Yanan Wang1, Haijun Deng1, Tingyu Mou1, Junmeng Li1, Hao Liu1, Haipeng Zhou1, Guoxin Li2. 1. Department of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 1838 North Guangzhou Avenue, Guangzhou, 510-515, China. 2. Department of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 1838 North Guangzhou Avenue, Guangzhou, 510-515, China. gzliguoxin@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to evaluate the short-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port surgery (SILS + 1) compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colonic cancer. BACKGROUND: At present, single-incision laparoscopic colectomy remains technically challenging. The use of SILS + 1 as an alternative has gained increasing attention; however, its safety and efficacy remain controversial. METHODS AND PATIENTS: Between April 2014 and July 2016, 198 patients with clinical stage T1-4aN0-2 M0 rectosigmoid cancer were enrolled. The participants were randomly assigned to either SILS + 1 (n = 99) or CLS (n = 99). The morbidity and mortality within 30 days, operative and pathologic outcomes, postoperative recovery course, inflammation and immune responses, and pain intensity were compared. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in overall complications between the two groups (17.2 vs. 16.3%, P = 1.000). The total operating time for the SILS + 1 group was significantly shorter (100.8 ± 30.4 vs. 116.6 ± 36.6, P = 0.002). Blood loss was significantly greater in the CLS group (20 vs. 50, P < 0.001). Thirteen patients (14%) in the CLS group required additional postoperative analgesics, which was significantly more than four patients in the SILS + 1 group. Notably, on postoperative day three, the visual analogue scale score of the CLS group was greater than that of the SILS + 1 group (1.3 ± 1.1 vs. 1.7 ± 1.3, P = 0.023). Tumor diameter, pathologic stage, length of the proximal and distal margins, and number of lymph nodes harvested were similar, other values were also similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that SILS + 1 might be safe and feasible for rectosigmoid cancer when performed by experienced surgeons. It offers minimal invasiveness without compromising oncologic treatment principles. Trial Registration This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02117557).
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to evaluate the short-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port surgery (SILS + 1) compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colonic cancer. BACKGROUND: At present, single-incision laparoscopic colectomy remains technically challenging. The use of SILS + 1 as an alternative has gained increasing attention; however, its safety and efficacy remain controversial. METHODS AND PATIENTS: Between April 2014 and July 2016, 198 patients with clinical stage T1-4aN0-2 M0 rectosigmoid cancer were enrolled. The participants were randomly assigned to either SILS + 1 (n = 99) or CLS (n = 99). The morbidity and mortality within 30 days, operative and pathologic outcomes, postoperative recovery course, inflammation and immune responses, and pain intensity were compared. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in overall complications between the two groups (17.2 vs. 16.3%, P = 1.000). The total operating time for the SILS + 1 group was significantly shorter (100.8 ± 30.4 vs. 116.6 ± 36.6, P = 0.002). Blood loss was significantly greater in the CLS group (20 vs. 50, P < 0.001). Thirteen patients (14%) in the CLS group required additional postoperative analgesics, which was significantly more than four patients in the SILS + 1 group. Notably, on postoperative day three, the visual analogue scale score of the CLS group was greater than that of the SILS + 1 group (1.3 ± 1.1 vs. 1.7 ± 1.3, P = 0.023). Tumor diameter, pathologic stage, length of the proximal and distal margins, and number of lymph nodes harvested were similar, other values were also similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that SILS + 1 might be safe and feasible for rectosigmoid cancer when performed by experienced surgeons. It offers minimal invasiveness without compromising oncologic treatment principles. Trial Registration This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02117557).
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
Authors: Mark Buunen; Ruben Veldkamp; Wim C J Hop; Esther Kuhry; Johannes Jeekel; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio Lacy; Hendrik J Bonjer Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-12-13 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Deborah S Keller; Juan R Flores-Gonzalez; Jaideep Sandhu; Sergio Ibarra; Nisreen Madhoun; Eric M Haas Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 3.452
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
Authors: Ju Myung Song; Ji Hoon Kim; Yoon Suk Lee; Ho Young Kim; In Kyu Lee; Seung Teak Oh; Jun Gi Kim Journal: Ann Surg Treat Res Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 1.859