Single-incision Laparoscopic Surgery Group Research Articles

Is single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) dependent on the location of the tumor?

BackgroundWe compared the surgical outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST).MethodsWe performed single-incision gastric wedge resection on prospectively-enrolled 15 consecutive patients with gastric GIST between November 2020 and April 2022 in a single tertiary center. The early perioperative outcomes of these patients were compared to those of patients who underwent CLS. The indications did not differ from those for conventional laparoscopic procedures for gastric GIST.ResultsIn total, 30 patients were assigned to the SILS (n = 15) and CLS (n = 15) groups. There were no significant differences in the estimated blood loss and intraoperative blood transfusion between the SILS and CLS groups. There were no intraoperative complications or conversions to multiple-port or open surgery in the SILS group. Proximally located tumors were more commonly treated with CLS than with SILS (P = 0.045). GISTs located in the greater curvature were more commonly treated with SILS than with CLS, although the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.08). The mean incision length in the SILS group was 4.1 cm shorter than that in the CLS group (3.2 ± 0.7 and 7.3 ± 5.2 cm, respectively, P = 0.01). The postoperative analgesic dose was significantly lower in the SILS than in the CLS group (0.4 ± 1.4 and 2.1 ± 2.3, respectively P = 0.01). Also, the duration of postoperative use of analgesic was shorter in SILS than in CLS (0.4 ± 0.7 and 2.0 ± 1.8, respectively, P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in the early postoperative complications between the groups.ConclusionsSILS is as safe, feasible, and effective for the treatment of gastric GIST as CLS with comparable postoperative complications, pain, and cosmesis. Moreover, SILS can be considered without being affected by the type or location of the tumor.

A propensity score matching investigation of short-term results of single-incision laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection via ileostomy site.

The study was performed to verify the results of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) through the ileostomy site for low rectal cancer compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). From January 2019 to November 2021, 133 patients with low rectal cancer underwent single-incision (n = 27) or conventional (n = 106) methods of low anterior rectal resection surgery with ileostomy. All patients were balanced by propensity score matching for basic information in a ratio of 1:2, resulting in 27 and 54 in SILS and CLS groups, respectively. Relative to the CLS group, the SILS group exhibited fewer leucocyte changes, shorter time to first exhaust and first bowel sounds, shorter length of hospital stay and lower Visual Analogue Score on post-operative days (POD2) and POD3. Intraoperative or post-operative complications or readmissions were comparable between the two groups. The oncologic results remained consistent between the two groups other than the number of lymph nodes dissected in group no. 253. Single-incision laparoscopic low rectal resection surgery through the ileostomy site has advantages in terms of reduced post-operative pain, shorter post-operative exhaust time and length of hospital stay while also achieving oncologic outcomes similar to those of conventional laparoscopy. It can be an alternative procedure for patients with low rectal cancer who require ileostomy.

Single-incision versus multi-port laparoscopic ileocolic resections for Crohn's disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) versus multi-port laparoscopy for ileocolic resection in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). A systematic search of multiple electronic databases was conducted. The peri- and post-operative outcomes were evaluated between Crohn's patients undergoing SILS versus multi-port laparoscopy for ileocolic resection. The primary outcomes included operative time, anastomotic leak rate, post-operative wound infections and length of hospital stay. Analysed secondary outcomes were conversion rates, ileus occurrence, intra-abdominal abscess formation, return to theatre and re-admissions. Revman 5.3 was used to perform the statistical analysis. Five observational studies with 521 patients (SILS: 211; multi-port: 310) were included in the data synthesis. Patients undergoing SILS had a reduced total operative time compared to multi-port laparoscopy (mean difference [MD]: -16.14, 95% confidence interval: [CI] -27.23 - 5.05, P = 0.004). Post-operative hospital stay was also found to be significantly less in the SILS group (MD: -0.57, 95% CI: -0.73--0.42, P < 0.0001). No significant difference was seen in the anastomotic leak rate (MD: -16.14, 95% CI: 0.18-1.71, P = 0.004) or post-operative wound infections (odds ratio: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.24 - 2.47, P = 0.67) between the two groups. Moreover, all the measured secondary outcomes were comparable. SILS seems to be a feasible alternative to multi-port laparoscopic surgery for ileocolic resection in patients with CD. Improved outcomes in terms of total operative time and length of hospital stay were observed in patients undergoing SILS surgery. Adopting this procedure into routine clinical practice constitutes the next step in the development of minimally invasive surgery.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of single-incision versus multi-port laparoscopic surgery for descending colon cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

The clinical impact of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for descending colon cancer (DCC) is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of SILS for DCC compared with multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MPLS). We retrospectively analyzed 137 consecutive patients with stage I-III DCC who underwent SILS or MPLS at two high-volume multidisciplinary tertiary hospitals between April 2008 and December 2018, using propensity score-matched analysis. After propensity score-matching, we enrolled 88 patients (n = 44 in each group). SILS was successful in 97.7% of the matched cohort. Compared with the MPLS group, the SILS group showed significantly less blood loss and a greater number of harvested lymph nodes. Morbidity rates were similar between groups. Recurrence pattern did not differ between groups. No significant differences were found between groups in terms of 3-year disease-free and overall survivals. SILS appears safe and feasible and can provide satisfactory oncological outcomes for patients with DCC.

Oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer (CSILS): study protocol for a multicentre, prospective, open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial

BackgroundIn most previous studies, single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) was feasible and safe in the short term. However, long-term oncologic outcomes remain uncertain, as only a few studies contained long-term survival data. SILS for CRC is still in the early stages of research. Further studies, particularly large-scale, prospective randomized controlled trials, are necessary to assess the value of SILS for CRC.MethodsThis study is a prospective, multicentre, open-label, noninferiority, parallel-group randomized controlled trial that investigates the long-term oncologic outcomes of SILS compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for CRC. A total of 710 eligible patients will be randomly assigned to the SILS group or the CLS group at a 1:1 ratio using a central, dynamic, and stratified block randomization method. Patients with ages ranging from 18 to 85 years old, of both sexes, with CRC above the peritoneal reflection diagnosed as cT1-4aN0-2M0 and a tumour size no larger than 5 cm will be considered for the study. The primary endpoint is 3-year disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary endpoints include: intraoperative outcomes, postoperative recovery, postoperative pain assessment, pathological outcomes, early morbidity and mortality rate, cosmetic effects, quality of life, 3-year overall survival (OS), incidence of incisional hernia, 5-year DFS and 5-year OS. The first two follow-up visits will be scheduled at one month and three months postoperatively, then every three months for the first two years and every six months for the next three years.DiscussionCurrently, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been designed to investigate the long-term oncologic outcomes of SILS for CRC. This study is expected to provide clinical evidence of the oncologic outcomes of SILS compared to CLS for CRC to promote its widespread use.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT 04527861 (registered on August 27, 2020).

Comparison of clinical outcomes of single-incision versus multi-port laparoscopic surgery for rectosigmoid or upper rectal cancer.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for rectal cancer is technically challenging, and its clinical impact is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes of SILS for rectal cancer compared with multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MPLS). We retrospectively analyzed 357 consecutive patients with stage I-III rectal cancer located in the rectosigmoid or upper rectum who underwent SILS or MPLS between January 2012 and December 2016, using propensity score-matched analysis. After propensity score-matching, we enrolled 204 patients (n = 102 per group). Before matching, significant group-dependent differences were observed in tumor location (p < 0.001). After matching, preoperative clinical factors were similar between groups. SILS was successful in 73.5% of cases, an additional port was required in 23.5%, and 2.9% were converted to open surgery. Compared to the MPLS group, the SILS group showed shorter operative time (192 vs. 211min, p = 0.015) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (9 vs. 11days, p = 0.038). Other operative factors and morbidity rates did not differ significantly between groups. The number of harvested lymph nodes was smaller in the SILS group (24) than in the MPLS group (27, p = 0.008). Postoperative recurrence did not differ between groups, either before or after matching. No significant differences in 3-year disease-free, 3-year local recurrence-free, or 5-year overall survival were found between groups. SILS is safe, is feasible, and offers satisfactory oncological outcomes in selected patients with rectosigmoid or upper rectal cancer.

Short- and long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for right colon cancer: A multicenter propensity score-matched analysis.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colon cancer is a recent innovation in minimally invasive surgery that can improve short-term outcome. However, several biases exist in current favorable comparisons of SILS with conventional laparoscopic (CL) surgery. Moreover, the oncological outcomes in SILS remain unclear. The aim of this study was to identify outcomes following SILS and CL for right colectomy using a propensity score-matched analysis. A total of 553 patients underwent curative resection for right colon cancer (58 SILS and 495 CL). After propensity score matching, 58 patients in each group were matched. Before matching, median age was younger (p=0.037) and clinical stage was lower (p < 0.001) in the SILS group. After matching, operation time was shorter (172 versus 193 min, p=0.007) and blood loss was less (12 versus 20 mL, p=0.037) in the SILS group. Most of the SILS cases were performed (43.1%) or supervised (51.7%) by an expert surgeon. Median follow-up duration was 30 and 37 mo in the SILS and CL groups, respectively. Three-year relapse-free survival was 92.5% and 92.4% (p=0.781); and overall survival was 100% versus 98.1% (p=0.177). Under the control of expert surgeons, SILS appeared to be a safe and feasible approach and had similar oncological outcomes compared with CL in a propensity score-matched cohort of patients with right-sided colon cancer.

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery for Right-Side Colon Cancer

Introduction: There are little data concerning the long-term outcome of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colon cancer. Therefore, we investigated not only the short-term outcomes but also the long-term outcomes of SILS for right-side colon cancer. Methods: We retrospectively compared short- and long-term outcomes of SILS and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for right-sided colon cancer in our institution. Intergroup differences of short-term outcomes were evaluated using χ2 or Fisher exact tests and 2-sample Student t tests. The disease-free survival rates (long-term outcome) of stage II and III patients were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests. Results: There were 290 operations conducted for right-side (cecum and ascending) colorectal cancers from April 2011 to July 2018. Open surgery was performed in 12 cases from start to the operation. SILS was performed in 196 cases and CLS in 55 cases. One patient underwent intraoperative conversion from SILS to laparotomy for bleeding control. In addition, 1 port was added to SILS in 3 cases. These 4 cases were included in the analysis as the SILS group according to the principle of intent to treat. Background: Factors including age, gender, body mass index, performance status, and tumor stage were not statistically different between the SILS and CLS groups. In short-term outcomes, the number of harvested lymph nodes was not statistically different. SILS required less operating time (p < 0.001) and resulted in a reduced bleeding volume (p < 0.001). There was no statistical difference in the frequency of overall complications (p = 0.06). The disease-free survival of stage II and III patients was not statistically different between the 2 groups. Conclusions: With the proper adaptation of SILS by an experienced surgeon, the short- and long-term outcomes of SILS were not inferior to those of CLS. Therefore, SILS could be a treatment option for right-sided colon cancer.

Short-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Single-Center, Open-Label, Non-Inferiority, Randomized Clinical Trial.

ObjectiveTo date, well-designed randomized controlled trials examining the safety, efficacy, and long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colorectal cancer are scarce. The aim of the current study was to compare short-term outcomes of SILS for colorectal cancer with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).MethodsBetween June 28, 2017, and June 29, 2019, a single-center, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Department of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital (North), Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine in Shanghai, China. In total, 200 patients diagnosed or suspected of colorectal cancer (cT1–4aN0–2M0) were randomly assigned to either the SILS or CLS group in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was early morbidity rate. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative outcomes, pain intensity, postoperative recovery, pathologic outcomes, and long-term outcomes.ResultsIn total, 193 participants (SILS, 97; CLS, 96) were analyzed in the modified intention-to-treat (MITT) population. Among them, 48 underwent right hemicolectomy (SILS n = 23, 23.7% and MLS n = 25, 26%), 15 underwent left hemicolectomy (SILS n = 6, 6.2% and MLS n = 9, 9.4%), 1 underwent transverse colectomy (MLS n = 1, 1%), 57 underwent sigmoidectomy (SILS n = 32, 33% and MLS n = 25, 26%), and 72 underwent anterior resection (SILS n = 36, 37.1% and MLS n = 36, 37.5%). No significant differences were observed in the baseline characteristics. The intraoperative complication was comparable between the two groups [5 (5.2%) vs. 4 (4.2%); difference, 1%; 95% CI, −5.8% to 7.8%; p > 0.999) and so was postoperative complication rates [10 (10.3%) vs. 14 (14.6%); difference, −4.3%; 95% CI, −13.9% to 5.3%; p = 0.392]. The SILS group showed shorter incision length [median (IQR), 4 (3.5–5) vs. 6.6 (6–7.5), p < 0.001] and lower VAS scores on the first [median (IQR), 4 (3–5) vs. 4 (4–5), p = 0.002] and the second day [median (IQR), 2 (1.5–3) vs. 3 (2–4), p < 0.001] after surgery. No statistically significant difference was found in other measured outcomes.ConclusionsCompared with CLS, SILS performed by experienced surgeons for selected colorectal cancer patients is non-inferior with good short-term safety and has the advantage of reducing postoperative pain.Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03151733.

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

Studies find similar perioperative outcomes between single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colon cancer. However, few have reported long-term outcomes of SILS versus CLS. We aimed to compare long-term postoperative and oncologic outcomes as well as perioperative outcomes between SILS and CLS for colon cancer. A total of 641 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer from July 2009 to September 2014 were eligible for the study. Data from 300 of these patients were used for analysis after propensity score-matching (n = 150 per group). Variables associated with short- and long-term outcomes were analyzed. The SILS group had a shorter mean total incision length, less postoperative pain, and a similar mean rate of incisional hernia (2.7% versus 3.3%) compared with the CLS group. The 7-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 92.7% versus 94% (p = 0.673) and 85.3% versus 84.7% (p = 0.688) in the SILS and CLS groups, respectively. Compared with CLS, SILS for colon cancer appeared to be safe in terms of perioperative and long-term postoperative and oncologic outcomes. The results suggested that SILS is a reasonable treatment option for colon cancer for a selected group of patients.

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

To compare single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and multiport laparoscopic surgery (MLS) for colorectal cancer in terms of short- and long-term outcomes. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies comparing SILS and MLS for colorectal cancer were enrolled. Outcomes of interests included intraoperative, postoperative, pathological, and survival outcomes. Sixteen studies (6 RCTs and 10 PSM studies) published between 2012 and 2020 with a total of 2425 patients were enrolled. Compared with MLS, SILS was associated with less postoperative pain at postoperative day (POD) 1 (P = 0.02, MWD = -0.73, 95%CI: -1.37, -0.09) and POD2 (P < 0.001, MWD= -1.10, 95%CI: -1.45, -0.74) and shorter length of total incision length (P < 0.001, MWD = -3.31, 95%CI: -3.95, -2.67). No differences were observed in terms of operative time, blood loss, intraoperative and postoperative complications, incision hernia, and pathological or survival outcomes between SILS and MLS. Subgroup analysis for right-sided colon cancer, sigmoid colon cancer, and rectosigmoid colon cancer showed that the SILS group was only associated with less postoperative pain and shorter total incision length. The surgical and pathological outcomes were comparable between SILS and MLS. SILS is a beneficial alternative to MLS in select colorectal cancer patients, especially for right-sided colon cancer, sigmoid colon cancer, and rectosigmoid cancer, with better cosmetic effects and less postoperative pain. Simultaneously, SILS does not compromise intraoperative and postoperative complications, surgical quality, or long-term outcomes.

Oncologic long-term outcome of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colorectal cancer

PurposeSingle-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has been introduced as a less invasive alternative to multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MLS). MLS is widely accepted for the treatment of colorectal cancer, but there remains minimal evidence for the use of SILS. Thus, we compared both short- and long-term outcomes of SILS and open surgery (OS) in matched cohorts of colorectal cancer patients.MethodsSome 910 patients had colorectal resections for cancer between 2006 and 2013, and 134 of them were operated on using SILS. Eighty of these SILS patients were compared to a cohort of patients who had open surgery that were matching in tumour stage and location, type of resection, sex, age and ASA Score. Disease-free survival at 5 years (5y-DFS) was the primary endpoint; morbidity and hospitalization were secondary parameters. The role of surgical training in SILS was also investigated.ResultsClavien Dindo ≥ IIIb complications occurred in 13.8% in both groups. 5y-DSF were 82% after SILS and 70% after OS (p = 0.11). Local recurrence after rectal cancer tended to be lower after SILS (0/43 (SILS) vs. 4/35 (OS), p = 0.117). Length of stay was significantly shorter after SILS (10 vs. 14 days, p = 0.0004). The rate of operations performed by surgical residents was equivalent in both groups (44/80 (SILS) vs. 46/80 (OS), p = 0.75).ConclusionThe data demonstrates that SILS results in similar long-term oncological outcomes when compared to open surgery as well as morbidity rates. The hospital stay in the SILS group was shorter. SILS can also be incorporated in surgical training programmes.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery for appendiceal mucocele: a series of 116 patients.

Although the safety and feasibility of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for appendiceal mucocele (AM) has been reported, studies on single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for AM have not been reported. Here, we aimed to compare the perioperative and short-term outcomes between SILS and CLS for AM and to evaluate the oncological safety of SILS. We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients, diagnosed based on computed tomography findings, who underwent laparoscopic surgery for AM between 2010 and 2018 at one institution. We excluded patients strongly suspected of having malignant lesions and those with preoperative appendiceal perforation. Patients were divided into two groups-CLS and SILS. Pathological outcomes and long-term results were investigated. The median follow-up period was 43.7 (range: 12.3-118.5) months. Ultimately, 116 patients (CLS = 68, SILS = 48) were enrolled. Patient demographic characteristics did not differ between the groups. The preoperative mucocele diameter was greater in the CLS than in the SILS group (3.2 ± 2.9cm vs. 2.3 ± 1.4cm, P = 0.029). More extensive surgery (right hemicolectomies and ileocecectomies) was performed in the CLS than in the SILS group (P = 0.014). Intraoperative perforation developed in only one patient per group. For appendectomies and cecectomies, the CLS group exhibited a longer operation time than the SILS group (63.3 ± 24.5min vs. 52.4 ± 17.3min, P = 0.014); the same was noted for length of postoperative hospital stay (2.9 ± 1.8days vs. 1.7 ± 0.6days, P < 0.001). The most common AM etiology was low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (71/116 [61.2%] patients); none of the patients exhibited mucinous cystadenocarcinoma. Among these 71 patients, there were 8 patients with microscopic appendiceal perforation or positive resection margins. No recurrence was detected. SILS for AM is feasible and safe perioperatively and in the short-term and yields favorable oncological outcomes. Despite the retrospective nature of the study, SILS may be suitable after careful selection of AM patients.

Clinical and oncological outcomes of single-incision vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

To evaluate the clinical and oncological outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for patients with rectal cancer (RC) who underwent total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery. This was a retrospective case-control study of patients with RC operated between 12/2013 and 12/2017 in Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine. In total, 177 patients who underwent CLS and 51 who underwent SILS met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching method (PSM). Compared with the CLS group, the SILS group showed shorter operation time [105 (40) vs. 125 (55) min, P = 0.045], shorter total incision length [4 (1) vs. 6.5 (1.5) cm, P < 0.001], lower VAS score on POD2 [1 (1) vs. 2 (1), P < 0.001], shorter time to soft diet [7 (1) vs. 8 (2) days, P = 0.048], and shorter length of hospital stay [9 (2) vs. 11 (3) days, P < 0.001]. The postoperative complications were similar between two groups [1(2%) vs. 5 (9.8%), P = 0.205]. No readmissions or mortality in either group occurred within 30days of surgery. All 102 specimens met the requirements of TME. No significant differences were observed in the pathologic outcomes between the two groups. The median follow-up period was 32.6months in the SILS group and 36.8months in the CLS group (P = 0.053). The 3-year disease-free survival rates and overall survival rates of the SILS and CLS groups were 89.8% vs. 96.0% (P = 0.224) and 90.9% vs. 96.9% (P = 0.146), respectively. Compared with CLS, TME surgery for rectal cancer can be performed safely and effectively using the SILS technique with better cosmetic results, less postoperative pain, faster postoperative recovery, and acceptable clinical and oncological outcomes.

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

Although many studies have demonstrated similar perioperative outcomes for single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colon cancer, few have directly compared the costs of them. We aimed to compare costs between SILS and CLS for colon cancer. We analyzed the clinical outcomes and overall hospital costs of patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer from July 2009 to September 2014at our institution; 288 were used for analysis after propensity score matching. The total hospital charge, including fees for the operation, anesthesia, preoperative diagnosis, and postoperative management was analyzed. The total hospital charges were similar in both groups ($8770.40 vs. $8352.80, P=0.099). However, the patients' total hospital bill was higher in the SILS group than in the CLS group ($4184.82 vs. $3735.00, P<0.001) mainly due to the difference of the cost of access devices. There was no difference in the additional costs associated with readmission due to late complications between the two groups ($2383.08 vs. $2288.33, P=0.662). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for total incision length in 'total hospital charge' and patient's bill and government's bill in 'cost of instruments and supplies' were -$107.08/1cm, -$109.70/1cm, and $80.64/1cm, respectively. SILS for colon cancer yielded similar costs as well as perioperative and long-term outcomes compared with CLS. Therefore, SILS can be considered a reasonable treatment option for colon cancer for selective patients.

Comparison between single-incision and multiple-incision laparoscopic surgery for totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair

Introduction: We compared the clinical outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and multiple-incision laparoscopic surgery for totally extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair.Material and methods: This retrospective study included 134 consecutive patients undergoing single-incision or multiple-incision laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia between January 2012 and December 2016 at our hospital.Results: In total, 62 patients undergoing SILS-TEP and 72 receiving multiple-incision laparoscopic surgery were included in this study. No significant differences in patients’ characteristics between the two groups were noted. No patient required conversion to open surgery in either group. No significant differences were noted between the two groups in operative time, bleeding volume, post-operative hospital stay, and analgesics used. Postoperative complications were observed in 5.7% (4 of 62) of patients in the SILS group and 3.2% (2 of 72) of patients in the control group. Among the few patients who experienced complications, most had hematomas. No major complications or hernia recurrences were observed during the follow-up period in either group.Conclusions: SILS-TEP produced good cosmetic outcomes for patients regardless of previous surgery, and it could be safely performed with acceptable morbidity. It also does not increase the possibility of conversion to open surgery.

Single-Incision Laparoscopic versus Open Sigmoidectomy for Diverticular Disease: A Disease-Stratified Matched-Pair Analysis

Background: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a variant of laparoscopic surgery, especially for diverticular disease (DD), but there are very little data comparing SILS to standard surgical procedures for DD, and most studies on DD surgery do not declare the disease stage. We compared SILS to open sigmoidectomy for DD in a stage-stratified matched-pair analysis to validate the significance of SILS. Methods: All patients with SILS or conventional sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis of a single visceral surgery department were subject to a matched-pair analysis stratified by age, sex, body mass index, previous abdominal surgery, and the stage of DD. Results: Fifty-five pairs were included. In total, 84/110 (76%) had complicated stages of DD. ASA stages were higher in the laparotomy group; the proportion of elective operations was similar (SILS 78%, open: 71%). In the SILS group, length of hospital stay (LoS; 10.2 vs. 16.7 days) and duration of intensive or intermediate care (IMC; 1.8 vs. 3.7 days) were shorter, blood transfusions were reduced (0.1 vs. 0.4 units) and less patients received opioids postoperatively (75 vs. 98%). The day of first defecation, stoma rate, and rates of morbidity and mortality were similar. Conclusions: SILS equals open sigmoidectomy regarding complications with advantages regarding pain, LoS, IMC/intensive care unit treatment, and blood transfusion.

Comparative Study of a Single-Incision Laparoscopic and a Conventional Laparoscopic Appendectomy for the Treatment of Acute Appendicitis in Children

Appendicitis is the most common indication for urgent surgery in children. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has further improved surgical outcomes. In this study we compared SILS and conventional in terms of peroperative difficulty and outcomes. A retrospective chart review was performed interesting all patients operated for acute appendicitis in the department of pediatric surgery Hedi Chaker hospital and department of surgery Habib Borguiba hospital between January 2006 and December 2016. Among the total of 181 patients, LA and SILS were performed respectively on 51 (28.2%) and 137 patients (71.8%). In 41.9% of patients of conventional LA it was a complicated appendicitis and in 29.8% of SILS group it was a complicated appendicitis (p=0.22). The mean operative time was 63.7 min for the conventional LA group and 71.79 min for the SILS group, it was not statistically significant (p=0.046). Conversion was made in 13.7% of patients in the conventional LA and in 5.8% in patients with SILS (p=0.14). The median length of hospital stay was for the conventional LA group 3.5 days and for SILS group 2.3 days (p=0.04). The current study found that SILS provided comparable surgical outcomes to conventional LA and did not result in increased postoperative complication rates.

Clinical Outcomes of Reduced-Port Laparoscopic Surgery for Patients With Sigmoid Colon Cancer: Surgery With 1 Surgeon and 1 Camera Operator.

PurposeThis study compared the perioperative clinical outcomes of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) with those of conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) for patients with sigmoid colon cancer and investigated the safety and feasibility of RPLS performed by 1 surgeon and 1 camera operator.MethodsFrom the beginning of 2010 until the end of 2014, 605 patients underwent a colectomy for sigmoid colon cancer. We compared the characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and pathologic results for the patients who underwent RPLS and for the patients who underwent MPLS. We also compared the clinical outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and 3-port laparoscopic surgery.ResultsOf the 115 patients in the RPLS group, 59 underwent SILS and 56 underwent 3-port laparoscopic surgery. The MPLS group included 490 patients. The RPLS group had shorter operating time (137.4 ± 43.2 minutes vs. 155.5 ± 47.9 minutes, P < 0.001) and shorter incision length (5.3 ± 2.2 cm vs. 7.8 ± 1.2 cm, P < 0.001) than the MPLS group. In analyses of SILS and 3-port laparoscopic surgery, the SILS group showed younger age, longer operating time, and shorter incision length than the 3-port surgery group and exhibited a more advanced T stage, more lymphatic invasion, and larger tumor size.ConclusionRPLS performed by 1 surgeon and 1 camera operator appears to be a feasible and safe surgical option for the treatment of patients with sigmoid colon cancer, showing comparable clinical outcomes with shorter operation time and shorter incision length than MPLS. SILS can be applied to patients with favorable tumor characteristics.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy

Background: Single Incision Laparoscopic Surgery (SILS) is a new technique of minimally invasive surgery using a single incision to minimize all ports to one site, hence a single scar that can be strategically placed in the umbilicus for a perceived scar less abdomen.Methods: We report this study evaluating the possible advantages of SILS versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy through a randomized controlled trial. The study population includes patients diagnosed as acute appendicitis. A total of 50 patients underwent appendectomy, patients were randomly assigned to either SILS appendectomy or conventional appendectomy in 1:1 ratio. Primary end points were operative time, complication rate, postoperative pain, post-operative hospital stay and patient satisfaction.Results: The pain scores measured at 48 hours were significantly lower in SILS group than conventional Lap appendectomy group. Patients had significant satisfaction score and lower pain score in SILS group than Lap appendectomy group measured at 6 weeks after appendectomy. However, the post-operative stay was similar in both the groups. There was no conversion to open appendectomy in both the groups. Patient satisfaction score in SILA was found to be higher than CLA. Operating times were similar and post-operative stay was apparently lower.Conclusions: SIL appendectomy is as safe and effective as conventional lap appendectomy.