BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a new minimally invasive technique which has frequently been applied for treatment of benign colorectal diseases. However, there is still little experience with this technique for the treatment of colorectal cancer. METHODS: Sixty-eight patients with SILS resections for colon (n = 25) or rectal cancer (n = 43) were compared to a group of conventionally operated patients who were matched for surgical procedure, tumor stage and tumor location, and the use of preoperative radiochemotherapy. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable for lymph node harvest, specimen length, and the duration of surgery. No significant differences were observed for the number of positive circumferential resection margins, or the distance of the tumor to both the aboral or lateral resection margin, but two positive resection margins were only present after SILS and not after conventional surgery. Hospitalization tended to be shorter after SILS (p = 0.097). Overall, morbidity was equivalent between the two groups, with a difference for colon cancer where it was significantly lower after SILS as compared to open surgery (p = 0.025) mainly due to a lower rate of wound complications. CONCLUSION: SILS might be an acceptable alternative to open surgery for the treatment of colon cancer. For rectal cancer, no apparent benefit could be documented. As no sufficient data on the oncologic quality are available, single-incision laparoscopic surgery can yet not be recommended for the treatment of rectal cancer out of clinical trials.
BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a new minimally invasive technique which has frequently been applied for treatment of benign colorectal diseases. However, there is still little experience with this technique for the treatment of colorectal cancer. METHODS: Sixty-eight patients with SILS resections for colon (n = 25) or rectal cancer (n = 43) were compared to a group of conventionally operated patients who were matched for surgical procedure, tumor stage and tumor location, and the use of preoperative radiochemotherapy. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable for lymph node harvest, specimen length, and the duration of surgery. No significant differences were observed for the number of positive circumferential resection margins, or the distance of the tumor to both the aboral or lateral resection margin, but two positive resection margins were only present after SILS and not after conventional surgery. Hospitalization tended to be shorter after SILS (p = 0.097). Overall, morbidity was equivalent between the two groups, with a difference for colon cancer where it was significantly lower after SILS as compared to open surgery (p = 0.025) mainly due to a lower rate of wound complications. CONCLUSION: SILS might be an acceptable alternative to open surgery for the treatment of colon cancer. For rectal cancer, no apparent benefit could be documented. As no sufficient data on the oncologic quality are available, single-incision laparoscopic surgery can yet not be recommended for the treatment of rectal cancer out of clinical trials.
Authors: Ruben Veldkamp; Esther Kuhry; Wim C J Hop; J Jeekel; G Kazemier; H Jaap Bonjer; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio M Lacy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Paris P Tekkis; Jason J Smith; Alexander G Heriot; Ara W Darzi; Michael R Thompson; Jeffrey D Stamatakis Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Pierre J Guillou; Philip Quirke; Helen Thorpe; Joanne Walker; David G Jayne; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 May 14-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Cristiano G Huscher; Andrea Mingoli; Giovanna Sgarzini; Andrea Mereu; Barbara Binda; Gioia Brachini; Silvia Trombetta Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2011-12-16 Impact factor: 2.565