S Woo Lim1, H Jin Kim, C Hyun Kim, J Wook Huh, Y Jin Kim, H Rok Kim. 1. Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, 322 Seoyang-ro, Hwasun-eup, Gwangju, Hwasun-gun, Jeollanam-do, 519-763, South Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recently, laparoscopic colorectal surgery using a single incision usually made at the umbilical area has emerged as a tool to minimize the numbers of scars and provide better cosmetic results. But experience in laparoscopic skills is needed to maintain the oncologic principles of colorectal cancer surgery with the restricted operating field during the procedure. Adding an additional port to single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery (SILS) may be a bridge between conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery and SILS. The present study was undertaken to investigate whether umbilical incision laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery with one additional port (ULAP) could be performed in a similar manner to conventional multiport surgery. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-three patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma underwent laparoscopic colectomy between February 2011 and August 2011. Forty of these patients underwent ULAP and were compared with the other 123 patients who had conventional laparoscopic surgery. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were analyzed. RESULTS: Both groups were similar in age (p = 0.438), gender (p = 0.818), body mass index (p = 0.149), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores (p = 0.417), history of previous abdominal operation (p = 0.503), and tumor location (p = 0.051). Operation time was longer in the ULAP group (255.5 min) than in the conventional laparoscopic surgery group (144.6 min) (p < 0.001). No significant differences were evident between groups for estimated blood loss (p = 0.263), transfusion requirements (p = 0.841), conversion to open procedures (p = 0.40), length of umbilical incisions (4.6 vs. 4.4 cm, p = 0.628), postoperative hospital stay (p = 0.862), tumor size (p = 0.455), number of harvested lymph nodes (p = 0.203), proximal margins (p = 0.189), and distal resection margins (p = 0.151). Postoperative morbidity (p = 0.736) was similar in both groups. There was no mortality postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Umbilical incision laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery with an additional port is a feasible and safe approach, although it is more time consuming than conventional laparoscopic colectomy.
BACKGROUND: Recently, laparoscopic colorectal surgery using a single incision usually made at the umbilical area has emerged as a tool to minimize the numbers of scars and provide better cosmetic results. But experience in laparoscopic skills is needed to maintain the oncologic principles of colorectal cancer surgery with the restricted operating field during the procedure. Adding an additional port to single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery (SILS) may be a bridge between conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery and SILS. The present study was undertaken to investigate whether umbilical incision laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery with one additional port (ULAP) could be performed in a similar manner to conventional multiport surgery. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-three patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma underwent laparoscopic colectomy between February 2011 and August 2011. Forty of these patients underwent ULAP and were compared with the other 123 patients who had conventional laparoscopic surgery. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were analyzed. RESULTS: Both groups were similar in age (p = 0.438), gender (p = 0.818), body mass index (p = 0.149), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores (p = 0.417), history of previous abdominal operation (p = 0.503), and tumor location (p = 0.051). Operation time was longer in the ULAP group (255.5 min) than in the conventional laparoscopic surgery group (144.6 min) (p < 0.001). No significant differences were evident between groups for estimated blood loss (p = 0.263), transfusion requirements (p = 0.841), conversion to open procedures (p = 0.40), length of umbilical incisions (4.6 vs. 4.4 cm, p = 0.628), postoperative hospital stay (p = 0.862), tumor size (p = 0.455), number of harvested lymph nodes (p = 0.203), proximal margins (p = 0.189), and distal resection margins (p = 0.151). Postoperative morbidity (p = 0.736) was similar in both groups. There was no mortality postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Umbilical incision laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery with an additional port is a feasible and safe approach, although it is more time consuming than conventional laparoscopic colectomy.
Authors: Diego I Ramos-Valadez; Madhu Ragupathi; Javier Nieto; Chirag B Patel; Steven Miller; T Bartley Pickron; Eric M Haas Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-07-27 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: James Fleshman; Daniel J Sargent; Erin Green; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; Heidi Nelson Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: David G Jayne; Pierre J Guillou; Helen Thorpe; Philip Quirke; Joanne Copeland; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-07-20 Impact factor: 44.544