Short-term and long-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a propensity-matched cohort study with conventional laparoscopic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1) has been demonstrated to be minimally invasive while possessing better cosmesis and less pain compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). However, SILS + 1 as an alternative to CLS for colorectal cancer is still controversial. METHODS: A total of 1071 patients who underwent curative laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer between 2015 and 2018 were included. Of these patients, 258 SILS + 1 cases and 516 CLS cases were analyzed using propensity score matching. The baseline characteristics, surgical outcomes, pathologic findings and recovery course, morbidity and mortality within postoperative 30 days and 3-year disease-free and overall survival were compared. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were balanced between the groups. The mean operating time was significantly shorter in SILS + 1 group, with less estimated blood loss. Tumor size, tumor differentiation, number of harvested lymph nodes, resection margin and pathologic T, N, TNM stage was similar between the groups. There was no significant difference in overall perioperative complications. Uni- and multivariate analyses revealed that SILS + 1 was not a risk factor for complications. Postoperatively, SILS + 1 group showed faster recovery than CLS group in terms of ambulation, bowel function, oral intake and discharge. The 3-year disease-free survival rates of SILS + 1 and CLS groups were 90.1% and 87.3%(p = 0.59), respectively and the 3-year overall survival rates were 93.3% vs. 89.8%(p = 0.172). DISCUSSION: Our study revealed that SILS + 1 is safe, feasible, oncologically efficient, and may be considered as a surgical option for selected patients with colorectal cancer.

Single-incision compared with conventional laparoscopy for appendectomy in acute appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: A meta-analysis of the relevant literature evaluated the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) relative to those of conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA). METHODS: The major biomedical databases, including ClinicalTrials.gov, were searched up to January 2022 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). SILA and CLA were compared regarding patient body mass index, operative time, and perioperative complications. The Cochrane Handbook and RevMan 5.3 were used to judge trial quality and perform the meta-analysis, respectively. RESULTS: The 17 included RCTs comprised 2068 patients, of whom 1039 and 1029 patients underwent SILA and CLA, respectively. The operative time for SILA was longer than that for CLA (MD = 8.35 min, 95% CI = 6.58 to 10.11, P < 0.00001), but the cosmetic results from SILA were superior (SMD = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.58 to 1.03, P < 0.00001). However, the incidence rates were similar in terms of patient body mass index; postoperative pain scores; and rates of abdominal abscess, conversion to open surgery, ileus, surgical site infection, and overall perioperative complications between the two groups. CONCLUSION: SILA is a safe technique for acute appendicitis, and its cosmetic outcomes are superior to those of CLA.

Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal hilar tumors: Parenchymal preservation and functional recovery.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RALPN) can benefit patients in terms of functional recovery in the treatment of renal hilar tumors compared to conventional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (CLPN). METHODS: Between January 2019 and July 2021, patients with hilar tumors who underwent partial nephrectomy (PN) were acquired at our center and were classified into RALPN and CLPN groups. Ipsilateral parenchymal volume (IPV) and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) were determined independently 3-5 days before and 3 months after PN using contrast-enhanced computed tomography and nuclear renal scans. Pearson correlation was used to determine the link between ipsilateral GFR preservation and IPV preserved. Concurrently, multivariable analysis was employed to determine characteristics associated with functional recovery. RESULTS: A total of 96 patients with hilar tumors were studied, of which 41 received RALPN and 55 received CLPN. Excisional parenchymal volume was 27 and 37 cm3 (p = 0.005) in RALPN and CLPN groups, respectively, and IPV preserved was 77% and 68% (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the ipsilateral GFR preserved was 77.7% and 75.3%, respectively (p = 0.003). On Pearson correlation, ipsilateral GFR preservation was linked with IPV preserved (r = 0.36, p < 0.001). According to a multivariate study, baseline GFR, IPV preserved, and surgical procedures (RALPN vs. CLPN) were significant factors influencing functional recovery. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that RALPN, rather than CLPN, can achieve better functional recovery in the treatment of hilar tumors due to its ability to win more IPV preserved. RALPN should be recommended as the first-line treatment for hilar tumors, but randomized controlled trials are required to validate our findings.

Outcomes in conventional laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted primary bariatric surgery: a retrospective, case-controlled study of the MBSAQIP database.

INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted bariatric surgery is increasingly performed. There remains controversy about the overall benefit of robotic-assisted (RBS) compared to conventional laparoscopic (LBS) bariatric surgery. In this study, we used a large national risk-stratified bariatric clinical database to compare outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic gastric bypass (RNYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the 2015 and 2016 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Participant Use Data File (PUF) was performed. Primary robotic and laparoscopic RYNGB and SG were analyzed. Descriptive analysis was performed of the unmatched cohorts, followed by 1:3 case-controlled matching. Cases and controls were matched by patient demographics and pre-operative comorbidities, and peri-operative outcomes compared. RESULTS: 77,991 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RnYGB) (7.5% robotic-assisted) and 189,503 SG (6.8% robotic-assisted) cases were identified. Operative length was significantly higher in both the robotic-assisted RnYGB and SG cohorts (p < 0.0001). Outcomes were similar between the robotic-assisted and laparoscopic RnYGB cohorts, except a lower mortality rate (p = 0.05), transfusion requirement (p = 0.005), aggregate bleeding (p = 0.04), and surgical site infections (SSI) (p = 0.006) in the robotic-assisted cohort. Outcomes were also similar between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic SG, except for a longer length of stay (p < 0.0001) and higher rates of conversion (p < 0.0001), 30-day intervention (p = 0.01), operative drain present (p < 0.0001), sepsis (p = 0.01), and organ space SSI (p = 0.0002) in the robotic cohort. Bleeding was lower in the robotic SG cohort and mortality was similar. CONCLUSION: Both robotic-assisted and laparoscopic RnYGB and SG are overall very safe. Robotic-assisted gastric bypass is associated with a lower mortality and morbidity; however, a clear benefit for robotic-assisted SG compared to laparoscopic SG was not seen. Given the longer operative and hospital duration, robotic SG is not cost-effective.

Outcomes in conventional laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted revisional bariatric surgery: a retrospective, case-controlled study of the MBSAQIP database.

INTRODUCTION: Revisional bariatric surgery is being increasingly performed and is associated with higher operative risks. Optimal techniques to minimize complications remain controversial. Here, we report a retrospective review of the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Participant User Files (PUF) database, comparing outcomes between revision RBS and LBS. METHODS: The 2015 and 2016 MBSAQIP PUF database was retrospectively reviewed. Revision cases were identified using the Revision/Conversion Flag. Selected cases were further stratified by surgical approach. Subgroup analysis of sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass cases was performed. Case-controlled matching (1:1) was performed of the RBS and LBS cohorts, including gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy cohorts separately. Cases and controls were match by demographics, ASA classification, and preoperative comorbidities. RESULTS: 26,404 revision cases were identified (93.3% LBS, 6.7% RBS). 85.6% were female and 67% white. Mean age and BMI were 48 years and 40.9 kg/m2. 1144 matched RBS and LBS cases were identified. RBS was associated with longer operative duration (p < 0.0001), LOS (p = 0.0002) and a higher rate of ICU admissions (1.3% vs 0.5%, p = 0.05). Aggregate bleeding and leak rates were higher in the RBS cohort. In both gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy cohorts, the robotic-assisted surgery remain associated with longer operative duration (p < 0.0001). In gastric bypass, rates of aggregate leak and bleeding were higher with robotic surgery, while transfusion was higher with laparoscopy. For sleeve gastrectomy cases, reoperation, readmission, intervention, sepsis, organ space SSI, and transfusion were higher with robotic surgery. CONCLUSION: In this matched cohort analysis of revision bariatric surgery, both approaches were overall safe. RBS was associated with longer operative duration and higher rates of some complications. Complications were higher in the robotic sleeve cohort. Robotic is likely less cost-effective with no clear patient safety benefit, particularly for sleeve gastrectomy cases.

Minilaparoscopic Total Hysterectomy in Current Practice Feasibility and Benefits: A Unicentric, Randomized Controlled Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether mini-instrumentation may be used for hysterectomy (HT) by all surgeons (assistants and seniors) without increasing the operative time or altering surgeon working conditions. DESIGN: A unicenter, randomized controlled, single blind, parallel, noninferiority trial comparing 2 surgical techniques. SETTING: A tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Thirty-two patients undergoing HT for a benign gynecologic disease were enrolled in this study in our center between April 2, 2015, and June 1, 2018. Sixteen patients were randomized in group A and 16 patients in group B. INTERVENTIONS: HT with bilateral annexectomy or ovarian conservation using 3-mm instruments (group A) or conventional 5-mm instruments (group B). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Concerning the primary outcome, the operative time for the HT 3-mm group was 128 minutes (range, 122-150 minutes) versus 111 minutes (range, 92-143 minutes) for the HT 5-mm group (i.e., δ = 17 [90% confidence interval, -6 to 39]), with rejection of the noninferiority threshold at 35 minutes. Thirty-one percent of HTs initially performed using 3-mm instruments were completed with conventional instruments. HTs performed with mini-instruments required more concentration (p = .02) with surgeons reporting higher levels of frustration (p = .009) and sense of failure (p = .006). Patients tend to experience greater satisfaction regarding scars with a significant difference noted during the postoperative visit both for scar pain (1 vs 4 patients with moderate pain [30-50 mm on the Patient Scar Assessment Scale) in the HT 3-mm group and the HT 5-mm group, respectively) and scar firmness (p = .021; 3 vs 7 patients with moderate firmness [30-50 mm on the Patient Scar Assessment Scale] in the HT 3-mm group and the HT 5-mm group, respectively). CONCLUSION: Total minilaparoscopic HT appears inferior to standard laparoscopy in terms of operative time and surgeon working conditions; only the short-term cosmetic appearance was in favor of the 3-mm approach.

Creatine kinase elevation after robotic surgery for rectal cancer due to a prolonged lithotomy position.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery for rectal cancer, which is now performed worldwide, can be associated with elevated creatine kinase levels postoperatively. In this study, we compared postoperative complications between patients undergoing robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: We identified 66 consecutive patients who underwent curative resection for rectal cancer at Juntendo University Hospital between January 2016 and February 2019. Patients were divided into a conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) group (n = 38) and a robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) group (n = 28) before comparing various clinicodemographic factors between the groups. RESULTS: Patient age and gender, surgical approach (CLS/RALS), pathological T factor, pathological stage, duration of postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative complications were not significantly different between the RALS and CLS groups. However, the operation time was significantly longer in the RALS group (407 min) than in the CLS group (295 min; p < 0.001). Notably, the serum level of creatine kinase on postoperative day 1 was significantly higher in the CLS group (154 IU/L) than in the RALS group (525 IU/L; p < 0.001), despite there being no significant differences in the incidence of rhabdomyolysis. The multivariate analysis showed that RALS/CLS (HR 6.0 95% CI 1.3-27.5, p = 0.02) and operation time (HR 15.9 95% CI 3.79-67.4, p = 0.001) remained independent factors of CK elevation on postoperative day 1. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically relevant positioning injuries and rhabdomyolysis may occur in patients who are subjected to a prolonged and extreme Trendelenburg position or who have extra force applied to the abdominal wall because of remote center displacement. The creatine kinase value should therefore be measured after RALS to monitor for the sequelae of these potential positioning injuries.

Perceptions and experiences of perioperative nurses and nurse anaesthetists in robotic-assisted surgery.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore the perceptions and experiences of perioperative nurses and Certified Registered Nurse Anaesthetists (CRNAs) in robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS). The objective was to identify the factors that affect nursing care of patients who undergo robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS). BACKGROUND: The rapid introduction of technological innovations into the healthcare system has created new challenges for perioperative nurses. RALS affects the physical and interpersonal context of the surgical team's work and subsequent patient outcomes. Despite significant changes to the workflow for perioperative nurses and CRNAs, there is little research focusing on the nurses' experience and their challenges with RALS. DESIGN: A qualitative descriptive study. METHOD: Semi-structured interview questions guided data collection. A total of seventeen participants including six preoperative and postoperative nurses, seven intraoperative nurses, and four CRNAs in the United States were interviewed. The interviews were conducted between 26 April-24 June 2018. Data were analysed using thematic analysis, and the COREQ checklist was used to report data collection, analysis and the results. RESULTS: Three major themes and two categories within each theme were identified: (a) surgical innovation: nurse perception and workflow; (b) interprofessional practice: teamwork and standards; and (c) outcome: patient outcomes and system outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that RALS has the potential to improve patient outcomes when performed in a timely fashion by skilled surgeons, and efficient, well-trained surgical teams. For patients to experience full benefits of RALS, patient characteristics, the underlying reason for surgery, and cost must be considered. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The results of this study highlight the necessity of promoting factors that improve the surgical team training and practice for RALS and will ultimately impact patient outcomes.

Single-Port Sleeve Gastrectomy Compared With Conventional Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: 5-Year Follow-up of Weight Loss, Comorbidity Resolution, and Cost.

Background. The Single-Port Instrument Delivery Extended Reach (SPIDER) surgical system is a safe revolutionary technology that defeated difficulties of single-incision surgery. We assessed the long-term outcomes of SPIDER sleeve gastrectomy (SPIDER SG) versus conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in morbidly obese patients. Methods. Retrospective review of patients who underwent SPIDER SG or LSG in our center matched by the date of surgery (2012-2013). We reviewed weight loss results up to 5 years, complication rates, procedure and hospitalization durations, financial cost, and effect on comorbidities. Results. Patients underwent 200 SPIDER SG and 220 LSG. At baseline, SPIDER SG versus LSG patients had a mean body mass index of 43.8 ± 5.6 and 48.6 ± 8.1 kg/m2, respectively. At 1 year, both groups had comparable percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL). At 5 years, SPIDER SG had %EWL of 54.6 ± 24.8 compared with 57.8 ± 29.9 in LSG (P = .4). Nine SPIDER SG (4.5%) required conversion to LSG. Complications occurred in both groups: 4% versus 4.1% (P = .95). At 2-year follow-up, diabetes mellitus was reversed in 43% of SPIDER SG and 62% LSG. Despite a shorter hospital stay in SPIDER SG, the total cost was significantly higher ($2 041 477) compared with LSG ($1 773 834). The mean score of scar satisfaction was significantly more in SPIDER SG. Conclusions. SPIDER SG was safe with long-term effects on weight loss comparable to LSG. Despite the higher cost of SPIDER SG, a shorter hospital stay and better cosmesis were observed.

Clinical and oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for right colon cancer: a propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for right colon cancer is going to be considered as a new option. The potential benefits, clinical, and oncologic outcomes are still controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate clinical and oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for right colon cancer using propensity score matching analysis. METHODS: From December 2013 to June 2017, 174 patients underwent laparoscopic radical right hemicolectomy through a single-incision (n = 32) or a conventional (n = 142) approach. The data were prospectively collected and the patients were matched at a radio of 1:1 according to age, sex, body mass index (BMI), previous abdominal surgeries, comorbidities, ASA score (≤ 2/> 2), and pathologic stage. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in estimated blood loss, time to diet, postoperative pain score, length of hospital stay between the SILS and CLS groups. However, the SILS group showed longer operation time (175 (40) vs 145 (52.5), p = 0.011) and shorter incision length (4 (1.4) vs 7 (1.9), p < 0.001). There were 2 (6.3%) postoperative complications in the SILS group and 5 (15.6%) in the CLS group (p = 0.426). The pathologic outcomes were similar between two groups. The median follow-up period was 26.5 months in the SILS group and 34.9 months in the CLS group (p = 0.002). There were 3 recurrences (9.4%) in the SILS group and 3 (9.4%) in the CLS group. The 3-year disease-free survival rates were 92.4 and 93.8% (p = 0.984), and overall survival rates were 92.3 and 93.0% (p = 0.884) in the SILS and the CLS groups, respectively. No incisional hernia was observed during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Though single-incision laparoscopic surgery for right colon cancer showed longer operation time in this study, it appears to be a safe and feasible option with comparable clinical and oncologic outcomes to conventional laparoscopic surgery.

Systematic review of comparing single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for right colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (SILS) has long used in surgery for a long time. However, there is barely a systemic review related to the comparison between the SILS and the conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (CLS) for the right colon cancer in the long term follow-up. Herein, we used the most recent articles to compare these two techniques by meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Wanfang databases to compare SILS with CLS for right colon cancer up to May 2019. The operative, postoperative, pathological and mid-term follow-up outcomes of nine studies were extracted and compared. RESULTS: A total of 1356 patients participated in 9 studies, while 653 patients were assigned to the SILS group and 703 patients were assigned to the CLS group. The patients' baselines in the SILS group were consistent with those in the CLS group. Compared to the CLS group, the SILS group had a shorter operation duration (SMD - 23.49, 95%CI - 36.71 to - 10.27, P < 0.001, chi-square = 24.11), shorter hospital stay (SMD - 0.76, 95% `CI - 1.07 to - 0.45, P < 0.001, chi-square = 9.85), less blood loss (SMD - 8.46, 95% CI - 14.59 to - 2.34; P < 0.05; chi-square = 2.26), smaller incision length (SMD - 1.60, 95% CI - 2.66 to - 0.55, P < 0.001; chi-square = 280.44), more lymph node harvested (SMD - 0.98, 95% CI - 1.79 to - 0.16, P < 0.05; chi-square = 4.61), and a longer proximal surgical edge (SMD - 0.51, 95% CI - 0.93 to - 0.09, P < 0.05; chi-square = 2.42). No significant difference was found in other indexes. After we removed a single large study, we performed another meta-analysis again. The operation duration in the SILS group was still better than that in the CLS group. CONCLUSION: SILS could be a faster and more reliable approach than CLS for the right colon cancer and could accelerate patient recovery, especially for patients with a low BMI.

Secondary Management for Recurrent Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction after Pyeloplasty: A Comparison of Re-Do Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty and Conventional Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and analyze our experience with secondary robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) and conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) in treating recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) after primary pyeloplasty. METHODS: Patients who underwent secondary RALP or LP for recurrent UPJO were retrospectively analyzed. Baseline characteristics, detailed history of previous pyeloplasty, operative profile and follow-up data were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Among 29 patients presented with recurrent UPJO, 15 patients underwent secondary RALP. Both groups (RALP or LP) were comparable in baseline characteristics and detailed history of previous pyeloplasty. The mean operative time, suturing time, and hospitalization time of patients in RALP group were significantly less than those in LP group. The mean operative time of RALP group was 2.1 h, while the mean operative time of LP group was 3.23 h. The average suturing time of LP (62.43 min) is about 3 times that of RALP (21.47 min). The overall mean follow-up data was 23 months. The success rate of the RALP group and LP group was 87.7 and 85.7% respectively. CONCLUSION: Compared to LP, RALP may be a better choice for the treatment of recurrent UPJO. Further high-quality clinical studies are needed to confirm the superior nature of RALP.

Safety and effectiveness of robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer in China.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of robotic hysterectomy (RH) with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) for the treatment of cervical cancer using multivariate regressions. METHODS: We designed a retrospective single-center study and consecutively collected patients with cervical cancer from February 2014 to October 2017. Data extraction was performed by two independent researchers. The surgical outcomes include operative time, estimated blood loss, number of lymph nodes, time to first flatus, time to a full diet, time to remove drainage tube, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complication. RESULTS: A total of 152 patients with cervical cancer were collected in our study including 92 patients who underwent RH and 60 patients who underwent LH. Both groups have similar characteristics. The RH group showed shorter operative time (Coe - 42.89; 95% CI - 74.39 to 11.39; P = 0.008) and more number of lymph nodes (Coe 6.06; 95% CI 2.46-9.66; p = 0.001) than the LH group. As for the postoperative parameters, the RH group showed shorter time to remove drainage tube (Coe - 0.89; 95% CI -1.62 to -0.15; p = 0.019) and length of hospital stay (Coe - 6.40; 95% CI - 10.19 to - 2.95; p = 0.001). No significant difference was found between the groups in estimated blood loss (Coe 34.64; 95% CI - 33.08 to 102.37; p = 0.314), time to first flatus (Coe 0.11; 95% CI - 0.38 to 0.61; p = 0.652), time to a full diet (Coe - 0.24; 95% CI - 0.54 to 0.06, p = 0.118), and postoperative complication (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.35-1.98; p = 0.685). CONCLUSION: The results from this study suggest that RH is safe and effective as LH but robotic surgery significantly contributed to the feasibility of alternative treatment options for cervical cancer patients.

Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: results of a single high-volume center in Japan.

PURPOSE: Scientific evidence supporting robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) for rectal cancer remains inconclusive because most previous reports were retrospective case series or case-control studies, with few reports focusing on long-term oncological outcomes with a large volume of patients. The aim of this study was to clarify the short- and long-term outcomes of a large number of consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent RALS in a single high-volume center. METHODS: The records of 551 consecutive patients who underwent RALS for rectal adenocarcinoma between December 2011 and March 2017 were examined to reveal the short-term outcomes. The oncological outcomes of the 204 patients who underwent surgery between December 2011 and March 2014 were evaluated. RESULTS: Most patients had tumors located in the lower or mid-rectum (86.0%). Only 7.6% of patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Lateral lymph node dissection was performed for 191 patients (34.7%). The median operative time was 257 min, median blood loss was 10 mL, and no transfusions were needed. No conversion to open surgery was necessary. Eighteen patients (3.3%) had Clavien-Dindo grade III postoperative complications. Six patients (1.1%) had positive resection margins. The mean follow-up duration of the 204 patients was 43.6 ± 9.8 (months). The 5-year cancer-specific survival rate for stage I/II/III/IV was 100%/100%/100%/not reached, respectively. The 5-year relapse-free survival rate for stage I/II/III/IV was 93.6%/75.0%/77.6%/ not reached, respectively. The rate of local recurrence was 0.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that RALS is technically feasible for rectal cancer and has good short- and long-term outcomes.

Pain after single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: a propensity-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare postoperative pain outcomes between single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) using a propensity score matching analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients who underwent SILA or CLA for acute appendicitis between January 2010 and December 2015 at a single center were identified retrospectively from a prospectively collected database. All patients had used an intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device for postoperative pain control. As potential confounding variables, patient characteristics and surgery-related, anesthesia-related, and PCA-related factors were collected from the database. The primary outcome was the postoperative pain score, and secondary outcomes were nausea, vomiting, rescue analgesic use, rescue antiemetic use, and PCA-related complications. These outcomes were compared between the SILA and CLA groups before and after 1:1 propensity score matching. RESULTS: From a total of 915 patients, 753 were selected: 116 in the SILA group and 637 in the CLA group. After propensity score matching, two comparable groups with 111 patients each were obtained. Pain score (P = 0.007) and rescue analgesic use (P = 0.043) on the day of surgery were significantly lower in the SILA group than in the CLA group. The other outcomes were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: SILA is a beneficial surgical procedure for postoperative pain management.

The clinical experience of robot-assisted surgery in gynecologic cancer.

The comparison of robotic and conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in gynecologic cancer still needs to be studied. In all, 98 consecutive cases of patients with gynecologic cancer undergoing robot-assisted hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy, and another 98 consecutive cases of conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy during the same period in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University were included. The duration of the operation, blood loss, drainage during the first 24 h after the operation, total hospital stay, hospital stay after the operation, lymph nodes collected, perioperative complications, and the cost of each operation for both procedures were recorded. The duration of the operation was longer, and the cost of each operation was almost seven times higher in the robot group than that in the conventional laparoscopy group. But the differences with regard to blood loss, drainage during the first 24 h after the operation, total hospital stay, hospital stay after operation, the lymph nodes collected, and the rate of perioperative complications were not statistically significant. Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) in gynecologic cancer is as feasible as conventional laparoscopic surgery. We recommend further studies about the cost and effect of RAS in gynecologic cancer.

Robotic Single-Site and Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery in Gynecology: Clinical Outcomes and Cost Analysis of a Matched Case-Control Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical outcomes and costs associated with robotic single-site (RSS) surgery compared with those of conventional laparoscopy (CL) in gynecology. DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). SETTING: University-affiliated community hospital. PATIENTS: Female patients undergoing RSS or CL gynecologic procedures. INTERVENTIONS: Comparison of consecutive RSS gynecologic procedures (cases) undertaken between October 2013 and March 2014 with matched CL procedures (controls) completed during the same time period by the same surgeon. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patient demographic data, operative data, and hospital financial data were abstracted from the electronic charts and financial systems. An incremental cost analysis based on the use of disposable equipment was performed. Total hospital charges were determined for matched RSS cases vs CL cases. RSS surgery was completed in 25 out of 33 attempts; 3 cases were aborted before docking, and 5 were converted to a multisite surgery. There were no intraoperative complications or conversions to laparotomy. The completed cases included 11 adnexal cases and 14 hysterectomies, 3 of which included pelvic lymph node dissection. Compared with the CL group, total operative times were higher in the RSS group; however, there were no significant between-group differences in estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, or complication rates. Disposable equipment cost per case, direct costs, and total hospital charges were evaluated. RSS was associated with an increased disposable cost per case of $248 to $378, depending on the method used for vaginal cuff closure. The average total hospital charges for matched outpatient adnexal surgery were $15,450 for the CL controls and $18,585 for the RSS cases (p < .001), and the average total hospital charges for matched outpatient benign hysterectomy were $14,623 for the CL controls and $21,412 for the RSS cases (p < .001). CONCLUSION: Although RSS surgery and CL have comparable clinical outcomes in selected patients, RSS surgery remains associated with increased incremental disposable cost per case and total hospital charges. Careful case selection and judicious use of equipment are necessary to maximize cost-effectiveness in RSS gynecologic surgery.

Robotic-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: short-term outcomes at a single center.

PURPOSES: Several retrospective studies have demonstrated the safety and technical feasibility of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS). The aim of the present study was to clarify the advantages of RALS for rectal cancer by comparing its short-term outcomes with those of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). METHODS: Between April, 2010 and April, 2015, a total of 974 patients underwent proctectomy for rectal cancer. After the exclusion of those who underwent open surgery, high anterior resection, lateral lymph node dissection, or multiple resection, 442 patients were enrolled in this study, including 203 who underwent RALS and 239 who underwent CLS. We compared the short-term outcomes of these two groups. RESULTS: There was no case of conversion to open surgery in the RALS group, but 8 (3.3 %) cases in the CLS group (p = 0.009). Operative time was not significantly different, but blood loss was significantly less in the RALS group than in the CLS group (p < 0.001). The postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the RALS group than in the CLS group (p < 0.001). The rate of urinary retention was significantly lower in the RALS group than in the CLS group (p = 0.018). CONCLUSION: The short-term outcomes in this series provide further evidence that RALS may be superior to CLS for rectal cancer.

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery using conventional laparoscopic instruments and glove port technique in gynecology: a single surgeon's experience.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To report a single surgeon's experience with 120 laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) procedures using conventional laparoscopic instruments and a homemade glove port system to treat benign gynecologic diseases. DESIGN: Retrospective chart analysis (Canadian Task Force classification III). SETTING: Eulji University Hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred twenty patients who underwent LESS performed by a single surgeon to treat benign gynecologic diseases between November 2010 and November 2012. INTERVENTION: LESS using conventional instrumentation was performed using our specialized glove port technique, which consists of the combination of the homemade glove port system designed to minimalize collision of the trocar on the tip of the finger of the surgical glove, a sufficient rectus fasciotomy, the surgeon's position at the patient's head, and adequate positioning of the instruments. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The LESS procedures performed were laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (n = 50), ovarian cystectomy (n = 25), myomectomy (n = 14), oophorectomy (n = 11), salpingectomy (n = 9), fimbrioplasty or neosalpingstomy (n = 7), and adhesiolysis only (n = 4). Median patient age was 40 years, and median body mass index was 23. Median operative time was 100 minutes (range, 50-145 minutes) for laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy, 70 minutes (range, 30-150 minutes) for ovarian cystectomy, 107 minutes (range, 65-180 minutes) for myomectomy, 55 minutes (range, 25-130 minutes) for oophorectomy, 85 minutes (range, 35-110 minutes) for salpingectomy, 70 minutes (range, 25-140 minutes) for neosalpingostomy or fimbrioplasty, and 35 minutes (range, 30-60-minutes) for adhesiolysis only. All procedures were completed successfully without the need for additional ports or conversion to the standard laparoscopic approach. One perioperative complication occurred. The complication rate was 83% (1 of 120). Other postoperative complications were not observed at follow-up. CONCLUSION: Our experience shows that LESS using conventional laparoscopic instruments and our glove port technique is a feasible and safe technique for the surgical management of various gynecologic conditions. Therefore, our homemade glove port laparoscopic system used in our specialized technique provides a simple, cost-effective approach to LESS and would probably make laparoscopic procedures using conventional instruments easier.

Absence of Falciform Ligament Found During Laparoscopic Surgery: A Case Report.

Anatomic variants of hepatic ligaments are rare, and complications attributable to these variants may be difficult to diagnose. Our aim is to contribute to the literature surrounding the incidental finding of a congenital absence of the falciform ligament. We report the case of a 37-year-old man who underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. During the operation, the patient was noted to have an apparent absence of the falciform ligament attachment to the liver. The round ligament was attached from the liver to the anterior abdominal wall at the level of the umbilicus. The round ligament is inserted into the inferior surface of the liver as a thick, cordlike structure encased in fat. In rare cases, the small intestine can pass through a falciform ligament defect and become trapped while remaining within the peritoneal cavity, leading to difficult-to-diagnose internal hernias. This condition can lead to intestinal obstruction, incarceration, and strangulation. This directed our decision to divide the remaining round ligament at the liver and close to the abdominal wall. When defects of hepatic ligaments are found incidentally during laparoscopic surgery, these investigators recommend that the operating surgeon consider dividing the remaining ligament as a protective procedure to prevent complications such as internal hernias, intestinal obstruction, incarceration, and strangulation.