Iranian Journal of Colorectal Research

Iranian Journal of Colorectal Research

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

Document Type : Research/Original Article

Authors
Mauro Montuori 1
Enrico Pinotti 2
Alessanda Brescacin 1
Gabriele Mauro Di Lucca 1
Riccardo Pirovano 1
Gianmaria Mauri 1
Michele Vasino Ciocca 1
Mauro Zago 1
1 Department of Surgery, Policlinico San Pietro, Ponte San Pietro, Bergamo, Italy.
2 Department of Surgery, Policlinico San Pietro, Ponte San Pietro, Bergamo, Italy
10.30476/acrr.2021.93249.1119
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
Colorectal cancer
mini-Laparoscopy
reduced port
minimally invasive surgery
Right Hemicolectomy
 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