Advertisement

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

, Volume 21, Issue 11, pp 1931–1945 | Cite as

Short-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Diseases: Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Prospective Evidence

  • Hui-Juan Li
  • Lei HuangEmail author
  • Tuan-Jie Li
  • Jing Su
  • Ling-Rong Peng
  • Wei LiuEmail author
Review Article

Abstract

Background

Conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) has been established as an alternative to open surgery for colorectal diseases (CRDs); simultaneously, single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is gaining popularity.

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare the short-term efficacy and safety of SILS with CLS for CRDs.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant randomized and prospective studies. Reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, conference proceedings, and ongoing trial databases were also screened. Outcome measures included surgical parameters, postsurgical recovery, pain, and adverse events. Meta-analysis was conducted where appropriate, comparing items using weighted mean differences (WMDs) and risk ratios (RRs) according to data type.

Results

A total of nine prospective (three randomized and six non-randomized) researches published from 2011 to 2015 were identified. The overall pooled results showed compared to CLS, SILS was associated with fewer blood transfusions, shorter incision length, and slighter postoperative pain, but more extra ports. All the other parameters were comparable. Randomized evidence supported SILS was associated with less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay, but longer operative time. For only colectomy cases, SILS was associated with more conversions to open surgery. SILS was associated with longer surgical time for Easterners, but not for Westerners. The detected differences were clinically insignificant.

Conclusions

The results based on randomized and prospective evidence provide convincing support for the clinical similarity that SILS is basically as applicable, effective, and safe as CLS when dealing with colorectal lesions, but not for superiority.

Keywords

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery Conventional laparoscopic surgery Colorectal disease Efficacy Safety 

Abbreviations

CLS

Conventional laparoscopic surgery

NRS

Numeric rating scale

RCT

Randomized controlled trial

RR

Risk ratio

SILS

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery

WMD

Weighted mean difference

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would most sincerely thank the reviewers and editors for critically reviewing this paper and for the constructive and thoughtful comments and suggestions, and the College of Public Hygiene of Sun Yat-sen University for the statistical assistance. This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (No. 2014A030313131 and No. 2015A030312013), Key Scientific and Technological Projects of Guangdong Province (No. 2014B020228003 and No. 2014B030301041), and Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangzhou (No. 201400000001-3 and No. 158100076). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Author Contributions

Conception and design: L.H.J., H.L., L.T.J., S.J., and L.W.; analysis and interpretation of the data: L.H.J., H.L., L.T.J., S.J., and P.L.R.; drafting of the article: L.H.J., H.L., L.T.J., S.J., and L.W.; critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: H.L., P.L.R., and L.W.; final approval of the article: all authors.

Supplementary material

11605_2017_3520_Fig5_ESM.gif (37 kb)
Fig. S1

Funnel plots for (A) specimen length, (B) margin-free resection, (C) distal margin length, (D) conversion to open surgery, (E) extra port, (F) day to flatus, (G) reoperation, (H) postoperative mortality, (I) overall complication, (J) wound infection, (K) ileus, and (L) anastomotic leakage.(GIF 36 kb)

11605_2017_3520_MOESM1_ESM.tif (800 kb)
High resolution image (TIFF 800 kb)
11605_2017_3520_MOESM2_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Table S1 (DOCX 15 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Xu AM, Huang L, Li TJ. Single-incision versus three-port laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surgical endoscopy. 2014.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study G. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. The New England journal of medicine. 2004; 350:2050–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM, et al. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005; 365:1718–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bucher P, Pugin F, Morel P. Single port access laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. International journal of colorectal disease. 2008; 23:1013–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Remzi FH, Kirat HT, Kaouk JH, Geisler DP. Single-port laparoscopy in colorectal surgery. Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. 2008; 10:823–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Waters JA, Rapp BM, Guzman MJ, Jester AL, Selzer DJ, Robb BW, et al. Single-port laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: the first 100 resections. Diseases of the colon and rectum. 2012; 55:134–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ramos-Valadez DI, Ragupathi M, Nieto J, Patel CB, Miller S, Pickron TB, et al. Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy: a case-matched series. Surgical endoscopy. 2012; 26:96–102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Champagne BJ, Lee EC, Leblanc F, Stein SL, Delaney CP. Single-incision vs straight laparoscopic segmental colectomy: a case-controlled study. Diseases of the colon and rectum. 2011; 54:183–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vestweber B, Galetin T, Lammerting K, Paul C, Giehl J, Straub E, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery: outcomes from 224 colonic resections performed at a single center using SILS. Surgical endoscopy. 2013; 27:434–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marcello PW. Single incision laparoscopic colectomy: boutique surgery or the new standard? Diseases of the colon and rectum. 2011; 54:660–1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lv C, Wu S, Wu Y, Shi J, Su Y, Fan Y, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic versus traditional multiport laparoscopic colorectal surgery--a cumulative meta-analysis and systematic review. International journal of colorectal disease. 2013; 28:611–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maggiori L, Gaujoux S, Tribillon E, Bretagnol F, Panis Y. Single-incision laparoscopy for colorectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of more than a thousand procedures. Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. 2012; 14:e643–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fung AK, Aly EH. Systematic review of single-incision laparoscopic colonic surgery. The British journal of surgery. 2012; 99:1353–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bulut O, Aslak KK, Levic K, Nielsen CB, Romer E, Sorensen S, et al. A randomized pilot study on single-port versus conventional laparoscopic rectal surgery: effects on postoperative pain and the stress response to surgery. Techniques in coloproctology. 2015; 19:11–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Poon JT, Cheung CW, Fan JK, Lo OS, Law WL. Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic colectomy for colonic neoplasm: a randomized, controlled trial. Surgical endoscopy. 2012; 26:2729–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huscher CG, Mingoli A, Sgarzini G, Mereu A, Binda B, Brachini G, et al. Standard laparoscopic versus single-incision laparoscopic colectomy for cancer: early results of a randomized prospective study. American journal of surgery. 2012; 204:115–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen WT, Chang SC, Chiang HC, Lo WY, Jeng LB, Wu C, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical results. Surgical endoscopy. 2011; 25:1887–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim SJ, Ryu GO, Choi BJ, Kim JG, Lee KJ, Lee SC, et al. The short-term outcomes of conventional and single-port laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Annals of surgery. 2011; 254:933–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee SW, Milsom JW, Nash GM. Single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic right and hand-assisted left colectomy: a case-matched comparison. Diseases of the colon and rectum. 2011; 54:1355–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lai CW, Edwards TJ, Clements DM, Coleman MG. Single port laparoscopic right colonic resection using a 'vessel-first' approach. Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. 2012; 14:1138–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wolthuis AM, Penninckx F, Fieuws S, D'Hoore A. Outcomes for case-matched single-port colectomy are comparable with conventional laparoscopic colectomy. Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. 2012;14:634–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Khayat A, Maggiori L, Vicaut E, Ferron M, Panis Y. Does single port improve results of laparoscopic colorectal surgery? A propensity score adjustment analysis. Surgical endoscopy. 2015;29:3216–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Emshoff R, Bertram S, Emshoff I. Clinically important difference thresholds of the visual analog scale: a conceptual model for identifying meaningful intraindividual changes for pain intensity. Pain. 2011;152:2277–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC medical research methodology. 2014;14:135.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC medical research methodology. 2005;5:13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 1998;352:609–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. European journal of epidemiology. 2010;25:603–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Bmj. 2009; 339:b2535.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Detry MA, Lewis RJ. The intention-to-treat principle: how to assess the true effect of choosing a medical treatment. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. 2014; 312:85–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Clarke M, Horton R. Bringing it all together: Lancet-Cochrane collaborate on systematic reviews. Lancet. 2001; 357:1728.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bowden J, Tierney JF, Copas AJ, Burdett S. Quantifying, displaying and accounting for heterogeneity in the meta-analysis of RCTs using standard and generalised Q statistics. BMC medical research methodology. 2011; 11:41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in medicine. 2002; 21:1539–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Bmj. 2003; 327:557–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Der Simonian R, Laird N. Meta-Analysis in Clinical Trials Revisited. Contemporary clinical trials. 2015.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gandhi DP, Ragupathi M, Patel CB, Ramos-Valadez DI, Pickron TB, Haas EM. Single-incision versus hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy: a case-matched series. Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract. 2010; 14:1875–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gustafsson UO, Scott MJ, Schwenk W, Demartines N, Roulin D, Francis N, et al. Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS((R))) Society recommendations. World J Surg. 2013; 37:259–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nygren J, Thacker J, Carli F, Fearon KC, Norderval S, Lobo DN, et al. Guidelines for perioperative care in elective rectal/pelvic surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS((R))) Society recommendations. World J Surg. 2013; 37:285–305.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lassen K, Soop M, Nygren J, Cox PB, Hendry PO, Spies C, et al. Consensus review of optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Group recommendations. Arch Surg. 2009; 144:961–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Theophilus M, Platell C, Spilsbury K. Long-term survival following laparoscopic and open colectomy for colon cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. 2014; 16:O75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Huang MJ, Liang JL, Wang H, Kang L, Deng YH, Wang JP. Laparoscopic-assisted versus open surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on oncologic adequacy of resection and long-term oncologic outcomes. International journal of colorectal disease. 2011; 26:415–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Vettoretto N, Cirocchi R, Randolph J, Parisi A, Farinella E, Romano G. Single incision laparoscopic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. 2014; 16:O123–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yang TX, Chua TC. Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy versus conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. International journal of colorectal disease. 2013;28:89–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zhou YM, Wu LP, Zhao YF, Xu DH, Li B. Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopy for colorectal disease: a meta-analysis. Digestive diseases and sciences. 2012; 57:2103–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hong TH, You YK, Lee KH. Transumbilical single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy : scarless cholecystectomy. Surgical endoscopy. 2009; 23:1393–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chang GJ, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Skibber JM, Moyer VA. Lymph node evaluation and survival after curative resection of colon cancer: systematic review. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2007; 99:433–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lu CC, Lin SE, Chung KC, Rau KM. Comparison of clinical outcome of single-incision laparoscopic surgery using a simplified access system with conventional laparoscopic surgery for malignant colorectal disease. Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. 2012;14:e171–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Papaconstantinou HT, Sharp N, Thomas JS.Single-incision laparoscopic right colectomy: a case-matched comparison with standard laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic techniques. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2011; 213:72–80; discussion -2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Champagne BJ, Papaconstantinou HT, Parmar SS, Nagle DA, Young-Fadok TM, Lee EC, et al. Single-incision versus standard multiport laparoscopic colectomy: a multicenter, case-controlled comparison. Annals of surgery. 2012; 255:66–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of NursingThe Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Department of General SurgeryThe First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical UniversityHefeiChina
  3. 3.Department of General SurgeryNanfang Hospital of Southern Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina
  4. 4.Department of Geriatric MedicineAnhui Provincial Hospital of Anhui Medical UniversityHefeiChina
  5. 5.Department of RadiologyThe Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen UniversityGuangzhouChina
  6. 6.Guangdong Key Laboratory of Liver Disease ResearchThe Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen UniversityGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations