BACKGROUND: Improved cosmesis is widely recognized as the main benefit of single-port laparoscopy (SPL). Recently, some centers have started to perform SPL in infants and neonates. However, in our experience, the cosmetic result following traditional laparoscopic surgery in this age range is excellent. This study assessed infants' postoperative scars following traditional laparoscopic surgery. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Ten successive patients who previously underwent transperitoneal dismembered pyeloplasty were invited to attend for photographs of their abdominal wounds. All patients had had a 5-mm infra-umbilical port and two 3.5-mm ports (epigastrium and iliac fossa). Photographs were all taken in the hospital's medical photography studio by the same medical photographer. Life-size photographs were then shown to 10 junior doctors who were asked to identify any visible scars and rate the cosmetic result. RESULTS: Six patients with a median age at surgery of 8 months (range, 4-15 months) attended for photographs a median of 13 months postoperatively (range, 8-19 months). None of the junior doctors was able to identify all three scars on any photo. No individual scar was identifiable by all reviewers. No scars were identified in over half (31) of the total of 60 photograph reviews. Of 180 scar reviews, only 37 (21%) were identified. The umbilical scars were least noticeable (3/60), followed by iliac fossa scars (11/60) and epigastric scars (23/60). Where any scars were correctly identified, the cosmetic result was always rated good (44%) or excellent (56%). CONCLUSIONS: Traditional laparoscopic surgery in infants can have an excellent cosmetic result with "invisible" scars. The cosmetic benefit and thus the role of SPL in infants are therefore questionable.
BACKGROUND: Improved cosmesis is widely recognized as the main benefit of single-port laparoscopy (SPL). Recently, some centers have started to perform SPL in infants and neonates. However, in our experience, the cosmetic result following traditional laparoscopic surgery in this age range is excellent. This study assessed infants' postoperative scars following traditional laparoscopic surgery. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Ten successive patients who previously underwent transperitoneal dismembered pyeloplasty were invited to attend for photographs of their abdominal wounds. All patients had had a 5-mm infra-umbilical port and two 3.5-mm ports (epigastrium and iliac fossa). Photographs were all taken in the hospital's medical photography studio by the same medical photographer. Life-size photographs were then shown to 10 junior doctors who were asked to identify any visible scars and rate the cosmetic result. RESULTS: Six patients with a median age at surgery of 8 months (range, 4-15 months) attended for photographs a median of 13 months postoperatively (range, 8-19 months). None of the junior doctors was able to identify all three scars on any photo. No individual scar was identifiable by all reviewers. No scars were identified in over half (31) of the total of 60 photograph reviews. Of 180 scar reviews, only 37 (21%) were identified. The umbilical scars were least noticeable (3/60), followed by iliac fossa scars (11/60) and epigastric scars (23/60). Where any scars were correctly identified, the cosmetic result was always rated good (44%) or excellent (56%). CONCLUSIONS: Traditional laparoscopic surgery in infants can have an excellent cosmetic result with "invisible" scars. The cosmetic benefit and thus the role of SPL in infants are therefore questionable.