A M Wolthuis1, F Penninckx, S Fieuws, A D'Hoore. 1. Department of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, and Belgium Interuniversity Centre for Biostatistics and Statistical Bioinformatics, Leuven, Belgium. albert.wolthuis@uzleuven.be
Abstract
AIM: With the introduction of single-port surgery, expected advantages are improved cosmesis, decrease of pain and shorter length of stay. The aim of this study was to compare early outcomes of single-port colectomy with those of conventional laparoscopic colectomy. METHOD: All consecutive patients undergoing single-port colectomy between January and June 2010 were identified from a prospective database. They were matched for age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiology score and type of resection with patients who had conventional laparoscopic colectomy. All perioperative data, analgesic requirement, pain scores and inflammatory response were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank and McNemar tests. RESULTS: Fourteen patients [five men, nine women; median age (interquartile range) 56 (30-73) years, body mass index (interquartile range) 22 (20-24) kg/m2] underwent single-port colectomy and were matched with patients who had conventional laparoscopic colectomy. Median operating times, estimated blood loss, pain scores, analgesic requirement, inflammatory response and length of hospital stay were similar. Median increase in incision length was significantly higher in the single-port group (P=0.004), but maximal incision length for specimen extraction was comparable. There were no anastomotic leaks, wound infections or 30-day readmissions. CONCLUSION: In a case-matched setting with a small sample size, single-port laparoscopic colectomy has comparable outcomes to conventional laparoscopic colectomy.
AIM: With the introduction of single-port surgery, expected advantages are improved cosmesis, decrease of pain and shorter length of stay. The aim of this study was to compare early outcomes of single-port colectomy with those of conventional laparoscopic colectomy. METHOD: All consecutive patients undergoing single-port colectomy between January and June 2010 were identified from a prospective database. They were matched for age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiology score and type of resection with patients who had conventional laparoscopic colectomy. All perioperative data, analgesic requirement, pain scores and inflammatory response were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank and McNemar tests. RESULTS: Fourteen patients [five men, nine women; median age (interquartile range) 56 (30-73) years, body mass index (interquartile range) 22 (20-24) kg/m2] underwent single-port colectomy and were matched with patients who had conventional laparoscopic colectomy. Median operating times, estimated blood loss, pain scores, analgesic requirement, inflammatory response and length of hospital stay were similar. Median increase in incision length was significantly higher in the single-port group (P=0.004), but maximal incision length for specimen extraction was comparable. There were no anastomotic leaks, wound infections or 30-day readmissions. CONCLUSION: In a case-matched setting with a small sample size, single-port laparoscopic colectomy has comparable outcomes to conventional laparoscopic colectomy.