BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS™) is a potentially less invasive approach than standard laparoscopy (LAP). However, SILS™ may not allow the same level of manual dexterity and technical performance compared to LAP. We compared the performance of standardized tasks from the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) program using either the LAP or the SILS™ technique. METHODS: Medical students, surgical residents, and attending physicians were recruited and divided into inexperienced (IE), laparoscopy-experienced (LE), and SILS™-experienced (SE) groups. Each subject performed standardized tasks from FLS, including peg transfer, pattern cutting, placement of ligating loop, and intracorporeal suturing using a standard three-port FLS box-trainer with standard laparoscopic instruments. For SILS™, the subjects used an FLS box-trainer modified to accept a SILS Port™ with two working ports for instruments and one port for a 30° 5-mm laparoscope. SILS™ tasks were performed with instruments capable of unilateral articulation. SILS™ suturing was performed both with and without an articulating EndoStitch™ device. Task scores, including cumulative laparoscopic FLS score (LS) and cumulative SILS™ FLS score (SS), were calculated using standard time and accuracy metrics. RESULTS: There were 27 participants in the study. SS was inferior to LS in all groups. LS increased with experience level, but was similar between LE and SE groups. SS increased with experience level and was different among all groups. SILS™ suturing using the articulating suturing device was superior to the use of a modified needle driver technique. CONCLUSIONS: SILS™ is more technically challenging than standard laparoscopic surgery. Using currently available SILS™ platforms and instruments, even surgeons with SILS™ experience are unable to match their overall LAP performance. Specialized training curricula should be developed for inexperienced surgeons who wish to perform SILS™.
BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS™) is a potentially less invasive approach than standard laparoscopy (LAP). However, SILS™ may not allow the same level of manual dexterity and technical performance compared to LAP. We compared the performance of standardized tasks from the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) program using either the LAP or the SILS™ technique. METHODS: Medical students, surgical residents, and attending physicians were recruited and divided into inexperienced (IE), laparoscopy-experienced (LE), and SILS™-experienced (SE) groups. Each subject performed standardized tasks from FLS, including peg transfer, pattern cutting, placement of ligating loop, and intracorporeal suturing using a standard three-port FLS box-trainer with standard laparoscopic instruments. For SILS™, the subjects used an FLS box-trainer modified to accept a SILS Port™ with two working ports for instruments and one port for a 30° 5-mm laparoscope. SILS™ tasks were performed with instruments capable of unilateral articulation. SILS™ suturing was performed both with and without an articulating EndoStitch™ device. Task scores, including cumulative laparoscopic FLS score (LS) and cumulative SILS™ FLS score (SS), were calculated using standard time and accuracy metrics. RESULTS: There were 27 participants in the study. SS was inferior to LS in all groups. LS increased with experience level, but was similar between LE and SE groups. SS increased with experience level and was different among all groups. SILS™ suturing using the articulating suturing device was superior to the use of a modified needle driver technique. CONCLUSIONS: SILS™ is more technically challenging than standard laparoscopic surgery. Using currently available SILS™ platforms and instruments, even surgeons with SILS™ experience are unable to match their overall LAP performance. Specialized training curricula should be developed for inexperienced surgeons who wish to perform SILS™.
Authors: Gerald M Fried; Liane S Feldman; Melina C Vassiliou; Shannon A Fraser; Donna Stanbridge; Gabriela Ghitulescu; Christopher G Andrew Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Dimitrios Stefanidis; James R Korndorffer; Sarah Markley; Rafael Sierra; Daniel J Scott Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Nader N Massarweh; Allison Devlin; Rebecca Gaston Symons; Jo Ann Broeckel Elrod; David R Flum Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2009-05-01 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: David Canes; Andre Berger; Monish Aron; Ricardo Brandina; David A Goldfarb; Daniel Shoskes; Mihir M Desai; Inderbir S Gill Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Scott Michael Ellis; Martin Varley; Stuart Howell; Markus Trochsler; Guy Maddern; Peter Hewett; Tina Runge; Soeren Torge Mees Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-10-28 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Bernadette Brown-Clerk; Adam E de Laveaga; Chad A LaGrange; Laura M Wirth; Bethany R Lowndes; M Susan Hallbeck Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-12-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Francisco Miguel Sánchez-Margallo; Ana Maria Matos-Azevedo; Francisco Julián Pérez-Duarte; Silvia Enciso; Idoia Díaz-Guëmes Martín-Portugués Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-12-20 Impact factor: 4.584