Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy vs open colectomy: a prospective randomized study

Background: We compared the perioperative parameters and outcomes achieved with hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy (HALC) vs open colectomy (OC) for the management of benign and malignant colorectal disease, including cancer patients treated with curative intent. Methods: Sixty eligible patients were randomized to either HALC (n = 30) or OC (n = 30) treatment groups. We used Pearsons chi-square and two-sample t-tests to compare the differences in demographics and perioperative parameters. Results: There were no significant differences in age, gender distribution, disease pattern, operative procedure, comorbidity, or history of abdominal surgery. The HALC patients had significantly shorter hospital stays and incision lengths, faster recovery of gastrointestinal function, less analgesic use and blood loss, and lower pain scores on postoperative days 1, 3, and 14. There were no significant differences in operative time, complications, or time to return to normal activity. Conclusion: Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy (HALC) is safe and produces better therapeutic results in terms of perioperative parameters than OC.     

常规腹腔镜与单孔腹腔镜在结肠切除术中应用价值比较的Meta分析

目的:通过对比常规腹腔镜与单孔腹腔镜结肠切除术的有效性及安全性,探讨单孔腹腔镜结肠切除术的潜在优势及应用价值。方法:检索PubMed、Cochrane Library数据库公开发表的常规腹腔镜与单孔腹腔镜结肠切除术对比的文献。通过采用RevMan 5.0统计软件,合并及对比两组手术时间、术中出血量、中转开腹/增加穿刺孔率、术后并发症发生率、住院时间等,选择计算相对危险度(RR,95%的可信区间)及均数差(MD,95%的可信区间)作为效应尺度指标,评估两种术式的有效性及安全性。结果:18项研究符合纳入标准,其中常规腹腔镜结肠手术678例,单孔腹腔镜结肠手术542例,共1 220例。本项Meta分析结果表明单孔腹腔镜结肠切除术中出血少、住院时间短(合并MD分别为-20.25,95%CI:-30.25～-1.24,P=0.04;-0.38,95%CI:-0.63～0.13,P=0.002),而手术时间、中转开腹或增加穿刺孔率、术后并发症发生率两种术式差异无统计学意义(合并MD为3.90,95%CI:-2.45～10.24,P=0.23;合并RR分别为1.67,95%CI:0.96～2.91,P=0.07;0.89,95%CI:0.69-1.14,P=0.36)。结论:对于具有丰富腹腔镜手术经验的术者而言,单孔腹腔镜结肠手术是安全、可行、有效的,与常规腹腔镜手术具有相似的手术疗效;手术创伤、术后康复、微创美容、术后疼痛方面单孔腹腔镜结肠切除术更具优势;但尚需开展大样本的随机对照试验及高质量的对比研究以进一步论证。     

Single-incision robotic colectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic colectomy: A matched case control study

BackgroundSingle incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) and single incision robotic colectomy (SIRC) are both advanced minimally invasive operative techniques. However, studies comparing these two surgical methods have not been published. The purpose of this study is to compare and evaluate the short-term outcomes of SIRC with those of SILC.MethodsA total of 21 consecutive patients underwent SIRC and 136 consecutive patients underwent SILC in separate institutes between January 2013 and December 2019. We used retrospective cohort matching to analyze these patients.ResultsPrior to matching, patients who underwent SIRC had a lower percentage of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grades III–IV (5% vs. 19%, P = 0.11) compared with patients who underwent SILC. The SIRC group revealed a higher proportion of sigmoid colon lesions and anterior resections than the SILC group (61% vs. 45%, P = 0.16). After 1:4 cohort matching, 21 patients were enrolled in the SIRC group and 84 patients were enrolled in the SILC group. No statistically significant difference in terms of operative time (SIRC: 185 ± 46 min, SILC: 208 ± 53 min; P = 0.51), estimated blood loss (SIRC: 12 ± 22 ml, SILC: 85 ± 234 ml; P = 0.12), and complications (SIRC: 4.7%, SIRC: 7.1%; P = 0.31) was observed between these groups. Length of postoperative hospital stay (SIRC: 8.3 ± 1.7 days, SILC: 9.3 ± 6.5; P = 0.10) and number of harvested lymph nodes (SIRC: 21.3 ± 10.3, SILC: 21.3 ± 9.5; P = 0.77) were also similar between the two groups. In subgroup analysis, numbers of harvested lymph node is less in SIRC than SILC (SIRC: 18.1 ± 4.7 vs. SILC: 18.9 ± 8.1, P = 0.04) in anterior resection.ConclusionSIRC and SILC are safe and feasible procedures with similar surgical and pathological outcomes for right- and left-side colectomy.     

Intermediate results of a prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background

Minimally invasive techniques have become an integral part of general surgery, with recent investigation into single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC). This study presents a prospective, randomized, multicenter, single-blind trial of SILC compared with four-port cholecystectomy (4PLC) with the goal of assessing safety, feasibility, and factors predicting outcomes.

Methods

Patients with biliary colic and documented gallstones or polyps or with biliary dyskinesia were randomized to SILC or 4PLC. Data measures included operative details, adverse events, and conversion to 4PLC or laparotomy. Pain, cosmesis, and quality-of-life scores were documented. Patients were followed for 12?months.

Results

Two hundred patients were randomized to SILC (n?=?117) or 4PLC (n?=?80) (3 patients chose not to participate after randomization). Patients were similar except for body mass index (BMI), which was lower in the SILC patients (28.9 vs. 31.0, p?=?0.011). One SILC patient required conversion to 4PLC. Operative time was longer for SILC (57 vs. 45?min, p?p?=?0.55). Cosmesis scores favored SILC (p?p?p?=?0.047), but hernia recurrence was equivalent for both procedures (1.3% vs. 3.4%, p?=?0.65). Univariate analysis showed female gender, SILC, and younger age to be predictors for increased pain scores, while SILC was associated with improved cosmesis scores.

Conclusions

In this multicenter randomized controlled trial of SILC versus 4PLC, SILC appears to be safe with a similar biliary complication profile. Pain scores and wound complication rates are higher for SILC; however, cosmesis scores favored SILC. For patients preferring a better cosmetic outcome and willing to accept possible increased postoperative pain, SILC offers a safe alternative to the standard 4PLC. Further follow-up is needed to detail the long-term risk of wound morbidities, including hernia recurrence.     

Patient-reported outcomes after single-incision versus traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized prospective trial

Background

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is a newer approach that may be a safe alternative to traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TLC) based on retrospective and small prospective studies. As the demand for single-incision surgery may be driven by patient perceptions of benefits, we designed a prospective randomized study using patient-reported outcomes as our end points.

Methods

Patients deemed candidates for either SILC or TLC were offered enrollment in the study. After induction of anesthesia, patients were randomized to SILC or TLC. Preoperative characteristics and operative data were recorded, including length of stay (LOS). Pain scores in recovery and for 48 h and satisfaction with wound appearance at 2 and 4 weeks were reported by patients. We used the gastrointestinal quality of life index (GIQLI) survey preoperatively and at 2 and 4 weeks postoperatively to assess recovery. Procedural and total hospital costs per case were abstracted from hospital billing systems.

Results

Mean age of the study group was 44.1 years (±14.8), 87 % were Caucasian, and 77 % were female, with no difference between groups. Operative times were longer for SILC (median = 57 vs. 47 min, p = 0.008), but mean LOS was similar (6.8 ± 4.2 h SILC vs. 6.2 ± 4.8 h TLC, p = 0.59). Operating room cost and encounter cost were similar. GIQLI scores were not significantly different preoperatively or at 2 or 4 weeks postoperatively. Patients reported higher satisfaction with wound appearance at 2 weeks with SILC. There were no differences in pain scores in recovery or in the first 48 h, although SILC patients required significantly more narcotic in recovery (19 mg morphine equivalent vs. 11.5, p = 0.03).

Conclusions

SILC is a longer operation but can be done at the same cost as TLC. Recovery and pain scores are not significantly different. There may be an improvement in patient satisfaction with wound appearance. Both procedures are valid approaches to cholecystectomy.     

Transvaginal cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective cohort study

Objective

This report describes the first prospective cohort study comparing transvaginal cholecystectomies (TVC) with single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomies (SILC) and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomies (4PLC).

Methods

Between May 2009 and August 2010, 14 patients underwent a TVC. These patients were compared with patients who underwent SILC (22 patients) or 4PLC (11 patients) in a concurrent, randomized, controlled trial. Demographic data, operative time, numerical pain scales, complications, and return to work were recorded.

Results

Mean age (TVC: 33.5?±?3.0?year; SILC: 38.4?±?3.3?year; 4PLC: 35.5?±?4.1?year; p?=?0.58) and mean BMI (TVC: 28.8?±?1.5?kg/m²; SILC: 31.8?±?1?kg/m²; 4PLC: 31.4?±?2.2?kg/m²; p?=?0.35) were not statistically significant. However, mean operative time (TVC: 67?±?3.9?min; SILC: 48.9?±?2.6?min; 4PLC: 42.3?±?3.9?min; p?p?=?0.02) with equilibration of pain scores by days 14 and 30. Return to work (TVC: 6.4?±?1.5?days; SILC: 13.1?±?1.3?days; 4PLC: 14.1?±?1.4?days; p?Conclusions Transvaginal cholecystectomy is a safe and well-tolerated procedure with statistically significantly less pain at 1 and 3?days after surgery, with a faster return to work but longer operative times compared with single incision and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.     

Oxidative stress markers in laparoscopic versus open colectomy for cancer: a double-blind randomized study

Background

Colorectal cancer as well as colorectal surgery is associated with increased oxidative stress through different mechanisms. In this study the levels of different oxidative stress markers were comparatively assessed in patients who underwent laparoscopic or conventional resection for colorectal cancer.

Methods

Sixty patients with colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopic (LS) or open surgery (OS). Lipid, protein, RNA, and nitrogen damage was investigated by measuring serum 8-isoprostanes (8-epiPGF_2α), protein carbonyls (PC), 8-hydroxyguanosine (8-OHG), and 3-nitrotyrosine (3-NT), respectively. The primary end point of the study was to analyze and compare serum levels of the oxidative stress markers between the groups.

Results

Postoperative serum levels of 8-epiPGF_2α, 3-NT, and 8-OHG were significantly lower in the LS group at 24 h after surgery (p < 0.05). At 6 h postoperatively, the levels of 8-epiPGF_2α and 3-NT were significantly lower in the LS group (p < 0.05). No difference in the levels of PC was found between the two groups at any time point. In the OS group, postoperative levels of 8-epiPGF_2α were significantly lower than the preoperative values (p < 0.01). In the LS group, the postoperative values of 8-epiPGF_2α, 3-NT, and 8-OHG were significantly lower than the preoperative values (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer is associated with lower oxidative stress compared to open surgery. 8-epiPGF_2α was the most suitable marker for readily defining the oxidative status in patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer.     

Laparoscopic versus open colectomy for TNM stage III colon cancer: results of a prospective multicenter study in Italy

Background and Purpose

There is still debate about the practicality of performing laparoscopic colectomy instead of open colectomy for patients with curable cancer, although laparoscopic surgery is now being performed even for patients with advanced colon cancer. We compared the long-term results of laparoscopic versus open colectomy for TNM stage III carcinoma of the colon in a large series of patients followed up for at least 3?years.

Methods

The subjects of this prospective non-randomized multicentric study were 290 consecutive patients, who underwent open surgery (OS group; n?=?164) or laparoscopic surgery (LS group; n?=?126) between 1994 and 2005, at one of the four surgical centers. The same surgical techniques were used for the laparoscopic and open approaches to right and left colectomy. The distribution of TNM substages (III A, III B, IIIC) as well as the grading of carcinomas (G1, G2, G3) were similar in each arm of the study. The median follow-up periods were 76.9 and 58.0?months after OS and LS, respectively.

Results

There were 10 (6.1?%) versus 9 (7.1?%) deaths unrelated to cancer, 15 (9.1?%) versus 5 (4?%) cases of local recurrence, 7 (4.2?%) versus 5 (4?%) cases of peritoneal carcinosis, and 37 (22.5?%) versus 14 (11.1?%) cases of metastases in the OS and LS groups, respectively. There was also one case of port-site recurrence after LS (0.8?%). The OS group had a significantly higher probability of local recurrence and metastases (p?<?0.001) with a significant higher probability of cancer-related death (p?=?0.001) than the LS group.

Conclusions

These findings support that LS is safe and effective for advanced carcinoma of the colon. Although the LS group in this study had a significantly better long-term outcome than the OS group, further investigations are needed to draw a definitive conclusion.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open right colectomy: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic colectomy has been proved to be both technically and oncologically feasible. However, the approach has been criticized for its procedural complexity and long operative time as a result of the loss of tactile feedback and absence of depth perception. The advent of hand-access devices offered a potential solution to these problems. This randomized controlled trial aims to compare hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy (HALC) with open colectomy (OC) in the management of right-sided colonic cancer. METHODS: Adult patients with nonmetastatic carcinoma of cancer or ascending colon were recruited. Patients were excluded if they presented with surgical emergencies, had synchronous tumors on work-up, or when the tumor was larger than 6.5 cm in any dimension or preoperative imaging. Recruited patients were randomized to undergo either HALC or OC by the same surgical team. Outcome measures included operative time, blood loss, postoperative pain score and analgesic requirement, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, as well as disease recurrence and patient survival. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients (HALC = 41, OC = 40) were successfully recruited. The 2 groups were matched for age, gender distribution, body mass index, and comorbidities. No significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in the distribution of tumors and the final histopathological staging. HALC took significantly longer than OC (110 min vs. 97.5 minutes, P = 0.003) but resulted in significantly less blood loss (35 mL vs. 50 mL, P = 0.005). Patients after HALC experienced significantly less pain, required significantly less parenteral and enteral analgesia, recovered faster, and was associated with a shorter length of stay (7 days vs. 9 days, P = 0.004). With median follow-up of 28 to 30 months, no difference was observed in terms of disease recurrence, and the 5-year survival rates remained similar (83% vs. 74%, P = 0.90). CONCLUSION: HALC retained the same short-term benefits of the pure laparoscopic approach. The technique is associated with a slightly increased but acceptable operative time. Aside as a useful adjunct in complex laparoscopic procedures, the hand-assisted laparoscopic technique is also a useful, if not more effective, alternative for patients with right-sided colonic cancer.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy versus standard laparoscopic colectomy: a cost analysis

Objective  There is a relative dearth of literature comparing hand-assisted (HALC) to standard (SLC) laparoscopic colectomies. HALC seems beneficial in terms of shorter operative times and lower conversion rates, but this is counterbalanced by a greater inflammatory response, larger incisions and higher direct costs. Nevertheless, these results are not consistent throughout existing studies and there are to date no detailed cost comparisons. Our hypothesis was that HALC would not incur significantly higher institutional costs compared with standard laparoscopic techniques.
Method  Patients undergoing either SLC or HALC between August 2004 and September 2006 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients were managed using a standard protocol. Outcomes assessed included operative times, conversion rates, pain scores, time to resolution of ileus, length of stay and complications. Total costs were calculated from the day of surgery. Statistical analyses included χ², Fisher's exact test, the Mann–Whitney U -test or nonparametric bootstrapping method.
Results  Seventy-three patients underwent SLC while 101 had HALC. Demographics and indications for surgery in both groups were similar; the majority were performed for colorectal cancers. Operative times were shorter (147.5 vs 172.5 min, P  < 0.05) and complication rates lower (28.7% vs 45.2%, P  < 0.025) for HALC. There was no significant difference in the other clinical outcomes. Operative costs and cost of consumables were higher for HALC (US$4024.2 vs US$3568.1, P  = 0.01 and US$1724.7 vs US$1302.7, P  < 0.001, respectively). However, total costs were not significantly different (HALC US$8999.8, SLC US$7910.7, P  = 0.11).
Conclusion  Institutional costs are not significantly higher for HALC compared with SLC.     

Gastrointestinal recovery after laparoscopic colectomy: results of a prospective, observational, multicenter study

Background  

Although evidence suggests that laparoscopic colectomy (LC) results in faster gastrointestinal (GI) recovery than open bowel resection, previous studies were performed at single institutions or generally not controlled for diet introduction or perioperative care, making the results difficult to interpret. A prospective, observational, multicenter study was planned to investigate GI recovery, length of hospital stay (LOS), and postoperative ileus (POI)-related morbidity after LC.     

单切口与传统腹腔镜胆囊切除术的随机对比研究

目的:对比分析单切口腹腔镜胆囊切除术(single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy,SILC)与传统四孔法腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)的近期疗效。方法:2011年6月至8月将40例胆囊结石和胆囊息肉患者随机分为SILC组(n=20)和LC组(n=20)。对比分析两组患者一般资料、手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间、并发症、切口长度、疼痛程度和C反应蛋白量(C-reactive protein,CRP)。结果:两组患者年龄、性别、ASA分期、体重指数和术前CRP无明显差别,手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间、并发症、术后CRP差异无统计学意义,但SILC组切口更小,术后疼痛更轻微。结论:适当把握手术适应证,SILC安全可行,具有切口长度小、术后疼痛轻等优点。     

Transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer

Background  

Laparoscopic gastrectomy is a widely accepted procedure for treating early gastric cancers. This procedure is less invasive than conventional open approaches, and the oncologic outcomes are comparable. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery, developed to reduce the invasiveness of traditional laparoscopy, is applied to various abdominal surgical procedures. However, its application to laparoscopic gastrectomy for the treatment of gastric cancer has not been reported, mainly because of difficulties achieving adequate lymphadenectomy and reconstruction. The authors report their initial clinical experience with single-incision laparoscopic gastrectomy for early gastric cancer.     

Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic colectomy for colonic neoplasm: a randomized, controlled trial

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.