Mauro Podda1, Alessandra Saba2, Federica Porru2, Adolfo Pisanu2. 1. Department of Surgical Science, Chirurgia Generale, University of Cagliari, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Presidio Policlinico di Monserrato, Blocco G, SS 554 km 4,500, 09042, Monserrato, CA, Italy. mauropodda@ymail.com. 2. Department of Surgical Science, Chirurgia Generale, University of Cagliari, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Presidio Policlinico di Monserrato, Blocco G, SS 554 km 4,500, 09042, Monserrato, CA, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is currently a paucity of research comparing the clinical outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) with those obtained with multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MLC). This meta-analysis aimed to examine whether SILC shows real benefits over MLC, especially in terms of feasibility, safety, and oncological adequacy. METHODS: A literature review of studies comparing SILC and MLC has been performed which looked at the following outcomes: mortality, morbidity, and oncological parameters of adequacy, as well as other potential benefits and drawbacks. Standardized mean difference for continuous variables and odds ratios for qualitative variables were calculated. RESULTS: Thirty studies comparing SILC and MLC were reviewed: two prospective randomized clinical trials (RCTs), eight prospective studies, and 20 retrospective comparative observational studies. Overall, in a cohort of 3502 patients who underwent surgery, SILC was used in 1068 cases (30.5 %) and MLC was used in 2434 cases (69.5 %). Mean intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower when the SILC procedure had been used (75.06 vs. 91.45 ml, P = 0.03); bowel function recovered significantly earlier in the SILC patients (1.96 vs. 2.15 days, P = 0.03); mean postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the SILC group (5.55 vs. 6.60 days, P = 0.0005); and length of skin incision was significantly shorter in SILC patients (3.98 vs. 5.28 cm, P = 0.01). However, in the latter four outcomes, evidence of heterogeneity was found. In contrast, MLC showed significantly better results when compared to SILC in terms of distal free margins (12.26 vs. 10.98 cm, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: SILC could be considered as a safe and feasible alternative to MLC in experienced hands. Further evidence for this surgical procedure should be assessed in the form of high-quality RCTs, with additional focus on its use in low rectal cancer resection.
BACKGROUND: There is currently a paucity of research comparing the clinical outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) with those obtained with multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MLC). This meta-analysis aimed to examine whether SILC shows real benefits over MLC, especially in terms of feasibility, safety, and oncological adequacy. METHODS: A literature review of studies comparing SILC and MLC has been performed which looked at the following outcomes: mortality, morbidity, and oncological parameters of adequacy, as well as other potential benefits and drawbacks. Standardized mean difference for continuous variables and odds ratios for qualitative variables were calculated. RESULTS: Thirty studies comparing SILC and MLC were reviewed: two prospective randomized clinical trials (RCTs), eight prospective studies, and 20 retrospective comparative observational studies. Overall, in a cohort of 3502 patients who underwent surgery, SILC was used in 1068 cases (30.5 %) and MLC was used in 2434 cases (69.5 %). Mean intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower when the SILC procedure had been used (75.06 vs. 91.45 ml, P = 0.03); bowel function recovered significantly earlier in the SILC patients (1.96 vs. 2.15 days, P = 0.03); mean postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the SILC group (5.55 vs. 6.60 days, P = 0.0005); and length of skin incision was significantly shorter in SILC patients (3.98 vs. 5.28 cm, P = 0.01). However, in the latter four outcomes, evidence of heterogeneity was found. In contrast, MLC showed significantly better results when compared to SILC in terms of distal free margins (12.26 vs. 10.98 cm, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: SILC could be considered as a safe and feasible alternative to MLC in experienced hands. Further evidence for this surgical procedure should be assessed in the form of high-quality RCTs, with additional focus on its use in low rectal cancer resection.
Entities:
Keywords:
Laparoscopy; Multiport laparoscopic colectomy; Single incision; Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy
Authors: Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hyung Ook Kim; Chang Hak Yoo; Sung Ryol Lee; Byung Ho Son; Yong Lai Park; Jun Ho Shin; Hungdai Kim; Won Kon Han Journal: J Korean Surg Soc Date: 2012-02-27
Authors: Daniel C Steinemann; Andreas Zerz; Michel Adamina; Walter Brunner; Andreas Keerl; Antonio Nocito; Andreas Scheiwiller; Rene Spalinger; Stephan A Vorburger; Sebastian H Lamm Journal: World J Surg Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Boram Lee; Sang Il Youn; Kanghaeng Lee; Yongjoon Won; Sahong Min; Yoon Taek Lee; Young Suk Park; Sang-Hoon Ahn; Do Joong Park; Hyung-Ho Kim Journal: Ann Surg Treat Res Date: 2021-02-01 Impact factor: 1.859