay, pain relief and cosmetic results. Although a lower incidence of complications was observed with MLC (8.2%) compared with SILC (15.9%), but the difference was not statistically significant (RD -0.06; 95% CI -0.12, 0.00; P = 0.07).ConclusionsMLC has an advantage over SILC in terms of operating time rather than hospital stay, pain relief, cosmetic results. Though conversion and complication rates were higher with SILC, there existed no statistically differences in the two measures between the two procedures. Whether MLC confers any benefits in terms of conversion or complications still warrants further studies.

Robot-assisted single-site compared with laparoscopic single-incision cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundRecent advances in robotic technology suggest that the utilization of the da Vinci Single-Site™ platform for cholecystectomy is safe, feasible and results in a shorter learning curve compared to conventional single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Moreover, the robot-assisted technology has been shown to reduce the surgeon’s stress load compared to standard single-incision laparoscopy in an experimental setup, suggesting an important advantage of the da Vinci platform. However, the above-mentioned observations are based solely on case series, case reports and experimental data, as high-quality clinical trials to demonstrate the benefits of the da Vinci Single-Site™ cholecystectomy have not been performed to date.MethodsThis study addresses the question whether robot-assisted Single-Site™ cholecystectomy provides significant benefits over single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy in terms of surgeon’s stress load, while matching the standards of the conventional single-incision approach with regard to peri- and postoperative outcomes. It is designed as a single centre, single-blinded randomized controlled trial, which compares both surgical approaches with the primary endpoint surgeon’s physical and mental stress load at the time of surgery. In addition, the study aims to assess secondary endpoints such as operating time, conversion rates, additional trocar placement, intra-operative blood loss, length of hospital stay, costs of procedure, health-related quality of life, cosmesis and complications. Patients as well as ward staff are blinded until the 1st postoperative year. Sample size calculation based on the results of a previously published experimental setup utilizing an estimated effect size of surgeon’s comfort of 0.8 (power of 0.8, alpha-error level of 0.05, error margin of 10–15%) resulted in a number of 30 randomized patients per arm.DiscussionThe study is the first randomized controlled trial that compares the da Vinci Single Site™ platform to conventional laparoscopic approaches in cholecystectomy, one of the most frequently performed operations in general surgery.Trial registrationThis trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (trial number: NCT02485392). Registered February 19, 2015.

Risk factors for an additional port in single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with cholecystitis.

Although single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is now widely performed in patients with cholecystitis, some cases require an additional port to complete the procedure. In this study, we focused on risk factor of additional port in this surgery. We performed single-incision cholecystectomy in 75 patients with acute cholecystitis or after cholecystitis between 2010 and 2014 at Gunma University Hospital. Surgical indications followed the TG13 guidelines. Our standard procedure for single-incision cholecystectomy routinely uses two needlescopic devices. We used logistic regression analysis to identify the risk factors associated with use of an additional full-size port (5 or 10 mm). Surgical outcome was acceptable without biliary injury. Nine patients (12.0%) required an additional port, and one patient (1.3%) required conversion to open cholecystectomy because of severe adhesions around the cystic duct and common bile duct. In multivariate analysis, high C-reactive protein (CRP) values (>7.0 mg/dl) during cholecystitis attacks were significantly correlated with the need for an additional port (P = 0.009), with a sensitivity of 55.6%, specificity of 98.5%, and accuracy of 93.3%. This study indicated that the severe inflammation indicated by high CRP values during cholecystitis attacks predicts the need for an additional port. J. Med. Invest. 64: 245-249, August, 2017.

Comparison study of clinical outcomes between single-site robotic cholecystectomy and single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the standard surgical procedure for symptomatic gallbladder diseases. The latest evolution is single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC). Single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) overcomes several limitations of manual SILC. The aim of this study is to present our initial experiences in SSRC and to compare its clinical outcomes with those of SILC. This study retrospectively reviewed data for patients who received SSRC or SILC from February 2014 to September 2015. The following variables were analyzed: age, sex, body mass index, indications, pain scale, length of stay, and complications. The data were analyzed with Student t test or by Fisher exact test. The analysis included 51 SSRC (33 women, 18 men) and 63 SILC patients (40 women, 23 men). Patients in both groups had similar demographic features and indications for surgery. The SSRC group required no conversions to conventional laparoscopy and no additional trocars, whereas the SILC group had two (3.17%) cases. Length of stay did not significantly differ between the SSRC and SILC groups (4.29±0.72 vs. 4.13±0.93days, respectively; p=0.823). However, the SSRC group had shorter operative time (71.30±48.88 vs. 74.70±30.16minutes; p=0.772), less perioperative bile spillage (9.81% vs. 19.05%; p=0.189), and less postoperative bile leakage (0% vs. 3.17%; p=0.501). However, the parameters mentioned above were not statistically significant, whereas pain scale scores were significantly lower in the SSRC group (2.11±0.76 vs. 3.98±0.84; p<0.01). Both SSRC and SILC are safe and feasible procedures for performing single incision cholecystectomy. SSRC, however, has the advantage of significantly decreased postoperative pain.

Surgical Value of Elective Minimally Invasive Gallbladder Removal: A Cost Analysis of Traditional 4-Port vs Single-Incision and Robotically Assisted Cholecystectomy

As the cost of health care is subjected to increasingly greater scrutiny, the assessment of new technologies must include the surgical value (SV) of the procedure. Surgical value is defined as outcome divided by cost. The cost and outcome of 50 consecutive traditional (4-port) laparoscopic cholecystectomies (TLC) were compared with 50 consecutive, nontraditional laparoscopic cholecystectomies (NTLC), between October 2012 and February 2014. The NTLC included SILS (n = 11), and robotically assisted single-incision cholecystectomies (ROBOSILS; n = 39). Our primary outcomes included minimally invasive gallbladder removal and same-day discharge. Thirty-day emergency department visits or readmissions were evaluated as a secondary outcome. The direct variable surgeon costs (DVSC) were distilled from our hospital cost accounting system and calculated on a per-case, per item basis. The average DVSC for TLC was $929 and was significantly lower than NTLC at $2,344 (p < 0.05), SILS at $1,407 (p < 0.05), and ROBOSILS at $2,608 (p < 0.05). All patients achieved the same primary outcomes: minimally invasive gallbladder removal and same day discharge. There were no differences observed in secondary outcomes in 30-day emergency department visits (TLC [2%] vs NTLC [6%], p = 0.61) or readmissions (TLC [4%] vs NTLC [2%], p > 0.05), respectively. The relative SV was significantly higher for TLC (1) compared with NTLC (0.34) (p < 0.05), and SILS (0.66) and ROBOSILS (0.36) (p < 0.05). Nontraditional, minimally invasive gallbladder removal (SILS and ROBOSILS) offers significantly less surgical value for elective, outpatient gallbladder removal.

Impact of Experience on Quality Outcomes in Single-incision Cholecystectomy in Children

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has been shown to be safe in children; however, factors that impact outcomes are not well understood. We report a retrospective review of 151 patients who underwent SILC between 2009 and 2013. Regression analysis was used to determine inflection of learning curve. Patients were grouped by early cases, late cases, and late case with surgical trainees. Mean age for all patients was 15 ± 3 years (5-20.5 year), and mean weight was 66.5 ± 21.3 kg (15-117 kg). There was a decrease in operative times between the early group (n = 15) and the late group (n = 100) (75.3 vs 56.1 minutes, P < 0.05). Surgical trainees were involved in 36 cases, and their introduction did not significantly increase operative times (56.1 vs 60.4 minutes, P = NS (Non-significant)). No difference in operative times between early cases and cases with trainees was identified (75.3 vs 60.4 minutes, P = NS). The complication was 6 per cent, with no significant differences between the groups. There were five conversions (3.3%). During the adoption of SILC, significantly decreased operative times were achieved after a short learning curve, and these were maintained with surgical trainees. Our results show that SILC can be safely introduced into a pediatric surgical practice.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by a single surgeon: findings of a randomized trial

Traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TLC) is performed widely; however, single-incision cholecystectomy (SILC) has been proposed as a better and less traumatic procedure. In this prospective, double-blinded, randomized study, patients were randomized to undergo either elective SILC or TLC. The primary endpoint was the level of pain after surgery and the secondary endpoints were complications, cosmetic outcomes, and patient satisfaction. A total of 59 patients were enrolled (SILC, n=30; TLC, n=29). The median operative time was longer for the SILC group (55 vs. 40min; P<0.0001). Patients in the SILC group had a lower median VAS pain score 4h after surgery (20mm for the TLC group vs. 15mm for the SILC group). Complications were distributed equally. Twenty-eight of the 30 patients in the SILC group vs. 23 of the 29 patients in the TLC group were very satisfied with their operation (P=0.032). The cosmetic results of SILC were better than those of TLC, with visible scars in 21 patients from the TLC group vs. 3 patients from the SILC group (P=0.0001). We found SILC to be a safe, feasible, and adaptable surgical technique. The pain scores at 4h were significantly better for SILC than for TLC.