Search

Background: Laparoscopic splenectomy (LS), a treatment for both benign and malignant splenic diseases, can prove technically challenging in patients with massive splenomegaly. In particular, the optimal surgical modality for treating massive splenomegaly in children remains controversial. Methods: The clinicopathologic data of 289 pediatric patients undergoing splenectomy for massive splenomegaly were studied in a retrospective analysis. Accordingly, the patients were classified into the LS surgery group and open splenectomy (OS) surgery group. In the laparoscopy cohort, they were separated into two subgroups according to the method of surgery: the multi-incision laparoscopic splenectomy (MILS) and the single-incision laparoscopic splenectomy (SILS) surgery groups, respectively. Patient demographics, clinical data, surgery, complications, and postoperative recovery underwent analysis. Concurrently, we compared the risk of adverse laparoscopic splenectomy outcomes utilizing univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Results: The total operation time proved remarkably shorter in the OS group in contrast to the LS group (149.87 ± 61.44 versus 188.20 ± 52.51 min, P < 0.001). Relative to the OS group, the LS group exhibited lowered postoperative pain scores, bowel recovery time, and postoperative hospitalization time (P < 0.001). No remarkable difference existed in post-operation complications or mortality (P > 0.05). Nevertheless, the operation duration was remarkably longer in the SILS surgery group than in the MILS surgery group (200 ± 46.11 versus 171.39 ± 40.30 min, P = 0.02). Meanwhile, the operative duration of MILS and SILS displayed a remarkable positive association with splenic length. Moreover, the operative duration of SILS displayed a remarkable positive association with the age, weight, and height of the sick children. Splenic length proved an independent risk factor of adverse outcomes (P < 0.001, OR 1.378). Conclusions: For pediatric patients with massive splenomegaly who can tolerate prolonged anesthesia and operative procedures, LS surgery proves the optimal treatment regimen. SILS remains a novel surgery therapy which may be deemed a substitutional surgery approach for treating massive splenomegaly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy is the first stage of the three-stage surgical treatment of medically refractory ulcerative colitis. Laparoscopic surgery is a safe approach offering several benefits. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is an alternative minimally invasive approach providing excellent cosmetic results. Literature on single-incision laparoscopic clockwise continuous total abdominal colectomy in the treatment of ulcerative colitis is limited. Aim of the study is to describe our surgical technique and report the outcomes. Methods: Medically refractory ulcerative colitis patients who underwent single-incision laparoscopic clockwise continuous total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy by a single surgeon between January 2013 and December 2020 at our tertiary care center are included. Patient charts were reviewed retrospectively. Results: 52 patients were included in the final analysis. 51.9% patients were male with the median age of 31.5 years and body mass index of 22.2 kg/m2. Median duration of operation was 100 min with estimated blood loss of 50 ml. There were no intraoperative complications, conversions to conventional laparoscopy or open surgery. Postoperative complications were reported in 13 (25%) patients with most common being ileus (17.3%). 3 patients had surgical site infections. 2 patients had postoperative bleeding requiring blood transfusion. 2 patients had reoperation within postoperative 30 days. Median length of hospital stay was 2 days. No mortalities were reported. Conclusion: Single-incision laparoscopic clockwise continuous approach is safe and effective in ulcerative colitis patients undergoing total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy. Further prospective randomized studies are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The clinical benefits of single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) in patients with colon cancer patients are unclear because only a few studies have reported on the quality of life (QoL) of such patients. This study aimed to compare the QoL and patient satisfaction between SPLS and multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) in colon cancer.Methods: The multicentre randomised controlled SIngle-port versus MultiPort Laparoscopic surgEry (SIMPLE) trial included patients with colon cancer who underwent radical surgery at seven hospitals in South Korea. We performed a pre-planned secondary analysis of the QoL data of 359 patients from that trial. The QoL was surveyed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Patient satisfaction was measured with a 5-point questionnaire at these postoperative time points.Results: Overall, 145 and 147 patients were included in the SPLS and MPLS groups, respectively. Most QoL domains were similar between the groups. In the subgroup analysis of patients without adjuvant chemotherapy, patients in the SPLS group presented with significantly better global health status (p = 0.017), fatigue (p = 0.047), and pain (p = 0.005) scores and tended to have improved physical (p = 0.055), emotional (p = 0.064), and social (p = 0.081) functioning, with marginal significance at 1 month postoperatively, compared to those in the MPLS group. Patient satisfaction regarding surgery (p = 0.002) and appearance of the abdominal scar (p = 0.002) was significantly higher with SPLS than with MPLS at 12 months postoperatively.Conclusion: Patients who underwent SPLS without adjuvant chemotherapy had better global health status, fatigue status, and pain at 1 month postoperatively; however, these improvements were minimal and temporary. In the near future, the effect of SPLS on postoperative QoL should be confirmed through a randomised controlled trial targeting the QoL in colon cancer patients.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01480128. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Background: The posterior retroperitoneoscopic adrenal access represents a challenge in orientation and working space creation. The aim of this experimental acute study was to evaluate the impact of computer-assisted quantitative fluorescence imaging on adrenal gland identification and assessment of intraoperative remnant perfusion for adrenal resection in the posterior retroperitoneoscopic approach.Methods: Six pigs underwent simultaneous (n = 5) or sequential (n = 1) bilateral posterior retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy (n = 12). Fluorescence imaging was obtained via intravenous administration of 3 mL of Indocyanine Green (ICG) and by switching the camera systems to near-infrared mode (D-LIGHT P, KARL STORZ; Germany). Fluorescence-based visualization of adrenal glands before vascular division (n = 4), after the main vascular pedicle ligation (negative control, n = 1) or after adrenal resection (n = 7), was followed by completion adrenalectomy. The fluorescence signal intensity dynamics were recorded and analyzed using proprietary software. For each pixel, the slope of fluorescence signal intensity evolution over time was translated into a color-coded perfusion cartography, which was superimposed onto real-time images obtained with the corresponding left and right camera systems. Quantitative fluorescence signal analysis in the regions of interest (ROIs) served to assess adrenal remnant perfusion in divided adrenal glands.Results: In the retroperitoneum, the vascular anatomy was illuminated in fluorescence imaging first. The adrenal glands were promptly highlighted after primary intravenous ICG administration (n = 9) or showed a fluorescence signal intensity increase upon reinjection (n = 3). Quantitative fluorescence analysis showed a statistically significant difference between perfused and ischemic segments in divided glands (p = 0.0156).Conclusions: Fluorescence imaging provides real-time guidance during minimally invasive adrenal surgery. Prior to dissection, it allows to easily discriminate the adrenal gland from surrounding retroperitoneal structures. After adrenal gland division, ICG injection associated with a computer-assisted quantitative analysis helps to distinguish between well-perfused and ischemic segments. Further studies are underway to establish the correlation between remnant perfusion and viability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are a variety of surgical approaches for the management of right-sided colonic neoplasms. To date, no method has been shown superior in terms of surgical and perioperative outcomes. This meta-analysis compared open (ORH), laparoscopic-assisted (LRH), total laparoscopic (TLRH), and robotic right hemicolectomy (RRH) to assess surgical outcomes and perioperative morbidity and mortality.Study Design: We conducted an electronic systematic search using PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science that compared RRH, TLRH, LRH, and ORH. Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria: 5 randomized controlled trials, 25 retrospective, and 18 prospective studies totalling 5652 patients were included.Results: The overall complication rate was similar between RRH and TLRH (RR 1.0; Crl 0.66-1.5). The anastomotic leak rate was higher in LRH and ORH compared to RRH (RR 1.9; Crl 0.99-3.6 and RR 1.2; Crl 0.55-2.6, respectively), whereas it was lower in TLRH compared to RRH (RR 0.88 Crl 0.41-1.9). The risk of reoperation was significantly higher in ORH compared to TLRH (RR 3.3; Crl 1.3-8.0). Operative time was similar in RRH compared to LRH (RR - 27.0; Crl - 61.0 to 5.9), and to TLRH (RR - 24.0; Crl - 70.0 to 21.0). The hospital stay was significantly longer in LRH compared to RRH (RR 3.7; Crl 0.7-6.7).Conclusion: The surgical management of right-sided colonic disease is evolving. This network meta-analysis observed that short-term outcomes following RRH and TLRH were superior to standard LRH and ORH. The adoption of more advanced minimally invasive techniques can be costly and have associated learning phases, but will ultimately improve patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Laparoscopic surgery changed the management of numerous surgical conditions. It was associated with many advantages over open surgery, such as decreased postoperative pain, faster recovery, shorter hospital stay and excellent cosmesis. Since two decades single-incision endoscopic surgery (SIES) was introduced to the surgical community. SIES could possibly result in even better postoperative outcomes than multi-port laparoscopic surgery, especially concerning cosmetic outcomes and pain. However, the single-incision surgical procedure is associated with quite some challenges.Methods: An expert panel of surgeons has been selected and invited to participate in the preparation of the material for a consensus meeting on the topic SIES, which was held during the EAES congress in Frankfurt, June 16, 2017. The material presented during the consensus meeting was based on evidence identified through a systematic search of literature according to a pre-specified protocol. Three main topics with respect to SIES have been identified by the panel: (1) General, (2) Organ specific, (3) New development. Within each of these topics, subcategories have been defined. Evidence was graded according to the Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Recommendations were made according to the GRADE criteria.Results: In general, there is a lack of high level evidence and a lack of long-term follow-up in the field of single-incision endoscopic surgery. In selected patients, the single-incision approach seems to be safe and effective in terms of perioperative morbidity. Satisfaction with cosmesis has been established to be the main advantage of the single-incision approach. Less pain after single-incision approach compared to conventional laparoscopy seems to be considered an advantage, although it has not been consistently demonstrated across studies.Conclusions: Considering the increased direct costs (devices, instruments and operating time) of the SIES procedure and the prolonged learning curve, wider acceptance of the procedure should be supported only after demonstration of clear benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of the study is to evaluate the short-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port surgery (SILS + 1) compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colonic cancer.Background: At present, single-incision laparoscopic colectomy remains technically challenging. The use of SILS + 1 as an alternative has gained increasing attention; however, its safety and efficacy remain controversial.Methods and Patients: Between April 2014 and July 2016, 198 patients with clinical stage T1-4aN0-2 M0 rectosigmoid cancer were enrolled. The participants were randomly assigned to either SILS + 1 (n = 99) or CLS (n = 99). The morbidity and mortality within 30 days, operative and pathologic outcomes, postoperative recovery course, inflammation and immune responses, and pain intensity were compared.Results: There was no significant difference in overall complications between the two groups (17.2 vs. 16.3%, P = 1.000). The total operating time for the SILS + 1 group was significantly shorter (100.8 ± 30.4 vs. 116.6 ± 36.6, P = 0.002). Blood loss was significantly greater in the CLS group (20 vs. 50, P < 0.001). Thirteen patients (14%) in the CLS group required additional postoperative analgesics, which was significantly more than four patients in the SILS + 1 group. Notably, on postoperative day three, the visual analogue scale score of the CLS group was greater than that of the SILS + 1 group (1.3 ± 1.1 vs. 1.7 ± 1.3, P = 0.023). Tumor diameter, pathologic stage, length of the proximal and distal margins, and number of lymph nodes harvested were similar, other values were also similar between the two groups.Conclusion: Our findings suggest that SILS + 1 might be safe and feasible for rectosigmoid cancer when performed by experienced surgeons. It offers minimal invasiveness without compromising oncologic treatment principles. Trial Registration This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02117557). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) was recently introduced as an innovative minimally invasive surgery method. Retrospective studies have revealed the safety and feasibility of SPLS for colon cancer treatment. However, no prospective randomized trials have been performed. The multicenter, randomized SIMPLE (single-port versus multiport laparoscopic surgery) trial aimed to investigate short-term perioperative outcomes of SPLS for colon cancer treatment, compared with multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS).Methods: Between August 2011 and April 2014, a total of 194 patients with colon cancer were recruited from seven hospitals in Korea. Patients were randomly allocated into the SPLS group (n = 99) or MPLS group (n = 95). The primary endpoint was postoperative complications. Operative, postoperative, and pathologic outcomes were analyzed after 50% of the patient study population had been recruited.Results: The patients' demographic characteristics, operative times, estimated blood volume losses, numbers of harvested lymph nodes, and lengths of both resection margins were not significantly different between groups. In the SPLS group, the rates of conversion to MPLS and open surgery were 12.9 and 2.2%, respectively. Postoperative complications occurred in 10.8% of the SPLS, and 12.5% of the MPLS patients (p = 0.714). Times to functional recovery, pain scores, and amounts of analgesia were similar between groups.Conclusion: The results of this interim analysis suggested that SPLS is technically safe and appropriate when used for radical resection of colon cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01480128). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Surgical safety checklists reduce perioperative complications and mortality. Given that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is dependent on technology and vulnerable to equipment failure, SAGES and AORN partnered to create a MIS checklist to optimize case flow and minimize errors. The aim of this project was to evaluate the effectiveness of the SAGES/AORN checklist in preventing disruptions and determine its ease of use.Methods: The checklist was implemented across four institutions and completed by the operating team. To assess its effectiveness, we recorded how often the checklist identified problems and how frequently each of the 45 checklist items were not completed. The perceived usefulness, ease of use, and frustration associated with checklist use were rated on a 5-point Likert scale by the surgeon. We assessed any differences dependent on timing of checklist completion and among institutions.Results: The checklist was performed during MIS procedures (n = 114). When used before the procedure (n = 36), the checklist identified missing items in 13 cases (36.11 %). When used after the procedure (n = 61), the checklist identified missing items in 18 cases (29.51 %) that caused a delay of 4.1 ± 11.1 min. The most frequently missed items included preference card review (14.0 %), readiness of the carbon dioxide insufflator (8.7 %), and availability of the Veress needle (3.6 %). The checklist took an average of 3.6 ± 2.7 min to complete with its usefulness rated 2.6 ± 1.5, ease of use 2.0 ± 1.2, and frustration 1.3 ± 1.1.Conclusion: The checklist identified problems in 24 % of cases that led to preventable delays. The checklist was easy to complete and not frustrating, indicating it could improve operative flow. This study also identified the most useful items which may help abbreviate the checklist, minimizing the frustration and time taken to complete it while maximizing its utility. These attributes of the SAGES/AORN MIS checklist should be explored in future larger-scale studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the learning curves (LCs) of single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) for colon cancer using multidimensional statistical analyses. Although SPLS yields better cosmetic results and comparable short-term outcomes compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, its technical difficulties make surgeons hesitant to try SPLS. Moreover, the LCs of SPLS for colon cancer are not well delineated.Methods: Data were collected from patients who underwent SPLS for colon cancer in seven Korean institutions between May 2009 and May 2015. The LCs were analyzed using the moving average method and the cumulative sum control chart (CUSUM) for operation time and surgical failure. Surgical failure was defined as the any conversion, postoperative complications, or less than 12 harvested lymph nodes from surgical specimens.Results: A total of 356 patients were included in this study. Six and three surgeons performed 282 anterior resections (ARs) and 74 right colectomies (RCs), respectively. On the basis of the moving average method and CUSUM for operation time and surgical failure, the LCs for AR were 18, 16, 35, 13, 36, and 13 cases for surgeons A-F, respectively. However, the LCs for RC were 6 and 15 cases for surgeons D and E, respectively, and were ambiguous for one surgeon.Conclusions: For surgeons experienced in conventional laparoscopic colorectal surgery, the LCs of SPLS for colon cancer ranged from 6 to 36 cases, which is shorter than the LCs reported for conventional laparoscopic surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is currently a paucity of research comparing the clinical outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) with those obtained with multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MLC). This meta-analysis aimed to examine whether SILC shows real benefits over MLC, especially in terms of feasibility, safety, and oncological adequacy.Methods: A literature review of studies comparing SILC and MLC has been performed which looked at the following outcomes: mortality, morbidity, and oncological parameters of adequacy, as well as other potential benefits and drawbacks. Standardized mean difference for continuous variables and odds ratios for qualitative variables were calculated.Results: Thirty studies comparing SILC and MLC were reviewed: two prospective randomized clinical trials (RCTs), eight prospective studies, and 20 retrospective comparative observational studies. Overall, in a cohort of 3502 patients who underwent surgery, SILC was used in 1068 cases (30.5 %) and MLC was used in 2434 cases (69.5 %). Mean intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower when the SILC procedure had been used (75.06 vs. 91.45 ml, P = 0.03); bowel function recovered significantly earlier in the SILC patients (1.96 vs. 2.15 days, P = 0.03); mean postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the SILC group (5.55 vs. 6.60 days, P = 0.0005); and length of skin incision was significantly shorter in SILC patients (3.98 vs. 5.28 cm, P = 0.01). However, in the latter four outcomes, evidence of heterogeneity was found. In contrast, MLC showed significantly better results when compared to SILC in terms of distal free margins (12.26 vs. 10.98 cm, P = 0.01).Conclusions: SILC could be considered as a safe and feasible alternative to MLC in experienced hands. Further evidence for this surgical procedure should be assessed in the form of high-quality RCTs, with additional focus on its use in low rectal cancer resection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: There is an increasing emphasis on optimizing and measuring surgical quality. The safety and efficacy of minimally invasive techniques have been proven; however, direct comparison of outcomes across platforms has not been performed. Our goal was to compare operative times and quality across three minimally invasive platforms in colorectal surgery.Methods: A prospective database was reviewed for elective minimally invasive surgery (MIS) cases from 2008 to 2014. Patients were stratified into multiport laparoscopic, single-incision laparoscopic (SILS) or robotic-assisted laparoscopic approaches (RALS). Demographics, perioperative, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Multivariate regression analysis was used to predict the demographic and procedural factors and outcomes associated with each platform. The main outcome measures were operative time and surgical quality by approach.Results: A total of 1055 cases were evaluated-28.4 % LAP, 18.5 % RALS, and 53.1 % SILS. RALS had the most complex patients, pathology, and procedures. The main diagnosis for RALS was rectal cancer (49.5 %), patients predominantly underwent pelvic surgery (72.8 %), had higher rates of neoadjuvant chemoradiation (p < 0.001) and stoma creation (p < 0.001). RALS had the longest operative time and highest complication and readmissions rates (all p < 0.001). Multiport patients were older than SILS and RALS (p = 0.021), had the most intraoperative complications (p < 0.001), conversions (p < 0.001), and had the longest length of stay (p = 0.001). SILS had the shortest operative times (p < 0.001), length of stay (p = 0.001), and lowest rates of complications (p < 0.001), readmissions (p < 0.001), and unplanned reoperation (p = 0.014). All platforms offered high quality (HARM score 0) from overall short LOS, low readmission, and mortality rates.Conclusions: Multiport, RALS, and SILS each serve a distinct demographic and disease profile and have predictable outcomes. All have risks and benefits, but offer overall high-quality care with a composite of LOS, readmission, and mortality rates. Operative times were directly associated with readmission rates. As all three platforms offer good quality, the choice of which MIS approach to use should be guided by demographics and disease process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this study was to reveal the short-term and long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic colorectal resection (SILC) compared with multi-incision laparoscopic colorectal resection (MILC) for colorectal cancer using propensity score matching analysis.Methods: The study group included 235 patients who underwent SILC and 730 patients who underwent MILC for colorectal cancer between April 2009 and September 2014. The propensity score matching for age, gender, body mass index, tumor location (right-sided colon/sigmoid colon/upper rectum), lymph node dissection (D1/D2/D3), pathologic T (≤T3) stage and TNM (0-I/II/III) stage produced 107 matched pairs. The exclusion criteria for SILC were as follows: (1) tumors located at the transverse, descending colon or lower rectum, (2) stage IV tumors, synchronous or previous malignancies, (3) locally advanced tumors >T4, (4) acute obstructions or previous major abdominal surgery and (5) obese patients: BMI > 30.Results: No significant differences were observed in operating time, bleeding volumes, starting time of liquid diet and length of hospital stay between the SILC and MILC groups. However, the SILC group showed less analgesic requirements (1.1 vs. 1.9 times; p = 0.0006) and shorter length of incision (2.7 vs. 4.3 cm; p = 0.0000) compared to MILC group. The overall rate of postoperative complications was similar in both groups (2.8 vs. 3.7%, p = 0.70). The 5-year overall survival rate of SILC and MILC was 100 and 95% (p = 0.125) and 5-year disease-free survival rates in stages 0-III were 97 and 94% (p = 0.189), 100 and 92% in stage II and 90 and 85% in stage III, respectively.Conclusions: This study suggests that SILC for colorectal cancer is a safe and feasible option with better cosmetic results and less pain in strictly selected patients. SILC can also produce good oncological results with similar postoperative outcomes to MILC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is safe and feasible for benign and malignant colorectal diseases. SILS offers several patient-related benefits over multiport laparoscopy. However, its use in obese patients has been limited from concerns of technical difficulty, oncologic compromise, and higher complication and conversion rates. Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of SILS for colectomy in obese patients.Methods: Review of a prospective database identified patients undergoing elective colectomy using SILS from 2009 to 2014. They were stratified into obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2)) and non-obese cohorts (BMI < 30 kg/m(2)) and then matched on patient characteristics, diagnosis, and operative procedure. Demographic and perioperative outcome data were evaluated. The primary outcome measures were operative time, length of stay (LOS), and conversion, complication, and readmission rates for each cohort.Results: A total of 160 patients were evaluated-80 in each cohort. Patients were well matched in demographics, diagnosis, and procedure variables. The obese cohort had significantly higher BMI (p < 0.001) and ASA scores (p = 0.035). Operative time (176.9 ± 64.0 vs. 144.4 ± 47.2 min, p < 0.001) and estimated blood loss (89.0 ± 139.5 vs. 51.6 ± 38.0 ml, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the obese. There were no significant differences in conversion rates (p = 0.682), final incision length (p = 0.088), LOS (p = 0.332), postoperative complications (p = 0.430), or readmissions (p = 1.000) in the obese versus non-obese. Further, in malignant cases, lymph nodes harvested (p = 0.757) and negative distal margins (p = 1.000) were comparable across cohorts.Conclusions: Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy in obese patients had significantly longer operative times, but comparable conversion rates, oncologic outcomes, lengths of stay, complication, and readmission rates as the non-obese cohorts. In the obese, where higher morbidity rates are typically associated with surgical outcomes, SILS may be the ideal platform to optimize outcomes in colorectal surgery. With additional operative time, the obese can realize the same clinical and quality benefits of minimally invasive surgery as the non-obese. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Single-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a new minimally invasive technique, which has been developed to minimize the surgical access trauma. For colorectal resection, the access trauma can be limited to the one incision, which is needed for specimen extraction anyways, but dissection might be more demanding than in multiport laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of SILS for the treatment of diverticular disease of the sigmoid colon.Methods: Between July 2009 and December 2013, a total of 329 consecutive patients with intended SILS sigmoid colectomy for complicated or frequently recurring diverticulitis were studied. Clinical data were collected in a prospective database. Telephone follow-ups were performed to evaluate long-term morbidity and quality of life.Results: Of the 329 patients (139 male) with intended SILS sigmoid colectomy, 309 were successfully operated on in SILS technique, while 20 (6.1%) were converted to open surgery. The mean duration of surgery was 153.5 (65-434) min. Total morbidity rate was 18.3%. Anastomotic leakage was the most serious complication occurring in 13 patients (leak rate 4%) with one consecutive death (mortality rate 0.3%). Quality of life had significantly improved 6 months after surgery in comparison with the preoperative value. At a mean follow-up of 18.6 months, 16 patients (4.9%) had incisional hernia and one patient had recurrent diverticulitis.Conclusion: In spite of almost 5% incisional hernia 6 months after surgery, single-incision sigmoid colectomy for diverticulitis is feasible and save and is therefore an alternative to multiport laparoscopic surgery. Further trials are necessary to evaluate its benefits over multiport laparoscopic surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The benefit of single-incision laparoscopy (SIL) over conventional multiport laparoscopy (ML) is not demonstrated in colorectal surgery, mainly because of potentially biased reports. The objective of this study was to compare SIL to ML for colorectal resection, using a propensity score (PS) adjusted analysis.Methods: From July 2009 to April 2013, 764 patients who underwent 799 colorectal resections by SIL or ML were analyzed. PS was estimated using a logistic regression model.Results: Eighty-four colorectal resections were performed using SIL: 43 ileocolic resections, 15 right-sided colectomies, 14 left-sided colectomies, 5 rectal resections, 4 subtotal colectomies, and 3 total proctocolectomies. Intra-operative complications occurred in 3 procedures (4 %), and conversion laparotomy in 10 (12 %). Postoperative mortality was nil and overall morbidity rate was 25 %, including 7 % of major complications. Mean postoperative length of hospital stay was 8 ± 6 (4-47) days. Outcomes of SIL, when compared to those of 715 ML and after PS adjustment, showed no difference in terms of intra-operative complication (p = 0.315), conversion to open surgery (p = 0.387), overall morbidity (p = 0.393), major morbidity (p = 0.381), or length of postoperative hospital stay (p = 0.080). However, the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter after SIL in the right colectomy subgroup (p = 0.001).Conclusions: In colorectal surgery, SIL appears to be safe and effective as compared to ML. It can also reduce hospital stay after right colectomy. These results, if confirmed by randomized trials, would validate SIL in colorectal surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Single-incision right colectomy has emerged as a safe and feasible alternative to standard laparoscopic resection. As with any new surgical approach, definition of the number of procedures required to optimize the technique is an important goal. Data on this learning curve for single-incision right colectomy are lacking; therefore, we report the outcomes of consecutive single-incision right colectomies to identify the procedural learning curve. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive single-incision right colectomies performed by a single surgeon from May 2010 to May 2013. Patients were evaluated in groups of ten to minimize individual patient variability and selection bias. Demographics and peri -operative outcomes among groups were evaluated using ANOVA or Kruskal -Wallis. Statistical improvement was assessed between groups using Student T tests or Mann -Whitney U tests. Results: Seventy consecutive single-incision right colectomies were performed during the study period. There were no differences in patient demographics over the course of the experiences, suggesting that the selection bias did not influence the outcomes. There was a statistical improvement in operative time after the first 10 cases (103 vs. 130 min, p = 0.01). A second statistical improvement in operative time occurred after 40 cases (97 vs. 114 min, p = 0.03). There was no statistical improvement in estimated blood loss, lymph node harvest, conversion rate, length of stay, or post -operative morbidity throughout the experience. Conclusions: Analysis of our large series of consecutive cases indicates that for a surgeon trained in advanced laparoscopic techniques and given adequate case volume, the outcomes from the procedure are quickly optimized with a minimal learning curve. Operative time is optimized following 40 procedures. Identification of the learning curve is critical for surgeons wishing to implement a single -incision approach and to ensure that the outcomes are optimized prior to thorough comparison with standard laparoscopic or open approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Single-port (SP) surgery has been characterized as having limited applicability regarding procedure, disease, and patient characteristics. There is a question if SP procedures offer disadvantages or advantages to multiport (MP) colorectal surgery. We hypothesize that SP is equivalent to MP and is a safe alternative in the full spectrum of colorectal disease and procedures. Methods: A case-matched analysis of a prospectively maintained database to compare perioperative outcomes in SP versus MP was performed. Criteria included age, gender, BMI, previous abdominal surgery, previous XRT, disease process, and procedure. 95 exact matches for all 7 criteria were found between 159 SP and 1,617 MP cases. Perioperative outcomes, surgical technique, morbidity, mortality, local recurrence, and 5-year survival were analyzed. Results: There was lower mean EBL in SP but no difference in transfusion requirement. OR time for SP left colectomy was shorter, with a trend to shorter OR times found in all procedures. 99 % SP and 98 % MP had no intra-operative complications. Conversion to open was equivalent (0/1). Mean largest incision was smaller for SP. There were no differences in return of bowel function or length of hospital stay. There were no mortalities. There were no differences in perioperative morbidity, local recurrence, distant metastasis, or overall 5-year survival. Conclusions: SP is a safe alternative to MP colorectal surgery across the full array of procedures in equivalent patients. This study demonstrates SP has less blood loss, smaller incisions, is quicker in left colectomy, and tends to be quicker across all procedures. Conversion and morbidity rates are equivalent to MP, without compromise in quality of surgical technique. While proper training is essential, concerns regarding the inability to use SP laparoscopic colorectal surgery safely are unfounded in nearly exactly matched patients. These issues will require further study as SP laparoscopic colorectal surgery is practiced more widely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with rectal prolapse often have significant comorbidities that lead surgeons to select a perineal resection for treatment despite a reported higher recurrence rate over abdominal approaches. There is a lack of data to support this practice in the laparoscopic era. The objective of this study was to evaluate if risk-adjusted morbidity of perineal surgery for rectal prolapse is actually lower than laparoscopic surgery. Design: A retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database as performed for patients undergoing surgical treatment of rectal prolapse between 2005 and 2011. Outcomes were analyzed according to procedure-type: laparoscopic rectopexy (LR), laparoscopic resection/rectopexy (LRR), open rectopexy (OR), open resection/rectopexy (ORR), and perineal resection (PR). A multivariate logistic regression was used to compare risk-adjusted morbidity and mortality between each procedure. Main outcome measures were 30-day morbidity and mortality. Results: Among 3,254 cases sampled, a laparoscopic approach was used in 22 %, an open abdominal approach in 30 %, and PR in 48 %. Patients undergoing PR were older (76) and had a higher ASA (3) compared to laparoscopic (58, 2) and open abdominal procedures (58, 2). Risk-adjusted mortality could not be assessed due to a low overall incidence of mortality (0.01 %). Overall morbidity was 9.3 %. ORR was associated with a higher risk-adjusted morbidity compared to PR (OR: 1.89 CI (1.19-2.99), p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in risk-adjusted morbidity found between LR and LRR compared to PR (OR 0.44 CI (0.19-1.03), p = 0.18; OR 1.55 CI (0.86-2.77), p = 0.18). Laparoscopic cases averaged 27 min longer than open cases ( p < 0.001). Conclusion: Laparoscopic rectal prolapse surgery has comparable morbidity and mortality to perineal surgery. A randomized trial is indicated to validate these findings and to assess recurrence rates and functional outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Increasing life expectancy requires specific attention on geriatric patients. Data support a potential reduction of surgical morbidity for patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery as compared to conventional surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate the comparative effect of laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery on geriatric patients. Methods: A systematic review of electronic information sources was undertaken. Studies that provided outcome data on patients aged 65 years or older, subjected to laparoscopic or open colorectal surgery, were considered. Mortality, morbidity, cardiac and pulmonary complications were the outcome measures of treatment effect. The methodological quality of selected studies was independently appraised by two reviewers. Random effects model was applied to synthesize outcome data. Results: Twenty-seven articles providing data for 66,592 patients were included in the analysis. Patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery had a decreased risk for mortality (2.2 vs. 5.4 %; OR 0.55, 95 % CI 0.44-0.67), overall morbidity (19.3 vs. 26.7 %; OR 0.54, 95 % CI 0.46-0.63), cardiac (4.7 vs. 7.7 %; OR 0.60, 95 % CI 0.39-0.92) and respiratory complications (3.9 vs. 6.3 %; OR 0.67, 95 % CI 0.47-0.95). Sensitivity analysis including reports with similar age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score and/or similar prevalence of cardiopulmonary morbidity between the laparoscopic and the open treatment arm validated the outcome estimates of the primary analysis. Conclusions: This analysis supports a substantial benefit for elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic in comparison with open colorectal surgery. The comparative effect of either approach on geriatric patients with pulmonary and cardiac comorbidities is a subject of further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Single-site laparoscopic colectomy (SLC) is increasingly performed for colon cancer. There are few reports on invasiveness in SLC. This study aimed to evaluate the postoperative pain from SLC, as compared to conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MLC). Methods: We compared postoperative pain among patients from the SLC group ( n = 11) with those from the MLC group ( n = 11) who underwent laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer at our institution between May and October 2013. Patients were specifically matched for gender, age, body mass index, tumor size, and performance status. Postoperative pain was evaluated at rest and during mobilization, using a visual analog scale (VAS) on postoperative days (PODs) 1-7, and by postoperative frequency of analgesics; pain intensity was evaluated at rest, using the Pain Vision™ system on PODs 1-7. Other operative outcomes of the two groups were also recorded. Results: Patient demographics, operative outcomes, time duration before first flatus, and C-reactive protein and WBC count on POD 1 showed no significant differences between groups. Results of sequential VAS during mobilization until POD 7 were significantly less in the SLC group than in the MLC group ( p = 0.009). However, sequential VAS at rest did not differ between the two groups ( p = 0.11). Measured with the Pain Vision™ system, the difference in pain intensity at rest was statistically significant for the postoperative period ( p = 0.003). Total requests for analgesics until POD 7 were reduced in the SLC group compared to that in the MLC group, but lacked statistical significance (three vs. seven, respectively, p = 0.07). Conclusions: In both quantitative and objective measurements using the Pain Vision™ system, SLC significantly reduced postoperative pain. SLC is a promising procedure, associated with less invasiveness than MLC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Obese patients pose additional operative technical difficulties, and it is unclear if the outcomes of single-port colorectal surgery are equivalent to those of conventional laparoscopy in such patients. The aim of this study was to compare perioperative variables and short-term outcomes of single-port versus conventional laparoscopy in obese patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Patients and methods: Obese patients (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m) undergoing single-port laparoscopic colorectal resections between March 2009 and September 2012 were case matched 1:1 with obese counterparts undergoing conventional (multi-port) laparoscopic surgery based on diagnosis and operation type. Results: Thirty-seven patients who underwent single-port surgery were matched with 37 conventional laparoscopic counterparts. Male gender predominated in the single-port group (26 vs 15, p = 0.02). The number of patients with a history of previous abdominal operations (17 vs 13, p = 0.48) and ASA score (3 vs 2, p = 0.6) were similar between the groups. No differences were observed with respect to conversion rate (2 vs 5, p = 0.43), operative time (146 vs 150 min, p = 0.48), estimated blood loss (159 vs 183 ml, p = 0.99), time to first flatus (3 vs 3 days, p = 0.91), time to first bowel movement (3 vs 4 days, p = 0.62), length of hospital stay (7 vs 6 days, p = 0.37), or reoperation (2 vs 1, p > 0.99), and readmission rates (2 vs 2, p > 0.99). There were no deaths. Conclusion: For obese patients undergoing colorectal resections, single-port laparoscopy appears to be as safe and effective as conventional laparoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the possibility of using single-port low anterior resection (LAR) in place of conventional laparoscopic LAR. Background: Though single-port LS is gradually evolving, the application of single-port LS techniques in LAR have been viewed with skepticism due to technical difficulties. Methods: Data from patients who had undergone either conventional laparoscopic LAR ( n = 49) or single-port LAR ( n = 67) for colorectal cancers between March 2006 and March 2013 were analyzed retrospectively. Results: In single-port LAR group, oncologic outcomes were satisfactory with respect to attainment of lymph nodes (23.4 ± 15.3) and surgical margins (proximal cut margin: 7.1 ± 4.6 cm, distal cut margin: 7.7 ± 5.7 cm). Single-port LAR showed acceptable clinical outcomes manifested by comparable outcomes of post-operative analgesics requirement and length of hospital stay, and by low incidence of post-operative complications (conventional laparoscopic LAR group: 30.6 % vs. single-port LAR group: 14.9 %; P < 0.01). Operative time was comparable between groups (conventional laparoscopic LAR group: 309 ± 93 min vs. single-port LAR group: 277 ± 106 min; P = 0.097). Throughout a series of 67 consecutive single-port LARs, no conversion to multiport or open surgery was occurred. Conclusion: This study shows that single-port LAR is both safe and feasible for use in resection of colorectal cancer when performed by surgeons who are trained in conventional laparoscopic technique. If further and more extensive studies support our results, then single-port LAR can be an acceptable alternative to conventional laparoscopic LAR for treatment of colorectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Transthoracic thoracoscopic lobectomy is the preferred method of surgical treatment for early lung cancer. Current methods require a transthoracic approach and are associated with chronic postoperative pain in up to 25 % of patients. Single-port transumbilical uniport surgery may offer advantages over multiport surgery with less postoperative pain and better cosmetic results. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a transumbilical anatomic lobectomy of the lung (TUAL) in a canine model. Methods: TUAL was performed in 12 beagle dogs using a 3-cm umbilical incision combined with a 2.5-cm diaphragmatic incision. Variables evaluated for surgical outcomes were operating time, operative complications, body rectal temperature, respiratory rate, white blood cell count, and arterial blood gases. Results: TUAL was successfully completed in ten animals. There were six bleeding complications related to surgery. In four animals, an avulsion of pulmonary vessel causes intraoperative bleeding, requiring simultaneous pulmonary artery and bronchus resections. In one animal, slipping of endoclip after vessel clipping caused perioperative bleeding. The other animal encountered bleeding complication during dissection of inferior pulmonary vein. Both animals required conventional thoracotomy to complete the surgery. Conclusions: TUAL in the canine model is feasible but associated with significant morbidity. With further development and refinement of instruments, comparative studies between the novel transumbilical lobectomy and the current video-assisted transthoracic lobectomy will clarify the role of transumbilical lobectomy in thoracic surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Single-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. Methods: Prospectively 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. Results: Overall 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. Conclusions: SLC 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Questions have emerged as to whether single-incision laparoscopy has reproducible or superior patient outcomes compared with traditional laparoscopy. A retrospective review comparing single-incision laparoscopic (SILS) appendectomy and traditional multiport laparoscopic (MP) appendectomy was conducted to assess the safety and feasibility of the less invasive laparoscopic technique. Methods: All SILS and MP appendectomies performed by three surgeons at a single institution during 43 months were reviewed. Statistical evaluation included descriptive analysis of demographic data including age and gender, as well as bi- and multi-variate analyses of operative outcomes including operative time, conversions, complications, and hospital length of stay. Results: The study reviewed 168 patients who underwent SILS appendectomy and 108 patients who underwent MP appendectomy. No statistically significant difference was found between the mean SILS and MP operative times (43.63 vs. 40.95 min; p = 0.29). Additionally, no statistically significant association was noted between surgical approach and length of hospital stay. Although 0.93 % of MP appendectomies and 2.38 % of SILS appendectomies were converted to open procedure, this difference was not statistically significant ( p = 0.65, Fisher's exact test). After exclusion of cases converted to open procedure from the study, the findings showed that 3.66 % of SILS cases were converted to multiport laparoscopy. No increase in the overall complication rate was associated with SILS compared with MP appendectomy. The wound complications documented included one incisional hernia for SILS appendectomy and two wound infections for MP appendectomy. Conclusion: The findings showed SILS appendectomy to be a safe and feasible alternative to traditional MP appendectomy that can be conducted with operative times, lengths of stay, and complication rates similar to those of the standardized technique. This review is a precursor to prospective studies, which are warranted to demonstrate conclusively the equivalence of operative times, complications, and lengths of hospital stay, as well as to elucidate differences in patient-centered outcomes including postoperative pain, cosmesis, and quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence in the literature regarding the potential of single-incision laparoscopic (SILS) inguinal herniorrhaphy currently is limited. A retrospective comparison of SILS and traditional multiport laparoscopic (MP) inguinal hernia repair was conducted to assess the safety and feasibility of the minimally invasive laparoscopic technique. Methods: All laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs performed by three surgeons at a single institution during 4 years were reviewed. Statistical evaluation included descriptive analysis of demographics including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and hernia location (uni- or bilateral), in addition to bivariate and multivariate analyses of surgical technique and outcomes including operative times, conversions, and complications. Results: The study compared 129 patients who underwent SILS inguinal hernia repair and 76 patients who underwent MP inguinal hernia repair. The cases included 190 men (92.68 %) with a mean age of 55.36 ± 18.01 years (range, 8-86 years) and a mean BMI of 26.49 ± 4.33 kg/m (range, 17.3-41.7 kg/m). These variables did not differ significantly between the SILS and MP cohorts. The average operative times for the SILS and MP unilateral cases were respectively 57.51 and 66.96 min. For the bilateral cases, the average operative times were 81.07 min for SILS and 81.38 min for MP. A multivariate analysis using surgical approach, BMI, case complexity, and laterality as the covariates demonstrated noninferiority of the SILS technique in terms of operative time ( p = 0.031). No conversions from SILS to MP occurred, and the rates of conversion to open procedure did not differ significantly between the cohorts ( p = 1.00, Fisher's exact test), nor did the complication rates ( p = 0.65, χ). Conclusions: As shown by the findings, SILS inguinal herniorrhaphy is a safe and feasible alternative to traditional MP inguinal hernia repair and can be performed successfully with similar operative times, conversion rates, and complication rates. Prospective trials are essential to confirm equivalence in these areas and to detect differences in patient-centered outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Laparoscopic colectomy for malignancy currently is the standard operative technique together with open colectomy. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SIL) is a recent advance in minimally invasive surgical techniques. This study aimed to compare SIL right colectomy with conventional laparoscopy (CL) used to treat patients with colon cancer. Methods: This study was a retrospective analysis of data from the authors' prospectively collected colorectal surgery database. Between August 2009 and November 2010, 159 patients who underwent primary laparoscopic right colectomy at the Samsung Medical Center were recruited to participate in this study. Of these, 66 patients underwent SIL colectomy. Results: The SIL and CL right colectomy groups did not differ significantly in terms of general characteristics including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American society of anesthesiology (ASA) score, previous abdominal operation, and diagnosis. The two groups also did not differ significantly in terms of perioperative complications (9.1 vs. 15.1 %, p = 0.335). Oncologic resection was similar in the two groups. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 24 for SIL and 27 for CL right colectomy ( p = 0.068). Tumor size, disease stage, adjuvant chemotherapy, and proximal and distal resection margins did not differ significantly between the two groups. The mean follow-up period was 24.5 for the SIL group and 26.4 months for the CL group ( p = 0.098), with six recurrences in the SIL group (9.1 %) and three recurrences in the CL group (3.2 %) ( p = 0.120). One death occurred in the CL group. Disease-free survival at 24 months did not differ significantly between the two groups (89.7 vs. 96.3 %, p = 0.120). Conclusion: The findings show that SIL right colectomy for colon cancer is safe and can provide resection and oncologic outcomes equal to those of conventional laparoscopic right colectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a recent development of minimally invasive surgery for colorectal disease. The literature comparing it against conventional laparoscopic colectomy remains limited. Methods: A retrospective case-cohort study compared the benefits and outcomes of SILS right hemicolectomy (SRH) with those of conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH). The medical records of consecutive patients from a prospectively collected database were reviewed. Demographic data, operative details, recovery parameters, and details of resected specimens were obtained and analyzed in an intention-to-treat manner. Results: From January 2006 to March 2011, 104 elective LRHs (72 %) and 40 elective SRHs (28 %) were performed. The demographics for these two groups were comparable in terms of gender, age, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), comorbidities and American Society of Anesthesiology score. As the records showed, 62 % of the LRHs and 57 % of the SRHs were performed for malignancies ( p = 0.536). Seven of the LRH cases (7 %) were converted to open procedure, whereas two of the SILS cases (5 %) were converted. Three SILS cases (7 %) were completed with additional laparoscopic ports. The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of wound length, mean operative time, lymph node clearance, or margins of resected specimen. The recovery parameters (pain score, hospital length of stay, and complications rate) also were equivalent between the two groups. Conclusion: As a feasible and safe procedure with early postoperative outcomes equivalent to those for LRH, SRH is a suitable alternative. The possible advantages of SILS over conventional laparoscopic surgery may be validated only with randomized controlled trials in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The feasibility and safety of single-incision laparoscopic total proctocolectomy (TPC) and ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) were first reported in 2010. To improve accuracy and efficiency while maintaining the cosmetic advantages of single-incision laparoscopic surgery, we have since modified the technique to include the use of a 5-mm instrument placed through the eventual drain site. The aim of this study is to compare reduced port laparoscopic (RPL) IPAA with conventional laparoscopic IPAA with respect to short-term outcomes to assess safety. Methods: RPL cases were matched to conventional laparoscopy cases for patient age (±5 years), body mass index, gender, diagnosis, type and number of stages of surgical procedure, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, and year of surgery (±3 years). Groups were compared using χ or Fisher exact tests for categorical and Wilcoxon rank-sum test for quantitative data. Results: Twenty-four RPL patients were case-matched to an equal number of patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic IPAA. Short-term outcomes including postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and time to first bowel movement were similar between groups. Despite similar diagnosis, previous surgery, and comorbidity, operative blood loss ( p < 0.001) and operating time ( p = 0.02) were lower for the RPL group. Conclusion: RPL IPAA can be safely performed with short-term outcomes comparable to conventional laparoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) is a newly developed procedure with the benefit of better cosmetic outcome and potentially reduced wound pain compared with conventionally laparoscopic colectomy (CLC). However, the application of SILC requires careful evaluation to prove its benefit and safety. This randomized, controlled study compared the operative outcome of patients who underwent SILC and CLC. Methods: Patients who had small cancer (<4 cm) or adenomatous polyp requiring colectomy were randomized to have SILC or CLC. The patients were blinded to the procedures and the postoperative pain was used as the primary outcome measure. All patients had patient-controlled analgesia with intravenous morphine after the operation and the nominal rating score on days 1-3 and day 14 were recorded by research staff, who did not known the types of operations. Other operative outcomes of the two groups of patients also were recorded prospectively and compared. Results: There were 25 patients in each group. The patients' demographics, tumor characteristics, operating time, blood loss, complication rate, number of lymph nodes harvested, and resection margin have no statistically significant difference between the two groups. There was no operative mortality in both groups. The SILC group had consistently lower median pain score than CLC group in the whole postoperative course and the difference was statistically significant on day 1 (0 (0-5) vs. day 3 (0-6) respectively; p = 0.002) and day 2 (0 (0-3) vs. 2 (0-8) respectively; p = 0.014). The median hospital stay in the SILC group also was shorter the CLC group. Conclusions: In a selected group of patients with small tumor and good operative risk, SILC is a safe alternative to CLC. Single-port laparoscopic colectomy also is associated with the benefits of less postoperative pain and shorter hospital stay than CLC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Laparoscopic liver surgery is gaining increasing acceptance worldwide, but its frontiers are constantly challenged. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) has been performed for various organs, but the feasibility of LESS hepatectomies has yet to be explored fully. Methods: From May 2010 to March 2011, seven patients underwent LESS minor hepatectomies. Patient demographic, operative, and clinical data were reviewed. Results: Five left lateral sectionectomies, one segment 3, and one segment 5 resection were performed. The median operative time was 142 min (range, 104-171 min), and the median blood loss was 200 ml (range, 100-450 ml). The median hospital stay was 3 days (range, 1-11 days). For all the patients, the indications for surgery were suspected malignant tumors, and the surgical resection margins were clear for every patient. Conclusions: Laparoendoscopic single-site minor hepatectomy is a novel modification to traditional laparoscopic surgery. The method is safe and feasible without any compromise to oncologic safety for selected patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases that are peripheral and smaller than 5 cm in size. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is an emerging modality that has proven to be safe and feasible for colon resection in multiple case reports and series. Nonetheless, comparative analyses with established techniques are limited in the published literature. We evaluated the efficacy of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) for the treatment of sigmoid disease through a matched-case comparison with conventional laparoscopic colectomy (CLC). Methods: Twenty patients who underwent single-incision laparoscopic sigmoid resection for benign or malignant disease between July 2009 and September 2010 were matched to patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were assessed. Results: Twenty SILC and CLC cases each were paired based on gender ( p < 1.0), age ( p < 0.47), pathology ( p < 1.0), and surgical procedure ( p < 1.0). Ten patients (50%) in the SILC group and eight patients (40%) in the CLC group had a history of prior abdominal surgery ( p < 0.53). There were no conversions to open surgery; however, one SILC procedure (5%) required conversion to CLC ( p < 0.31). There was no significant difference in mean operating time between groups ( p < 0.80). Mean estimated blood loss was significantly lower for SILC compared to CLC ( p < 0.007). Mean lymph node extraction was comparable between groups in the subset of patients with malignant disease ( p < 0.68). Two postoperative complications were encountered in each group. The mean length of hospital stay for SILC and CLC was 3.2 ± 1.0 and 3.8 ± 2.1 days, respectively ( p < 0.25). There were no readmissions or reoperative interventions in either group. Conclusion: Compared with conventional laparoscopic technique, single-incision laparoscopic surgery results in similar intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. The technique avoids use of multiple trocar sites and may safely be performed in patients with a history of previous abdominal surgery while maintaining a short length of hospital stay and low complication rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]