Consecutive Versus Selective Primary and Revisional Single Incision Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery: Personal Experience in 330 Cases.

BACKGROUND: This paper aims to retrospectively evaluate the feasibility, safety, and standardization for both consecutive primary and revisional SILS bariatric surgeries, and to analyze incisional hernia's prevalence, technical improvements, and limiting factors.
METHODS: A retrospective database review was undertaken involving, in Part I (Belgium), 290 consecutive SILS, including 80.68% primary bariatric surgeries, and 19.32% revisional gastric bypass, followed in Part II (Lebanon), by 40 selective primary SILS. Training for and standardization of the trans-umbilical technique was done for the operating room team, and was executed in part II.
RESULTS: The procedure of single incision was successfully completed in all of the 330 cases part I & part II. There was a need for additional salvage for one or two trocars in respectively 3.1% and 2.75% of the cases. There were no deaths or conversions in either group. Early complications included one medically healed fistula after revisional GB, and two secondary gastric and intestinal perforation requiring reoperations. Late surgical complications were: "3 patients (1.03%) in Part I and 2 (5%) in Part II suffered occlusions, requiring laparoscopic mesenteric defect's closure on an internal herniation." Twelve patients (4.1%) from part I and 5 (12.5%) in part II suffered an incisional hernia.
CONCLUSION: Selective SILS, when standardized, tends to be superior to consecutive SILS in terms of overall morbidity, operative time, and need for additional salvage trocars. Cost effectiveness and higher midterm rate of umbilical port site incisional hernia should be weighed against the beneficial cosmetic effect for the patient.