Feasibility, Safety and efficacy of 3-mm instruments in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer: preliminary experience

Document Type : Research/Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Surgery, Policlinico San Pietro, Ponte San Pietro, Bergamo, Italy.

2 Department of Surgery, Policlinico San Pietro, Ponte San Pietro, Bergamo, Italy

Abstract

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, the evolution of technology has made available instruments of very small caliber without affecting the surgical technique. Mini-laparoscopy (m-Lap) right hemicolectomy is an evolution of classic laparoscopy (c-Lap), consisting of three-port laparoscopic surgery using a 3-mm trocar.

METHODS
A retrospective analysis of a prospectively constructed database was performed to assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of 3-mm instruments. We included patients undergoing a right hemicolectomy with c-Lap or m-Lap for cancer. Patients undergoing emergency, palliative, or open surgery were excluded. Primary outcomes were the rate of anastomotic leakage (AL), surgical site infection (iSSI), organ/space infection (OSI), and disease-free and overall survival. Secondary outcomes were the length of surgery and length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS
Between January 2015 and December 2020, seventy-five patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Among them, 20 (26,67%) underwent m-Lap and 55 (73,33%) underwent c-Lap. The two groups had homogeneous baseline characteristics. There were no differences in AL (P=0.905), iSSI or OSI (P=0.831), disease-free survival (P=0.340), overall survival (P=0.351), length of surgery (P=0.742), or length of hospital stay (P=0.053).

CONCLUSION
A 3-mm trocar for right hemicolectomy is feasible, safe, and effective. It does not affect the quality of surgery or the short and long-term outcomes. We hope this study will stimulate further research on less invasive surgical instruments.

Keywords

References

 1.    Novitsky YW, Kercher KW, Czerniach DR, et al. Advantages of mini-laparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg. 2005 Dec;140(12):1178–83.
2.    Alhashemi M, Almahroos M, Fiore JF, et al. Impact of miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy on recovery of physical activity: a randomized trial [Internet]. Vol. 31, Surgical Endoscopy. 2017. p. 2299–309. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5232-z
3.    Dammaro C, Tranchart H, Gaillard M, et al. Routine mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Outcome in 200 patients [Internet]. Vol. 154, Journal of Visceral Surgery. 2017. p. 73–7. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2016.08.001
4.    de’Angelis N, Petrucciani N, Giannandrea G, Brunetti F. The protocol of low-impact laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the combination of mini-laparoscopy and low-pressure pneumoperitoneum [Internet]. Vol. 70, Updates in Surgery. 2018. p. 553–6. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13304-018-0591-8
5.    Pérez-Lanzac A, Romero EJ, Alvarez-Ossorio JL. Postoperative pain and cosmetic results of minilaparoscopic nephrectomy compared to the conventional technique. Actas Urol Esp. 2019 Apr;43(3):124–30.
6.    Pérez-Lanzac A, García-Baquero R. Minilaparoscopy in urology: Systematic review [Internet]. Vol. 42, Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Edition). 2018. p. 299–308. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acuroe.2018.04.001
7.    Ghezzi F, Cromi A, Siesto G, et al. Minilaparoscopic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: Results of a Randomized Trial [Internet]. Vol. 18, Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2011. p. 455–61. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2011.03.019
8.    Uccella S, Cromi A, Casarin J, et al. Minilaparoscopic Versus Standard Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Uteri ≥16 Weeks of Gestation: Surgical Outcomes, Postoperative Quality of Life, and Cosmesis [Internet]. Vol. 25, Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques. 2015. p. 386–91. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/lap.2014.0478
9.    Clavien PA, Strasberg SM. Severity Grading of Surgical Complications [Internet]. Vol. 250, Annals of Surgery. 2009. p. 197–8. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e3181b6dcab
10. Jacobs M, Verdeja JC, Goldstein HS. Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colectomy). Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1991 Sep;1(3):144–50.
11. Tan X, Wang G, Tang Y,  et al. Minilaparoscopic versus single incision cholecystectomy for the treatment of cholecystolithiasis: a meta-analysis and systematic review. BMC Surg. 2017 Aug 22;17(1):91.
12. Benhidjeb T, Kosmas IP, Hachem F,  et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery cholecystectomy: results of a prospective comparative single-center study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Feb;87(2):509–16.
13. Hosogi H, Strassel V, Martin C,  et al. Single-port versus needlescopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study [Internet]. Vol. 4, Asian Journal of Endoscopic Surgery. 2011. p. 120–6. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-5910.2011.00087.x
14. Nishimura A, Kawahara M, Honda K, et al. Totally laparoscopic anterior resection with transvaginal assistance and transvaginal specimen extraction: a technique for natural orifice surgery combined with reduced-port surgery. Surg Endosc. 2013 Dec;27(12):4734–40.
15. Nishimura A, Kawahara M, Suda K,  et al. Totally laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy with transanal specimen extraction [Internet]. Vol. 25, Surgical Endoscopy. 2011. p. 3459–63. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1716-z
16. McKenzie S, Baek J-H, Wakabayashi M,  et al. Totally laparoscopic right colectomy with transvaginal specimen extraction: the authors’ initial institutional experience [Internet]. Vol. 24, Surgical Endoscopy. 2010. p. 2048–52. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-009-0870-z
17. Autorino R, Kim FJ, Rassweiler J, et al. Mini-laparoscopy, laparoendoscopic single-site surgery and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery-assisted laparoscopy: novice surgeons’ performance and perception in a porcine nephrectomy model. BJU Int. 2012 Dec;110(11 Pt C):E991–6.
18. Matsuda T, Ogura K, Uchida J,  et al. Smaller Ports Result in Shorter Convalescence After Laparoscopic Varicocelectomy [Internet]. Vol. 153, Journal of Urology. 1995. p. 1175–7. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(01)67542-6
Iranian Journal of Colorectal Research
Volume 9, Issue 3
September 2021
Pages 109-113

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics