Search

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) to multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MLC) when performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons., Background: Recent case reports and single institution series have demonstrated the feasibility of SILC. Few comparative studies for MLC and SILC have been reported., Methods: Patients from 5 institutions undergoing SILC were entered into an IRB approved database from November 2008 to March 2010. SILC patients were matched with those undergoing MLC for gender, age, disease, surgery, BMI, and surgeon. The primary endpoint was length of stay and secondary endpoints included operative time, conversion, complications and postoperative pain scores., Results: Three hundred thirty patients (SILC = 165, MLC = 165) were evaluated. Operative time (135 ± 45 min vs. 133 ± 56 min; P = 0.85) and length of stay (4.6 ± 1.6 vs. 4.3 ± 1.4; P = 0.35) were not significantly different. Maximum postoperative day one pain scores were significantly less for SILC (4.9 vs. 5.6; P = 0.005). Eighteen (11%) patients undergoing SILC were converted to multiport laparoscopy. There was no statistical difference between groups for conversions to laparotomy, complications, re-operations, or re-admissions., Conclusions: SILC is feasible when performed on select patients by surgeons with extensive laparoscopic experience. Outcomes were similar to MLC, except for a reduction in peak pain score on the first postoperative day. Prospective randomized trials should be performed before incorporation of this technology into routine surgical care.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes that were the secondary endpoints of a RCT of multi-port laparoscopic colectomy (MPC) versus SILC in colon cancer surgery., Summary of Background Data: The actual long-term outcomes, such as the 5-year RFS, OS, and recurrence patterns after surgery, have not been evaluated by a RCT., Methods: Patients with histologically proven colon carcinoma located in the cecum, ascending, sigmoid or rectosigmoid colon clinically diagnosed as stage 0-III were eligible for this study. Patients were preoperatively randomized and underwent complete mesocolic excision. The 5-year RFS, OS, and recurrence patterns were analyzed (UMIN-CTR 000007220)., Results: Between March 1, 2012, and March 31, 2015, a total of 200 patients were randomly assigned to either the MPC arm (n = 100) or SILC arm (n = 100). The median follow-up for all patients was 61.0 months. An intention-to-treat analysis showed that the 5-year RFS was 91.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 85.1%-96.9%] in the MPC arm and 88.0% (95% CI 82.1%-93.9%) in the SILC arm (hazard ratio: 1.37; 95% CI 0.58-3.24; P = 0.479). The 5-year OS was 95.0% (95% CI 91.1%-98.9%) in the MPC arm and 93.0% (87.1%-98.9%) in the SILC arm (hazard ratio: 1.39; 95% CI 0.44-4.39; P = 0.568). There were no significant differences in the recurrence patterns between the 2 arms., Conclusions: Even though the results of the 5-year OS and RFS in this trial were exploratory and underpowered, there were no statistically significant differences between the SILC and MPC arms. SILC may be an acceptable treatment option for select patients with colon cancer., Competing Interests: Jun Watanabe, Atsushi Ishibe, Hirokazu Suwa, Mitsuyoshi Ota, Shoichi Fujii, Kazumi Kubota, Chikara Kunisaki, and Itaru Endo have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)