Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery: comparison of surgical port performance in a surgical simulator with novices

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Although laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery is feasible, it poses many technical challenges not seen in conventional laparoscopy. Recent interest and widespread implementation of LESS stems from advancements in commercially available access port technology. Consequently, this study objectively compared the technical performance between conventional laparoscopic and LESS surgical ports in a modified Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) simulator.

Methods

The 24 novice participants in this study performed the FLS peg transfer task using two conventional laparoscopic 12-mm working ports, the SILS port, the TriPort access system, and the GelPOINT system with two standard length 5-mm graspers. Each participant completed the task using conventional laparoscopy first for familiarization, followed by each of the three LESS surgical ports in random order. Task completion time, errors, and subjective questionnaire ratings were used to compare conventional laparoscopy and the single-port devices. Congruent with FLS scoring procedures, task completion time and errors were used to compute a standardized task score for each port.

Results

The task score did not differ significantly between conventional laparoscopy and the single-port devices. Additionally, there were no task score differences between trials for either the SILS port or the GelPOINT system. There was a significant performance decrement starting with the TriPort versus starting with either the SILS port or the GelPOINT, which resulted in the lowest overall trial task score (p < 0.05). Task completion difficulty and instrument maneuverability resulted in no significant differences between ports. Ease of use and overall rank were significant, with conventional laparoscopy rated as the easiest to use and the highest overall followed by the GelPOINT system.

Conclusions

Overall, the TriPort may be more challenging for novices to use in learning the LESS procedure than either the SILS port or the GelPOINT system. The GelPOINT system may offer the most consistent platform for LESS performance and novice skill acquisition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chouillard E, Dache A, Torcivia A, Helmy N, Ruseykin I, Gumbs A (2010) Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a preliminary experience. Surg Endosc 24:1861–1865

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rivas H, Varela E, Scott D (2010) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: initial evaluation of a large series of patients. Surg Endosc 24:1403–1412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Romanelli JR, Roshek TB III, Lynn DC, Earle DB (2010) Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: initial experience. Surg Endosc 24:1374–1379

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Saber AA, Elgamal MH, El-Ghazaly TH, Dewoolkar AV, Akl A (2010) Simple technique for single-incision transumbilical laparoscopic appendectomy. Int J Surg 8:128–130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Saber AA, El-Ghazaly TH (2009) Early experience with single-access transumbilical adjustable laparoscopic gastric banding. Obes Surg 19:1442–1446

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Teixeira J, McGill K, Koshy N, McGinty J, Todd G (2010) Laparoscopic single-site surgery for placement of adjustable gastric band: a series of 22 cases. Surg Obes Relat Dis 6:41–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wheeless CR Jr, Thompson BH (1973) Laparoscopic sterilization: review of 3, 600 cases. Obstet Gynecol 42:751–758

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Inoue H, Takeshita K, Endo M (1994) Single-port laparoscopy-assisted appendectomy under local pneumoperitoneum condition. Surg Endosc 8:714–716

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Navarra G, Pozza E, Occhionorelli S, Carcoforo P, Donini I (1997) One-wound laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 84:695

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Pelosi MA, Pelosi MA III (1992) Laparoscopic appendectomy using a single umbilical puncture (minilaparoscopy). J Reprod Med 37:588–594

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Piskun G, Rajpal S (1999) Transumbilical laparoscopic cholecystectomy utilizes no incisions outside the umbilicus. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 9:361–364

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee J, Baek J, Kim W (2010) Laparoscopic transumbilical single-port appendectomy: initial experience and comparison with three-port appendectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 20:100–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Raman JD, Bagrodia A, Cadeddu JA (2009) Single-incision, umbilical laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy: a comparison of perioperative outcomes and short-term measures of convalescence. Eur Urol 55:1198–1204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tsimoyiannis EC, Tsimogiannis KE, Pappas-Gogos G, Farantos C, Benetatos N, Mavridou P, Manataki A (2010) Different pain scores in single-transumbilical-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 24:1842–1848

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Vidal O, Valentini M, Ginesta C, Marti J, Espert JJ, Benarroch G, Garcia-Valdecasas JC (2010) Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery appendectomy. Surg Endosc 24:686–691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. SILS Port (2010) Retrieved 27 August 2010 at http://www.covidien.com/silsport/pages.aspx

  17. Laparo-Endoscopic Single-Site Surgery (LESS) from Olympus (2010) Retrieved 27 August 2010 at http://www.olympusamerica.com/less/

  18. GelPOINT Applied Medical (2010) Retrieved 27 August 2010 at http://www.gelpoint.net/

  19. Peters JH, Fried GM, Swanstrom LL, Soper NJ, Sillin LF, Schirmer B, Hoffman K, Committee SAGESFLS (2004) Development and validation of a comprehensive program of education and assessment of the basic fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery. Surgery 135:21–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Keyser EJ, Derossis AM, Antoniuk M, Sigman HH, Fried GM (2000) A simplified simulator for the training and evaluation of laparoscopic skills. Surg Endosc 14:149–153

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Ritter EM, Scott DJ (2007) Design of a proficiency-based skills training curriculum for the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery. Surg Innov 14:107–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fried GM, Derossis AM, Bothwell J, Sigman HH (1999) Comparison of laparoscopic performance in vivo with performance measured in a laparoscopic simulator. Surg Endosc 13:1077–1081

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Derossis AM, Fried GM, Abrahamowicz M, Sigman HH, Barkun JS, Meakins JL (1998) Development of a model for training and evaluation of laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 175:482–487

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Santos BF, Enter D, Soper NJ, Hungness ES (2010) Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) versus standard laparoscopic surgery: a comparison of performance using a surgical simulator. Surg Endosc. doi:10.1007/s00464-010-1197-5

  25. Fraser SA, Klassen DR, Feldman LS, Ghitulescu GA, Stanbridge D, Fried GM (2003) Evaluating laparoscopic skills: setting the pass/fail score for the MISTELS system. Surg Endosc 17:964–967

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Berquer R, Smith WD, Davis S (2002) An ergonomic study of the optimum operating table height for laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 16:416–421

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. De U (2005) Ergonomics and laparoscopy. Indian J Surg 67:164–166

    Google Scholar 

  28. Omar AM, Wade NJ, Brown SI, Cuschieri A (2005) Assessing the benefits of “gaze-down” display location in complex tasks. Surg Endosc 19:105–108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. van Det MJ, Meijerink WJ, Hoff C, Totte ER, Pierie JP (2009) Optimal ergonomics for laparoscopic surgery in minimally invasive surgery suites: a review and guidelines. Surg Endosc 23:1279–1285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. van Veelen MA, Jakimowicz JJ, Kazemier G (2004) Improved physical ergonomics of laparoscopic surgery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 13:161–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. MacDonald ER, Brownlee E, Ahmed I (2009) New tools for a new job: single-port laparoscopic surgery equipment. Med Equip Insights 2:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  32. Fader AN, Cohen S, Escobar PF, Gunderson C (2010) Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynecology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 22:331–338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Irwin BH, Rao PP, Stein MJ, Desai RM (2010) New advances in urologic laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery. New Technol Urol 7:197–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the members of the University of Nebraska Medical Center’s Center for Advanced Surgical Technology (CAST) and the members of the Innovative Design and Ergonomic Analysis (IDEA) Laboratory for their assistance in this study. The authors also acknowledge the Nebraska Research Initiative for partial support of this study.

Disclosures

Bernadette Brown-Clerk, Adam E. de Laveaga, Chad A. LaGrange, Laura M. Wirth, Bethany R. Lowndes, and M. Susan Hallbeck have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial and Management Systems Engineering, Industrial and Management Systems Engineering, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 348B Nebraska Hall, Lincoln, NE, 68588-0518, USA

    Bernadette Brown-Clerk, Adam E. de Laveaga, Laura M. Wirth & Bethany R. Lowndes

  2. Faculty of Department of Surgery, Section of Urology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198, USA

    Chad A. LaGrange

  3. Department of Industrial and Management Systems Engineering, Faculty of Industrial and Management Systems Engineering, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 348B Nebraska Hall, Lincoln, NE, 68588-0518, USA

    M. Susan Hallbeck

Authors
  1. Bernadette Brown-Clerk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adam E. de Laveaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chad A. LaGrange
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Laura M. Wirth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bethany R. Lowndes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Susan Hallbeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Susan Hallbeck.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brown-Clerk, B., de Laveaga, A.E., LaGrange, C.A. et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery: comparison of surgical port performance in a surgical simulator with novices. Surg Endosc 25, 2210–2218 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1524-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1524-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation