ABSTRACT
Purpose@#Although there are many articles about single incision laparoscopic (SIL) hernioplasty, a large-scale study or article about its long-term outcome has not been reported yet. The aim of this study is to assess short- and long-term outcomes of SIL totally extraperitoneal (TEP) hernia repair with large number of cases. @*Methods@#A prospectively collected database containing details of 1,231 procedures in 1,129 consecutive patients who underwent SIL-TEP hernia repair between June 2010 and December 2017 at a single institution was retrospectively analyzed. SIL-TEP hernia repair was performed using a glove single port device and standard laparoscopic instruments.Recurrence rate of SIL-TEP hernia repair was analyzed by a telephone questionnaire. @*Results@#Among 1,129 patients, 1,027 (91.0%) had unilateral hernia and 102 (9.0%) had bilateral hernia. There were 12 (1.1%) conversions to single or 3 ports laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal hernioplasty or Lichtenstein repair. Mean operative time was 40.3 minutes for unilateral hernia and 61.6 minutes for bilateral hernia. Intraoperative complication rate was 21.8%. Most intraoperative complications were peritoneum or sac tearing (20.1%). Postoperative complications occurred in 97 (8.6%) cases, most of which were minor morbidity except for 1 mesh infection. Five-year recurrence rate was 4%. @*Conclusion@#SIL-TEP hernia repair is safe and technically feasible with acceptable short- and long-term outcomes. Largescale randomized controlled trials comparing SIL-TEP hernia repair with conventional laparoscopic TEP are needed to confirm these results.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Currently, many operations are performed using the single-incision laparoscopic method. Although there have been recent reports on single-incision laparoscopic ileostomy, none have compared this method to conventional laparoscopic ileostomy. This study aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic ileostomy for anastomotic leakage following laparoscopic low anterior resections. METHODS: From April 2012 to April 2017, 38 patients underwent laparoscopic ileostomy (single-incision; 19 patients referred to as group A, conventional laparoscopy; 19 patients referred to as group B) for anastomotic leakage following laparoscopic low anterior resection. We analyzed surgical and clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. Patients in whom a protective ileostomy was carried out during the initial laparoscopic low anterior resection were excluded from this study. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups in terms of patient demographics and initial operation details. Incisional surgical site infections occurred less in group A than in group B (2 of 19 vs. 9 of 19, P = 0.029). The median ileostomy operation time, amount of intraoperative bleeding, parastomal hernia ratio, hospital stay duration after ileostomy, postoperative pain score were not significantly different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Single-incision laparoscopic ileostomy is safe and feasible method of fecal diversion for anastomotic leakage following laparoscopic low anterior resection.
Subject(s)
Humans , Anastomotic Leak , Demography , Hemorrhage , Hernia , Ileostomy , Laparoscopy , Length of Stay , Methods , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures , Pain, Postoperative , Surgical Wound InfectionABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes for single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) for the treatment of acute appendicitis and to assess the feasibility of performing SILA in a small hospital with limited surgical instruments and staff experience. METHODS: Retrospective record review identified 133 patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy from December 2013 to April 2015. Patients were categorized according to the type of appendectomy performed (SILA or CLA). Patient characteristics and surgical outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. Postoperative complication rates were compared using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Postoperative pain was assessed using a visual analog scale immediately postsurgery; at 12, 24, 36, and 48 hours postoperatively, and at 7 days postoperatively. RESULTS: Record review identified 38 patients who had undergone SILA and 95 patients who had undergone CLA. No significant differences in clinical characteristics were found between the 2 groups. There were no significant differences in operation time, time to flatus, or length of hospital stay. Overall complication rates were not significantly different between the 2 groups. No complications worse than grade IIIa occurred in the SILA group. Postoperative pain scores were not significantly different between the 2 groups at any time point. CONCLUSION: We found comparable surgical outcomes for SILA compared to CLA. Even in a small hospital with limited surgical instruments and staff experience, SILA may be a feasible and safe technique.