Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy versus conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy: a meta-analysis of comparative studies

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to compare single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) to conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MLC).

Background

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a minimally invasive technique being recently applied to colorectal surgery. A number of studies comparing SILC to conventional MLC have recently been published.

Methods

A literature search of PubMed and MEDLINE databases for studies comparing SILC to conventional MLC was conducted. The primary outcome measures for meta-analysis were postoperative complications, length of stay, and operative time. Secondary outcome measures were incision length, estimated blood loss, and number of lymph nodes harvested.

Results

Fifteen studies comparing 467 patients undergoing SILC to 539 patients undergoing conventional MLC were reviewed and the data pooled for analysis. Patients undergoing SILC had a shorter length of stay (pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) = −0.68; 95 % CI = −1.20 to −0.16; p = 0.0099), shorter incision length (pooled WMD = −1.37; 95 % CI = −2.74 to 0.000199; p = 0.05), less estimated blood loss (pooled WMD = −20.25; 95 % CI = −39.25 to −1.24; p = 0.037), and more lymph nodes harvested (pooled WMD = 1.75; 95 % CI = 0.12 to 3.38; p = 0.035), while there was no significant difference in the number of postoperative complications (pooled odds ratio = 0.83; 95 % CI = 0.57 to 1.20; p = 0.33) or operative time (pooled WMD = 5.06; 95 % CI = −2.91 to 13.03; p = 0.21).

Conclusion

SILC appears to have comparable results to conventional MLC in the hands of experienced surgeons. Prospective randomized trials are necessary to define the relative benefits of one procedure over the other.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abraham NS, Young JM, Solomon MJ (2004) Meta-analysis of short-term outcomes after laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 91(9):1111–1124

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bonjer HJ, Hop WC, Nelson H et al (2007) Laparoscopically assisted vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a meta-analysis. Arch Surg 142(3):298–303

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Franks PJ, Bosanquet N, Thorpe H et al (2006) Short-term costs of conventional vs laparoscopic assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial). Br J Cancer 95(1):6–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kuhry E, Schwenk W, Gaupset R et al (2008) Long-term outcome of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a Cochrane systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Cancer Treat Rev 34(6):498–504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Liang Y, Li G, Chen P et al (2008) Laparoscopic versus open colorectal resection for cancer: a meta-analysis of results of randomized controlled trials on recurrence. Eur J Surg Oncol 34(11):1217–1224

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ohtani H, Tamamori Y, Arimoto Y et al (2012) A meta-analysis of the short- and long-term results of randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopy-assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. J Cancer 3:49–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Siddiqui MR, Sajid MS, Qureshi S et al (2010) Elective laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticular disease has fewer complications than conventional surgery: a meta-analysis. Am J Surg 200(1):144–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tan JJ, Tjandra JJ (2006) Laparoscopic surgery for ulcerative colitis—a meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis 8(8):626–636

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. St Peter SD, Adibe OO, Juang D et al (2011) Single incision versus standard 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 254(4):586–590

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Markar SR, Karthikesalingam A, Thrumurthy S et al (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) vs. conventional multiport cholecystectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 26:1205–1213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Canes D, Berger A, Aron M et al (2010) Laparo-endoscopic single site (LESS) versus standard laparoscopic left donor nephrectomy: matched-pair comparison. Eur Urol 57(1):95–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Champagne BJ, Papaconstantinou HT, Parmar SS et al (2012) Single-incision versus standard multiport laparoscopic colectomy: a multicenter, case-controlled comparison. Ann Surg 255(1):66–69. doi:10.1097/SLA.1090b1013e3182378442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Maggiori L, Gaujoux S, Bretagnol F et al (2011) Single port laparoscopic surgery for colorectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis 13(s6):1

    Google Scholar 

  14. Makino T, Milsom JW, Lee SW (2012) Feasibility and safety of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy: a systematic review. Ann Surg 255:667–676

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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(1):72–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Adair J, Gromski MA, Lim RB et al (2010) Single-incision laparoscopic right colectomy: experience with 17 consecutive cases and comparison with multiport laparoscopic right colectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 53(11):1549–1554, 1510.1007/DCR.1540b1013e3181e85875

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Champagne BJ, Lee EC, Leblanc F et al (2011) Single-incision vs straight laparoscopic segmental colectomy: a case-controlled study. Dis Colon Rectum 54(2):183–186, 110.1007/DCR.1000b1013e3181fd1048af

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chen W, Chang S-C, Chiang H-C et al (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical results. Surg Endosc 25(6):1887–1892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fujii S, Watanabe K, Ota M et al (2012) Single-incision laparoscopic surgery using colon-lifting technique for colorectal cancer: a matched case–control comparison with standard multiport laparoscopic surgery in terms of short-term results and access instrument cost. Surg Endosc 26:1403–1411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gandhi D, Ragupathi M, Patel C et al (2010) Single-incision versus hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy: a case-matched series. J Gastro Surg 14(12):1875–1880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gaujoux S, Maggiori L, Bretagnol F et al (2012) Safety, feasibility, and short-term outcomes of single port access colorectal surgery: a single institutional case-matched study. J Gastrointest Surg 16:629–634

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Katsuno G, Fukunaga M, Tsumura H et al (2011) Single incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) for colorectal cancer: a case matched series of 100 cases. In: 2011 Scientific Session of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, San Antonio, TX

  23. Huscher CG, Mingoli A, Sgarzini G et al (2012) Standard laparoscopic versus single-incision laparoscopic colectomy for cancer: early results of a randomized prospective study. Am J Surg 204:115–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim SJ, Ryu GO, Choi BJ et al (2011) The short-term outcomes of conventional and single-port laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 254(6):933–940

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lee SW, Milsom JW, Nash GM (2011) Single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic right and hand-assisted left colectomy: a case-matched comparison. Dis Colon Rectum 54(11):1355–1361, 1310.1097/DCR.1350b1013e31822c31828d31841

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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. Surg 150(4):820–827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ramos-Valadez DI, Ragupathi M, Nieto J et al (2012) Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy: a case-matched series. Surg Endosc 26(1):96–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Vasilakis V, Clark CE, Papaconstantinou HT (2012) Non-cosmetic benefits of single-incision laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease: a case-matched comparison to standard multi-port laparoscopic technique. J Surg Research 172(2):295–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Waters JA, Guzman MJ, Fajardo AD et al (2010) Single-port laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a safe alternative to conventional laparoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 53(11):1467–1472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wolthuis AM, Penninckx F, Fieuws S et al (2011) Outcomes for case-matched single port colectomy are comparable with conventional laparoscopic colectomy. Colorectal Dis 14:634–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Murray A, Lourenco T, de Verteuil R et al (2006) Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 10(45):1–141, iii–iv

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sammour T, Kahokehr A, Srinivasa S et al (2011) Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is associated with a higher intraoperative complication rate than open surgery. Ann Surg 253(1):35–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Coleman MG, Hanna GB, Kennedy R (2011) The National Training Programme for Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery in England: a new training paradigm. Colorectal Dis 13(6):614–616

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dowson HM, Gage H, Jackson D et al (2012) Laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery: a prospective cost analysis. Colorectal Dis. doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.02988.x

  35. (2000) Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery vs standard laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease: a prospective randomized trial. HALS Study Group. Surg Endosc 14(10):896–901

  36. Aalbers AG, Biere SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI et al (2008) Hand-assisted or laparoscopic-assisted approach in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 22(8):1769–1780

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hassan I, You YN, Cima RR et al (2008) Hand-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery: practice patterns and clinical outcomes in a minimally-invasive colorectal practice. Surg Endosc 22(3):739–743

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kang JC, Chung MH, Chao PC et al (2004) Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy vs open colectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc 18(4):577–581

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Marcello PW, Fleshman JW, Milsom JW et al (2008) Hand-assisted laparoscopic vs. laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum 51(6):818–826, discussion 826–818

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Nakajima K, Lee SW, Cocilovo C et al (2004) Laparoscopic total colectomy: hand-assisted vs standard technique. Surg Endosc 18(4):582–586

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ringley C, Lee YK, Iqbal A et al (2007) Comparison of conventional laparoscopic and hand-assisted oncologic segmental colonic resection. Surg Endosc 21(12):2137–2141

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Sonoda T, Pandey S, Trencheva K et al (2009) Longterm complications of hand-assisted versus laparoscopic colectomy. J Am Coll Surg 208(1):62–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Targarona EM, Gracia E, Garriga J et al (2002) Prospective randomized trial comparing conventional laparoscopic colectomy with hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy: applicability, immediate clinical outcome, inflammatory response, and cost. Surg Endosc 16(2):234–239

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Vogel JD, Lian L, Kalady MF et al (2011) Hand-assisted laparoscopic right colectomy: how does it compare to conventional laparoscopy? J Am Coll Surg 212(3):367–372

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Odgaard-Jensen J, Vist GE, Timmer A et al (2011) Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4):MR000012

  46. Shrier I, Boivin JF, Steele RJ et al (2007) Should meta-analyses of interventions include observational studies in addition to randomized controlled trials? A critical examination of underlying principles. Am J Epidemiol 166(10):1203–1209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Walker E, Hernandez AV, Kattan MW (2008) Meta-analysis: its strengths and limitations. Cle Clin J Med 75(6):431–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lee YS, Kim JH, Moon EJ et al (2009) Comparative study on surgical outcomes and operative costs of transumbilical single-port laparoscopic appendectomy versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy in adult patients. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 19(6):493–496

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Leblanc F, Champagne BJ, Augestad KM et al (2010) Single incision laparoscopic colectomy: technical aspects, feasibility, and expected benefits. Diagn Ther Endosc 2010:913216

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Diana M, Dhumane P, Cahill RA et al (2011) Minimal invasive single-site surgery in colorectal procedures: current state of the art. J Minim Access Surg 7(1):52–60

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Spanjersberg WR, Reurings J, Keus F, van Laarhoven CJ (2011) Fast track surgery versus conventional recovery strategies for colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD007635. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007635.pub2

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hepatobiliary and Surgical Oncology Unit, UNSW Department of Surgery, St George Hospital, Kogarah, Sydney, NSW, 2217, Australia

    Timothy X. Yang & Terence C. Chua

  2. St George Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Kogarah, Sydney, NSW, 2217, Australia

    Terence C. Chua

Authors
  1. Timothy X. Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Terence C. Chua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Terence C. Chua.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yang, T.X., Chua, T.C. Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy versus conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. Int J Colorectal Dis 28, 89–101 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-012-1537-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-012-1537-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation