Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic colectomy for colonic neoplasm: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) is a newly developed procedure with the benefit of better cosmetic outcome and potentially reduced wound pain compared with conventionally laparoscopic colectomy (CLC). However, the application of SILC requires careful evaluation to prove its benefit and safety. This randomized, controlled study compared the operative outcome of patients who underwent SILC and CLC. METHODS: Patients who had small cancer (<4 cm) or adenomatous polyp requiring colectomy were randomized to have SILC or CLC. The patients were blinded to the procedures and the postoperative pain was used as the primary outcome measure. All patients had patient-controlled analgesia with intravenous morphine after the operation and the nominal rating score on days 1-3 and day 14 were recorded by research staff, who did not known the types of operations. Other operative outcomes of the two groups of patients also were recorded prospectively and compared. RESULTS: There were 25 patients in each group. The patients' demographics, tumor characteristics, operating time, blood loss, complication rate, number of lymph nodes harvested, and resection margin have no statistically significant difference between the two groups. There was no operative mortality in both groups. The SILC group had consistently lower median pain score than CLC group in the whole postoperative course and the difference was statistically significant on day 1 (0 (0-5) vs. day 3 (0-6) respectively; p = 0.002) and day 2 (0 (0-3) vs. 2 (0-8) respectively; p = 0.014). The median hospital stay in the SILC group also was shorter the CLC group. CONCLUSIONS: In a selected group of patients with small tumor and good operative risk, SILC is a safe alternative to CLC. Single-port laparoscopic colectomy also is associated with the benefits of less postoperative pain and shorter hospital stay than CLC.

Impact of the standardized medial-to-lateral approach on outcome of laparoscopic colorectal resection.

BACKGROUND: Beginning in 2004, a standardized medial-to-lateral approach was adopted in laparoscopic colorectal resection (LapCR) in our institution. The present study aimed to compare the outcomes of patients operated on by this approach with those who were operated on prior to the adoption of this technique. METHODS: Data were retrieved from a prospectively collected database on LapCR. The control group included 196 patients operated on from January 2002 to December 2003 and the medial approach group included 224 patients who underwent operations from January 2005 to December 2007. The patient characteristics, operative details, pathology, and surgical outcomes of the two groups were compared. RESULTS: The patient demographics, types of operation and pathology did not show any statistically significant difference. The medial approach group was associated with significantly less median blood loss [100 (interquartile range [IQR]: 50-174) ml versus 150 (IQR:100-300) ml; p < 0.001], shorter hospital stay [4 (IQR: (4-7) versus 7 (5-9) days; p < 0.001], and more lymph nodes harvested [12 (7-17.5) versus 10 (6-15); p = 0.001]. Significantly earlier bowel function recovery was observed in the medial approach group. The mortality and complications did not show any difference. CONCLUSIONS: A standardized medial-to-lateral approach for LapCR is associated with less blood loss, earlier return of bowel function, shorter hospital stay, and increased number of lymph nodes harvested. This should be the preferred approach in LapCR.