Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of invasiveness in single-site laparoscopic colectomy, using “the PainVision™ system” for quantitative analysis of pain sensation

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Single-site laparoscopic colectomy (SLC) is increasingly performed for colon cancer. There are few reports on invasiveness in SLC. This study aimed to evaluate the postoperative pain from SLC, as compared to conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MLC).

Methods

We compared postoperative pain among patients from the SLC group (n = 11) with those from the MLC group (n = 11) who underwent laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer at our institution between May and October 2013. Patients were specifically matched for gender, age, body mass index, tumor size, and performance status. Postoperative pain was evaluated at rest and during mobilization, using a visual analog scale (VAS) on postoperative days (PODs) 1–7, and by postoperative frequency of analgesics; pain intensity was evaluated at rest, using the Pain Vision™ system on PODs 1–7. Other operative outcomes of the two groups were also recorded.

Results

Patient demographics, operative outcomes, time duration before first flatus, and C-reactive protein and WBC count on POD 1 showed no significant differences between groups. Results of sequential VAS during mobilization until POD 7 were significantly less in the SLC group than in the MLC group (p = 0.009). However, sequential VAS at rest did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.11). Measured with the Pain Vision™ system, the difference in pain intensity at rest was statistically significant for the postoperative period (p = 0.003). Total requests for analgesics until POD 7 were reduced in the SLC group compared to that in the MLC group, but lacked statistical significance (three vs. seven, respectively, p = 0.07).

Conclusions

In both quantitative and objective measurements using the Pain Vision™ system, SLC significantly reduced postoperative pain. SLC is a promising procedure, associated with less invasiveness than MLC.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jacobs M, Verdeja JC, Goldstein HS (1991) Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colectomy). Surg Laparosc Endosc 1:144–150

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WC, Jeekel J, Kazemier G, Bonjer HJ, Haglind E, Pahlman L, Cuesta MA, Msika S, Morino M, Lacy AM (2005) Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 6:477–484

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schwenk W, Haase O, Neudecker J, Muller JM (2005) Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 20(3):CD003145

    Google Scholar 

  4. Tjandra JJ, Chan MK (2006) Systematic review on the short-term outcome of laparoscopic resection for colon and rectosigmoid cancer. Colorectal Dis 8:375–388

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Fleshman J, Sargent DJ, Green E, Anvari M, Stryker SJ, Beart RW, Hellinger M Jr, Flanagan R Jr, Peters W, Nelson H (2007) Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer is not inferior to open surgery based on 5 year data from the COST Study Group trial. Ann Surg 246:655–662; discussion 662–654

  6. Buunen M, Veldkamp R, Hop WC, Kuhry E, Jeekel J, Haglind E, Pahlman L, Cuesta MA, Msika S, Morino M, Lacy A, Bonjer HJ (2009) Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial. Lancet Oncol 10:44–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jayne DG, Thorpe HC, Copeland J, Quirke P, Brown JM, Guillou PJ (2010) Five-year follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer. BJS 97:1638–1645

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Remzi FH, Kirat HT, Kaouk JH, Geisler DP (2008) Single-port laparoscopy in colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 10:823–826

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bucher P, Pugin F, Morel P (2008) Single port access laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. Int J Colorectal Dis 23:1013–1016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Takemasa I, Uemura M, Nishimura J, Mizushima T, Yamamoto H, Ikeda M, Sekimoto M, Doki Y, Mori M (2013) Feasibility of single-site laparoscopic colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for colon cancer: a prospective case-control comparison. Surg endosc 28(4):1110–1118

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Leblanc F, Champagne BJ, Augestad KM, Stein SL, Marderstein E, Reynolds HL, Delaney CP (2010) Single incision laparoscopic colectomy: technical aspects, feasibility, and expected benefits. Diagn Ther Endosc 2010:913216

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Trichak S (2003) Three-port vs standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 17:1434–1436

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Poon CM, Chan KW, Lee DW, Chan KC, Ko CW, Cheung HY, Lee KW (2003) Two-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 17:1624–1627

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Gupta A, Shrivastava UK, Kumar P, Burman D (2005) Minilaparoscopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised controlled trial. Trop Gastroenterol 26:149–151

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kumar M, Agrawal CS, Gupta RK (2007) Three-port versus standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled clinical trial in a community-based teaching hospital in eastern Nepal. JSLS 11:358–362

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Cerci C, Tarhan OR, Barut I, Bulbul M (2007) Three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 54:15–16

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Poon JT, Cheung CW, Fan JK, Lo OS, Law WL (2012) Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic colectomy for colonic neoplasm: a randomized, controlled trial. Surg Endosc 26:2729–2734

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fung AK, Aly EH (2012) Systematic review of single-incision laparoscopic colonic surgery. BJS 99:1353–1364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. McCormack HM, Horne DJ, Sheather S (1988) Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: a critical review. Psychol Med 18:1007–1019

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Seymour RA (1982) The use of pain scales in assessing the efficacy of analgesics in post-operative dental pain. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 23:441–444

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Babul N, Darke AC, Johnson DH, Charron-Vincent K (1993) Using memory for pain in analgesic research. Ann Pharmacother 27:9–12

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. DeLoach LJ, Higgins MS, Caplan AB, Stiff JL (1998) The visual analog scale in the immediate postoperative period: intrasubject variability and correlation with a numeric scale. Anesth Analg 86:102–106

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Jefferson JK (1998) Electrodiagnostic functional sensory evaluation of the patient with pain: a review of the neuroselective current perception threshold and pain tolerance threshold. Pain Digest 8:219–230

    Google Scholar 

  26. Shimazu H, Kobayashi H, Seno S, Kato S, Akimoto M, Aizawa S et al (2004) Quantitative Analysis of the Degree of Pain Using Pain-less Electrical Stimuli. 11th International Pain Clinic World Society of Pain Clinicians 451–455

  27. Osada K, Oka H, Isomura T, Nakamura I, Tominaga K, Takahashi S, Kojima A, Nishioka K (2011) Development of the Japanese version of the fibromyalgia impact questionnaire (JFIQ): psychometric assessments of reliability and validity. Int J Rheum dis 14:74–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lee HJ, Seo JC, Kwak MA, Park SH, Min BM, Cho MS, Shin I, Jung JY, Roh WS (2014) Acupuncture for low back pain due to spondylolisthesis: study protocol for a randomized controlled pilot trial. Trials 15:105

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Matsumura H, Imai R, Gondo M, Watanabe K (2012) Evaluation of pain intensity measurement during the removal of wound dressing material using ‘the PainVision system’ for quantitative analysis of perception and pain sensation in healthy subjects. Int Wound J 9:451–455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ota S, Ogawa K, Shimbori H, Oki H, Nakahashi Y, Goto T (2009) Application quantitative measurement device for perception and pain (Pain Vision) to pharmacological challenges. Pain Clin 30:209–214

    Google Scholar 

  31. Takemasa I, Sekimoto M, Ikeda M, Mizushima T, Yamamoto H, Doki Y, Mori M (2010) Video. Transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid colon cancer. Surg Endosc 24:2321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 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 

  33. 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; discussion 80–72

  34. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Chew MH, Chang MH, Tan WS, Wong MT, Tang CL (2013) Conventional laparoscopic versus single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a case cohort comparison of short-term outcomes in 144 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc 27:471–477

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lu CC, Lin SE, Chung KC, Rau KM (2012) Comparison of clinical outcome of single-incision laparoscopic surgery using a simplified access system with conventional laparoscopic surgery for malignant colorectal disease. Colorectal Dis 14:e171–e176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Moraca RJ, Sheldon DG, Thirlby RC (2003) The role of epidural anesthesia and analgesia in surgical practice. Ann Surg 238:663–673

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Wolthuis AM, Penninckx F, Fieuws S, D’Hoore A (2012) Outcomes for case-matched single-port colectomy are comparable with conventional laparoscopic colectomy. Colorectal Dis 14:634–641

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Stener-Victorin E, Kowalski J, Lundeberg T (2002) A new highly reliable instrument for the assessment of pre- and postoperative gynecological pain. Anesth Analg 95:151–157, table of contents

  40. Lahoda R, Stacher G, Bauer P (1977) Experimentally induced pain: measurement of pain threshold and pain tolerance using a new apparatus for electrical stimulation of the skin. Int J Clin Pharmacol Biopharm 15:51–56

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

The authors have declared that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan

    Masayuki Hiraki, Ichiro Takemasa, Mamoru Uemura, Naotsugu Haraguchi, Junichi Nishimura, Taishi Hata, Tsunekazu Mizushima, Hirofumi Yamamoto, Yuichiro Doki & Masaki Mori

Authors
  1. Masayuki Hiraki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ichiro Takemasa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mamoru Uemura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Naotsugu Haraguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Junichi Nishimura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Taishi Hata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tsunekazu Mizushima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hirofumi Yamamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yuichiro Doki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Masaki Mori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ichiro Takemasa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hiraki, M., Takemasa, I., Uemura, M. et al. Evaluation of invasiveness in single-site laparoscopic colectomy, using “the PainVision™ system” for quantitative analysis of pain sensation. Surg Endosc 28, 3216–3223 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3594-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3594-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation