Ho Seung Kim1, Han-Gil Kim2, Seung Yoon Yang1, Yoon Dae Han1, Hyuk Hur3, Byung Soh Min1, Kang Young Lee1, Nam Kyu Kim1, Min Soo Cho4. 1. Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul, 03722, Korea. 2. Department of Surgery, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine, Jinju, Korea. 3. Department of Surgery, Yongin Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 4. Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul, 03722, Korea. nagase96@yuhs.ac.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the safety and feasibility of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for appendiceal mucocele (AM) has been reported, studies on single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for AM have not been reported. Here, we aimed to compare the perioperative and short-term outcomes between SILS and CLS for AM and to evaluate the oncological safety of SILS. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients, diagnosed based on computed tomography findings, who underwent laparoscopic surgery for AM between 2010 and 2018 at one institution. We excluded patients strongly suspected of having malignant lesions and those with preoperative appendiceal perforation. Patients were divided into two groups-CLS and SILS. Pathological outcomes and long-term results were investigated. The median follow-up period was 43.7 (range: 12.3-118.5) months. RESULTS: Ultimately, 116 patients (CLS = 68, SILS = 48) were enrolled. Patient demographic characteristics did not differ between the groups. The preoperative mucocele diameter was greater in the CLS than in the SILS group (3.2 ± 2.9 cm vs. 2.3 ± 1.4 cm, P = 0.029). More extensive surgery (right hemicolectomies and ileocecectomies) was performed in the CLS than in the SILS group (P = 0.014). Intraoperative perforation developed in only one patient per group. For appendectomies and cecectomies, the CLS group exhibited a longer operation time than the SILS group (63.3 ± 24.5 min vs. 52.4 ± 17.3 min, P = 0.014); the same was noted for length of postoperative hospital stay (2.9 ± 1.8 days vs. 1.7 ± 0.6 days, P < 0.001). The most common AM etiology was low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (71/116 [61.2%] patients); none of the patients exhibited mucinous cystadenocarcinoma. Among these 71 patients, there were 8 patients with microscopic appendiceal perforation or positive resection margins. No recurrence was detected. CONCLUSIONS: SILS for AM is feasible and safe perioperatively and in the short-term and yields favorable oncological outcomes. Despite the retrospective nature of the study, SILS may be suitable after careful selection of AM patients.
BACKGROUND: Although the safety and feasibility of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for appendiceal mucocele (AM) has been reported, studies on single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for AM have not been reported. Here, we aimed to compare the perioperative and short-term outcomes between SILS and CLS for AM and to evaluate the oncological safety of SILS. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients, diagnosed based on computed tomography findings, who underwent laparoscopic surgery for AM between 2010 and 2018 at one institution. We excluded patients strongly suspected of having malignant lesions and those with preoperative appendiceal perforation. Patients were divided into two groups-CLS and SILS. Pathological outcomes and long-term results were investigated. The median follow-up period was 43.7 (range: 12.3-118.5) months. RESULTS: Ultimately, 116 patients (CLS = 68, SILS = 48) were enrolled. Patient demographic characteristics did not differ between the groups. The preoperative mucocele diameter was greater in the CLS than in the SILS group (3.2 ± 2.9 cm vs. 2.3 ± 1.4 cm, P = 0.029). More extensive surgery (right hemicolectomies and ileocecectomies) was performed in the CLS than in the SILS group (P = 0.014). Intraoperative perforation developed in only one patient per group. For appendectomies and cecectomies, the CLS group exhibited a longer operation time than the SILS group (63.3 ± 24.5 min vs. 52.4 ± 17.3 min, P = 0.014); the same was noted for length of postoperative hospital stay (2.9 ± 1.8 days vs. 1.7 ± 0.6 days, P < 0.001). The most common AM etiology was low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (71/116 [61.2%] patients); none of the patients exhibited mucinous cystadenocarcinoma. Among these 71 patients, there were 8 patients with microscopic appendiceal perforation or positive resection margins. No recurrence was detected. CONCLUSIONS: SILS for AM is feasible and safe perioperatively and in the short-term and yields favorable oncological outcomes. Despite the retrospective nature of the study, SILS may be suitable after careful selection of AM patients.