OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to show the safety and feasibility of single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) by comparing its short-term outcomes with those following conventional laparoscopic surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Single-port laparoscopic surgery maximizes the advantages of laparoscopic surgery, and therefore it can be an ultimate attainment of laparoscopic surgery. However, no comparative study has addressed its role in colorectal cancer. METHODS: Prospectively collected data of patients who had undergone either conventional laparoscopic surgery (n = 106) or SPLS (n = 73) for colorectal cancer between March 2006 and May 2010 were analyzed retrospectively. The short-term outcomes of these 2 operative modalities were compared. RESULTS: Of the 179 study subjects, 103 (57.5%) had colon cancer and 76 (42.5%) had rectal cancer. Various operative methods, from right hemicolectomy to abdominoperineal resection, were used according to location through either conventional laparoscopic or SPLS approach. In its comparison, mean surgical time was greater in the SPLS group (255 vs 276 minutes, P < 0.008). Acquired length of sufficient surgical margins and the number of harvested lymph nodes were comparable. Postoperative recovery was faster in the SPLS group, in terms of shorter time duration before first flatus (SPLS vs conventional laparoscopic surgery; 2.5 ± 1.2 vs 3.2 ± 1.8 days, P = 0.004), earlier initiation of free oral fluids (1.8 ± 2.2 vs 2.6 ± 1.7 days, P = 0.000) and of a solid diet (4.2 ± 2.9 vs 6.5 ± 2.7 days, P = 0.000), less frequent usage of parenteral narcotics (2.2 ± 3.2 vs 3.5 ± 4.0 times, P = 0.029), and shorter hospital stay (9.6 ± 9.6 vs 15.5 ± 9.8 days, P = 0.000). CONCLUSION: This study shows that SPLS is both safe and feasible in colorectal cancer, and that it has equivalent or better short-term outcomes than conventional laparoscopic surgery. Accordingly, the authors conclude that SPLS can be an alternative to conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to show the safety and feasibility of single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) by comparing its short-term outcomes with those following conventional laparoscopic surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Single-port laparoscopic surgery maximizes the advantages of laparoscopic surgery, and therefore it can be an ultimate attainment of laparoscopic surgery. However, no comparative study has addressed its role in colorectal cancer. METHODS: Prospectively collected data of patients who had undergone either conventional laparoscopic surgery (n = 106) or SPLS (n = 73) for colorectal cancer between March 2006 and May 2010 were analyzed retrospectively. The short-term outcomes of these 2 operative modalities were compared. RESULTS: Of the 179 study subjects, 103 (57.5%) had colon cancer and 76 (42.5%) had rectal cancer. Various operative methods, from right hemicolectomy to abdominoperineal resection, were used according to location through either conventional laparoscopic or SPLS approach. In its comparison, mean surgical time was greater in the SPLS group (255 vs 276 minutes, P < 0.008). Acquired length of sufficient surgical margins and the number of harvested lymph nodes were comparable. Postoperative recovery was faster in the SPLS group, in terms of shorter time duration before first flatus (SPLS vs conventional laparoscopic surgery; 2.5 ± 1.2 vs 3.2 ± 1.8 days, P = 0.004), earlier initiation of free oral fluids (1.8 ± 2.2 vs 2.6 ± 1.7 days, P = 0.000) and of a solid diet (4.2 ± 2.9 vs 6.5 ± 2.7 days, P = 0.000), less frequent usage of parenteral narcotics (2.2 ± 3.2 vs 3.5 ± 4.0 times, P = 0.029), and shorter hospital stay (9.6 ± 9.6 vs 15.5 ± 9.8 days, P = 0.000). CONCLUSION: This study shows that SPLS is both safe and feasible in colorectal cancer, and that it has equivalent or better short-term outcomes than conventional laparoscopic surgery. Accordingly, the authors conclude that SPLS can be an alternative to conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.
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: Deborah S Keller; Juan R Flores-Gonzalez; Jaideep Sandhu; Sergio Ibarra; Nisreen Madhoun; Eric M Haas Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 3.452