Single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic appendectomy: a case-matched comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: The multiport technique is the gold standard for laparoscopic appendectomy, but the use of single-incision laparoscopy is on the increase. The aim of the present study was to compare case-matched cohorts of patients who had undergone single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) with those who had undergone conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (MLA). METHODS: In a case-matched analysis, all single-incision laparoscopic appendectomies performed between July 2009 and December 2013 at one institution were reviewed and compared to multiport laparoscopic appendectomies performed during the same period. Patients who had undergone SILA were matched in terms of age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores with the same number of patients who had undergone MLA. Statistical evaluation included the description and comparison of demographic factors, details of surgery, and histological data. A univariate analysis was performed to assess potential risk factors for morbidity after SILA. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-six patients who had undergone SILA were reviewed, matched, and compared to the same number of patients who had undergone MLA. No significant difference was noted in mean operating times (50.83 vs. 50.61 min for SILA and MLA, respectively; p = 0.924) and the length of hospital stay (3.60 vs. 3.66 days; p = 0.704). No patient in either group required conversion to the open procedure while 6 (3.8 %) SILA patients were converted to multiport laparoscopy. SILA was not associated with significantly higher postoperative morbidity compared to MLA (9.6 % vs. 5.8 %; p = 0.288). Postoperative wound infection rates were higher after SILA (3.2 % vs. 0.6 %), but did not achieve statistical significance (p = 0.214). Statistical analysis revealed no risk factors for developing postoperative complications after the single-incision procedure. CONCLUSION: SILA is a technically feasible and safe alternative to conventional MLA. The two procedures did not differ in terms of operating times, length of hospital stay, and postoperative outcomes.