William Sangster1, Evangelos Messaris, Arthur S Berg, David B Stewart. 1. 1 Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, Pennsylvania 2 Department of Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Compared with standard laparoscopy, single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery may potentially offer advantages by creating fewer surgical incisions and providing a multifunctional trocar. Previous comparisons, however, have been limited by small sample sizes and selection bias. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare 60-day outcomes between standard laparoscopic and single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery patients undergoing elective and urgent surgeries. DESIGN: This was an unselected, retrospective cohort study comparing patients who underwent elective and unplanned standard laparoscopic or single-site laparoscopic colorectal resections for benign and malignant disease between 2008 and 2014. Outcomes were compared using univariate analyses. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a single institution. PATIENTS: A total of 626 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Morbidity and mortality rates within 60 postoperative days were measured. RESULTS: A total of 318 (51%) and 308 patients (49%) underwent standard laparoscopic and single-site laparoscopic procedures. No significant differences were noted in mean operative time (standard laparoscopy, 182.1 ± 81.3 vs single-site laparoscopy, 177.0 ± 86.5; p = 0.30) or postoperative length of stay (standard laparoscopy, 4.8 ± 3.4 vs single-site laparoscopy, 5.5 ± 6.9; p = 0.14). Conversions to laparotomy and 60-day readmissions were also similar for both cohorts across all of the procedures performed. A significant difference was identified in the number of patients who developed postoperative complications (standard laparoscopy, 19.2% vs single-site laparoscopy, 10.7%; p = 0.004), especially with respect to surgical-site infections (standard laparoscopy, 11.3% vs single-site laparoscopy, 5.8%; p = 0.02). LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective, single institution study. CONCLUSIONS: Single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery demonstrates similar results to standard laparoscopic colorectal surgery with regard to operative time, length of stay, and readmissions. Single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery may provide advantages in limiting the development of certain complications, such as superficial surgical-site infections.
BACKGROUND: Compared with standard laparoscopy, single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery may potentially offer advantages by creating fewer surgical incisions and providing a multifunctional trocar. Previous comparisons, however, have been limited by small sample sizes and selection bias. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare 60-day outcomes between standard laparoscopic and single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery patients undergoing elective and urgent surgeries. DESIGN: This was an unselected, retrospective cohort study comparing patients who underwent elective and unplanned standard laparoscopic or single-site laparoscopic colorectal resections for benign and malignant disease between 2008 and 2014. Outcomes were compared using univariate analyses. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a single institution. PATIENTS: A total of 626 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Morbidity and mortality rates within 60 postoperative days were measured. RESULTS: A total of 318 (51%) and 308 patients (49%) underwent standard laparoscopic and single-site laparoscopic procedures. No significant differences were noted in mean operative time (standard laparoscopy, 182.1 ± 81.3 vs single-site laparoscopy, 177.0 ± 86.5; p = 0.30) or postoperative length of stay (standard laparoscopy, 4.8 ± 3.4 vs single-site laparoscopy, 5.5 ± 6.9; p = 0.14). Conversions to laparotomy and 60-day readmissions were also similar for both cohorts across all of the procedures performed. A significant difference was identified in the number of patients who developed postoperative complications (standard laparoscopy, 19.2% vs single-site laparoscopy, 10.7%; p = 0.004), especially with respect to surgical-site infections (standard laparoscopy, 11.3% vs single-site laparoscopy, 5.8%; p = 0.02). LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective, single institution study. CONCLUSIONS: Single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery demonstrates similar results to standard laparoscopic colorectal surgery with regard to operative time, length of stay, and readmissions. Single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery may provide advantages in limiting the development of certain complications, such as superficial surgical-site infections.
Authors: H Ross; S Steele; M Whiteford; S Lee; M Albert; M Mutch; D Rivadeneira; P Marcello Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Simone Velthuis; Peter B van den Boezem; Daan J Lips; Hubert A Prins; Miguel A Cuesta; Colin Sietses Journal: Dig Surg Date: 2013-01-30 Impact factor: 2.588
Authors: Jeffrey M Marks; Melissa S Phillips; Roberto Tacchino; Kurt Roberts; Raymond Onders; George DeNoto; Gary Gecelter; Eugene Rubach; Homero Rivas; Arsalla Islam; Nathaniel Soper; Paraskevas Paraskeva; Alexander Rosemurgy; Sharona Ross; Sajani Shah Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2013-04-23 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Guillaume Martel; Alyson Crawford; Jeffrey S Barkun; Robin P Boushey; Craig R Ramsay; Dean A Fergusson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-04-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Salvador Morales-Conde; Andrea Peeters; Yannick M Meyer; Stavros A Antoniou; Isaías Alarcón Del Agua; Alberto Arezzo; Simone Arolfo; Amir Ben Yehuda; Luigi Boni; Elisa Cassinotti; Giovanni Dapri; Tao Yang; Sofie Fransen; Antonello Forgione; Shahab Hajibandeh; Shahin Hajibandeh; Michele Mazzola; Marco Migliore; Christof Mittermair; Doris Mittermair; Antonio Morandeira-Rivas; Carlos Moreno-Sanz; Andrea Morlacchi; Eran Nizri; Myrthe Nuijts; Jonas Raakow; Francisco M Sánchez-Margallo; Juan A Sánchez-Margallo; Amir Szold; Helmut Weiss; Michael Weiss; Ricardo Zorron; Nicole D Bouvy Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Ties L Janssen; Christina A Mosk; Chantal C H A van Hoof-de Lepper; Daphne Wielders; Tom C J Seerden; Ewout W Steyerberg; Adriaan J van Gammeren; Dominique C de Lange; René van Alphen; Martine van der Zee; René M de Bruijn; Jolanda de Vries; Jan H Wijsman; Gwan H Ho; Paul D Gobardhan; Lijckle van der Laan Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2019-03-20 Impact factor: 3.921