Abstract
Background
Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) is a newly developed procedure with the benefit of better cosmetic outcome and potentially reduced wound pain compared with conventionally laparoscopic colectomy (CLC). However, the application of SILC requires careful evaluation to prove its benefit and safety. This randomized, controlled study compared the operative outcome of patients who underwent SILC and CLC.
Methods
Patients who had small cancer (<4 cm) or adenomatous polyp requiring colectomy were randomized to have SILC or CLC. The patients were blinded to the procedures and the postoperative pain was used as the primary outcome measure. All patients had patient-controlled analgesia with intravenous morphine after the operation and the nominal rating score on days 1–3 and day 14 were recorded by research staff, who did not known the types of operations. Other operative outcomes of the two groups of patients also were recorded prospectively and compared.
Results
There were 25 patients in each group. The patients’ demographics, tumor characteristics, operating time, blood loss, complication rate, number of lymph nodes harvested, and resection margin have no statistically significant difference between the two groups. There was no operative mortality in both groups. The SILC group had consistently lower median pain score than CLC group in the whole postoperative course and the difference was statistically significant on day 1 (0 (0–5) vs. day 3 (0–6) respectively; p = 0.002) and day 2 (0 (0–3) vs. 2 (0–8) respectively; p = 0.014). The median hospital stay in the SILC group also was shorter the CLC group.
Conclusions
In a selected group of patients with small tumor and good operative risk, SILC is a safe alternative to CLC. Single-port laparoscopic colectomy also is associated with the benefits of less postoperative pain and shorter hospital stay than CLC.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adair J, Gromski MA, Lim RB, Nagle D (2010) Single-incision laparoscopic right colectomy: experience with 17 consecutive cases and comparison with multiport laparoscopic right colectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 53:1549–1554
Boone BA, Wagner P, Ganchuk E, Evans L, Zeh HJ, Bartlett DL, Holtzman MP (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic right colectomy in an unselected patient population. Surg Endosc. doi:10.1007/s00464-011-2076-4
Bucher P, Pugin F, Morel P (2008) Single port access laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. Int J Colorectal Dis 23:1013–1016
Champagne BJ, Lee EC, Leblanc F, Stein SL, Delaney CP (2011) Single-incision vs straight laparoscopic segmental colectomy: a case-controlled study. Dis Colon Rectum 54:183–186
Champagne BJ, Papaconstantinou HT, Parmar SS, Nagle DA, Young-Fadok TM, Lee EC, Delaney CP (2012) Single-incision versus standard multiport laparoscopic colectomy: a multicenter, case-controlled comparison. Ann Surg 255:66–69
Chen WT, Chang SC, Chiang HC, Lo WY, Jeng LB, Wu C, Ke TW (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical results. Surg Endosc 25:1887–1892
Huscher CG, Mingoli A, Sgarzini G, Mereu A, Binda B, Brachini G, Trombetta S (2011) Standard laparoscopic versus single-incision laparoscopic colectomy for cancer: early results of a randomized prospective study. Am J Surg. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.09.005
Katsuno G, Fukunaga M, Nagakari K, Yoshikawa S, Ouchi M, Hirasaki Y (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer: early experience with 31 cases. Dis Colon Rectum 54:705–710
Kim SJ, Ryu GO, Choi BJ, Kim JG, Lee KJ, Lee SC, Oh ST (2011) The short-term outcomes of conventional and single-port laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 254:933–940
Law WL, Fan JK, Poon JT (2010) Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy: early experience. Dis Colon Rectum 53:284–288
Lu CC, Lin SE, Chung KC, Rau KM (2011) Comparison of clinical outcome of single incision laparoscopic surgery using a simplified access system with conventional laparoscopic surgery for malignant colorectal disease. Colorectal Dis. doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02825.x
Marcello PW (2011) Single incision laparoscopic colectomy: boutique surgery or the new standard? Dis Colon Rectum 54:660–661
McNally ME, Todd MB, Brown KM (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy for malignant disease. Surg Endosc 25:3559–3565
Papaconstantinou HT, Thomas JS (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy for cancer: assessment of oncologic resection and short-term outcomes in a case-matched comparison with standard laparoscopy. Surgery 150:820–827
Papaconstantinou HT, Sharp N, Thomas JS (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic right colectomy: a case-matched comparison with standard laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic techniques. J Am Coll Surg 213:72–80
Poon JT, Law WL, Fan JK, Lo OS (2009) Impact of the standardized medial-to-lateral approach on outcome of laparoscopic colorectal resection. World J Surg 33:2177–2182
Poon JT, Fan JK, Lo OS, Law WL (2011) Enhanced recovery program in laparoscopic colectomy for cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 26:71–77
Ramos-Valadez DI, Ragupathi M, Nieto J, Patel CB, Miller S, Pickron TB, Haas EM (2012) Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy: a case-matched series. Surg Endosc 26:96–102
Remzi FH, Kirat HT, Kaouk JH, Geisler DP (2008) Single-port laparoscopy in colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 10:823–826
Waters JA, Guzman MJ, Fajardo AD, Selzer DJ, Wiebke EA, Robb BW, George VV (2010) Single-port laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a safe alternative to conventional laparoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 53:1467–1472
Disclosures
Dr. Poon, Dr. Cheung, Dr. Fan, Dr. Lo, and Professor Law have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Poon, J.T.C., Cheung, CW., Fan, J.K.M. et al. Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic colectomy for colonic neoplasm: a randomized, controlled trial. Surg Endosc 26, 2729–2734 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2262-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2262-z