Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
World Journal of Surgical Oncology
Published in: World Journal of Surgical Oncology 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research

Two-port laparoscopic anterior resection through a self-made glove device versus conventional laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparison of short-term surgical results

Authors: Hong Zhang, Yunzhi Ling, Jinchun Cong, Mingming Cui, Dingsheng Liu, Chunsheng Chen

Published in: World Journal of Surgical Oncology | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The laparoscopic approach has become increasingly incorporated into the development of new surgical procedures. An ever-increasing number of surgeons desire methods that minimize surgical trauma and provide improved cosmetic outcomes. Since 2014, we have performed two-port laparoscopic surgery using a transumbilical multichannel glove port and a 12-mm port. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term surgical results of two-port laparoscopic anterior resection (TPLAR) with those of conventional laparoscopic anterior resection (CLAR) for rectal cancer.

Methods

Between January 2014 and May 2014, a total of 27 patients underwent TPLAR and 30 patients underwent CLAR for the treatment of rectal cancer. The short-term surgical results of these two groups of patients were analyzed retrospectively.

Results

The differences in operative time, blood loss, conversion rate, complication rate, distal resection margin, number of harvested lymph nodes, duration until ambulation, duration until first flatus, length of postoperative hospital stay, and overall hospital costs between the two groups were not significant. The median (range) length of the abdominal incisions of the TPLAR patients was shorter than the length of the CLAR patients (5.1 (4.5–16.3) cm vs 8.2 (7.0–10.0) cm, respectively; p < 0.001). The respective median (range) postoperative pain scores were lower in the TPLAR than in the CLAR patients at 24 h (4 (1–6) h vs 5 (2–8) h; p = 0.045), 48 h (3 (1–4) h vs 4 (range 1–8) h; P = 0.004) and 72 h (1 (0–3) h vs 2 (1–5) h; p = 0.010). The median overall score on the satisfaction-with-abdominal-incision questionnaire of the TPLAR patients was significantly higher (better) than the score of the CLAR patients.

Conclusions

TPLAR for rectal cancer is safe and feasible, with short-term perioperative and oncological outcomes similar to those of CLAR. TPLAR provides less postoperative pain and better cosmetic outcomes.
Literature
1.
Ohtani H, Tamamori Y, Arimoto Y, Nishiguchi Y, Maeda K, Hirakawa K. Meta-analysis of the results of randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopic and open surgery for acute appendicitis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16(10):1929–39.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Cai JQ, Chen K, Mou YP, Pan Y, Xu XW, Zhou YC, Huang CJ. Laparoscopic versus open wedge resection for gastrointestinal stromal tumors of the stomach: a single-center 8-year retrospective cohort study of 156 patients with long-term follow-up. BMC Surg. 2015;15:58.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Coccolini F, Catena F, Pisano M, Gheza F, Fagiuoli S, Di Saverio S, Leandro G, Montori G, Ceresoli M, Corbella D, Sartelli M, Sugrue M, Ansaloni L. Open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2015;18:196–204.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Enes H, Semir I, Sefik H, Husnija M, Goran I. Postoperative pain in open vs. laparoscopic cholecystectomy with and without local application of anaesthetic. Med Glas (Zenica). 2011;8(2):243–8.
5.
Leake PA, Pitzul K, Roberts PO, Plummer JM. Comparative analysis of open and laparoscopic colectomy for malignancy in a developing country. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;5(11):294–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA, Cuesta MA, van der Pas MH, de Lange-de Klerk ES, Lacy AM, Bemelman WA, Andersson J, Angenete E, Rosenberg J, Fuerst A, Haglind E, COLOR II Study Group. A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(14):1324–32.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Desiderio J, Trastulli S, Ricci F, Penzo J, Cirocchi R, Farinacci F, Boselli C, Noya G, Redler A, Santoro A, Parisi A. Laparoscopic versus open left colectomy in patients with sigmoid colon cancer: prospective cohort study with long-term follow-up. Int J Surg. 2014;12(8):745–50.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zhou ZX, Zhao LY, Lin T, Liu H, Deng HJ, Zhu HL, Yan J, Li GX. Long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic vs open surgery for stages II and III rectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21(18):5505–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
10.
Sourrouille I, Dumont F, Goéré D, Honoré C, Elias D. Resection of rectal cancer via an abdominal single-port access: short-term results and comparison with standard laparoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(11):1203–10.PubMed
11.
Tei M, Wakasugi M, Akamatsu H. Comparison of short-term surgical results of single-port and multi-port laparoscopic rectal resection for rectal cancer. Am J Surg. 2015;S0002-9610(15):00140–3.
12.
Ma CC, Li P, Wang LH, Xia ZY, Wu SW, Wang SJ, Lu CM. The value of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a systematic literature review. Hepatogastroenterology. 2015;62(137):45–50.PubMed
13.
Makino T, Milsom JW, Lee SW. Feasibility and safety of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2012;255(4):667–76.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Adair J, Gromski MA, Lim RB, Nagle D. Single-incision laparoscopic right colectomy: experience with 17 consecutive cases and comparison with multiport laparoscopic right colectomy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53(11):1549–54.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Lim SW, Kim HR, Kim YJ. Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy for colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional laparoscopic colectomy. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2014;87(3):131–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Bae SU, Baek SJ, Min BS, Baik SH, Kim NK, Hur H. Reduced-port laparoscopic surgery for a tumor-specific mesorectal excision in patients with colorectal cancer: initial experience with 20 consecutive cases. Ann Coloproctol. 2015;31(1):16–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Lim SW, Kim HJ, Kim CH, Huh JW, Kim YJ, Kim HR. Umbilical incision laparoscopic colectomy with one additional port for colorectal cancer. Tech Coloproctol. 2013;17(2):193–9.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Kawamata F, Homma S, Minagawa N, Kawamura H, Takahashi N, Taketomi A. Comparison of single-incision plus one additional port laparoscopy-assisted anterior resection with conventional laparoscopy-assisted anterior resection for rectal cancer. World J Surg. 2014;38(10):2716–23.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Hu J, Li Y, Xiang M, Zhao R. Clinical study of reduced-port laparoscopy-assisted resection for cancer at the sigmoid colon and upper rectum. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2014;17(12):1212–5.PubMed
20.
Kawahara H, Watanabe K, Ushigome T, Noaki R, Kobayashi S, Yanaga K. Umbilical incision laparoscopic surgery with one assist port for anterior resection. Dig Surg. 2010;27(5):364–6.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Ismail E, Akyol C, Basceken SI, Tantoglu U, Kayılıoglu I, Cakmak A. Glove port single-incision laparoscopic splenectomy and the treatment of its complications. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2012;67(12):1519–21.CrossRef
22.
Lee J, Lee SR, Kim HO, Son BH, Choi W. Outcomes of a single-port laparoscopic appendectomy using a glove port with a percutaneous organ-holding device and commercially-available multichannel single-port device. Ann Coloproctol. 2014;30(1):42–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Choi SH, Hwang HK, Kang CM, Lee WJ. Transumbilical single port laparoscopic adrenalectomy: a technical report on right and left adrenalectomy using the glove port. Yonsei Med J. 2012;53(2):442–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
25.
Yi SW, Park HM, Lee SS, Park SM, Lee HM, Sohn WS. Two-port total laparoscopic hysterectomy with a multichannel port. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2009;19(2):223–8.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Orozakunov E, Akyol C, Tantoglu U, Basceken SI, Kayilioglu IS, Bumin CS, Cakmak A. Surgical glove-port single-incision laparoscopic gastric wedge resection of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: initial experience with 2 cases. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2013;23(4):e160–1.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Wolthuis AM, Penninckx F, Fieuws S, D'Hoore A. Outcomes for case-matched single-port colectomy are comparable with conventional laparoscopic colectomy. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14(5):634–41.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Pedraza R, Aminian A, Nieto J, Faraj C, Pickron TB, Haas EM. Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy for cancer: short-term outcomes and comparative analysis. Minim Invasive Surg. 2013;2013:283438.PubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Bulut O, Aslak KK, Levic K, Nielsen CB, Rømer E, Sørensen S, Christensen IJ, Nielsen HJ. A randomized pilot study on single-port versus conventional laparoscopic rectal surgery: effects on postoperative pain and the stress response to surgery. Tech Coloproctol. 2015;19(1):11–22.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Poon JT, Cheung CW, Fan JK, Lo OS, Law WL. Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic colectomy for colonic neoplasm: a randomized, controlled trial. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(10):2729–34.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Arrigoni SC, Halbersma WB, Grandjean JG, Mariani MA. Patients' satisfaction and wound-site complications after radial artery harvesting for coronary artery bypass. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2012;14(3):324–6.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Nygren J, Thacker J, Carli F, Fearon KC, Norderval S, Lobo DN, Ljungqvist O, Soop M, Ramirez J, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society, for Perioperative Care, European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN), International Association for Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition (IASMEN). Guidelines for perioperative care in elective rectal/pelvic surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS(®)) Society recommendations. World J Surg. 2013;37(2):285–305.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Jesus EC, Karliczek A, Matos D, Castro AA, Atallah AN. Prophylactic anastomotic drainage for colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;4:CD002100.
Metadata
Title
Two-port laparoscopic anterior resection through a self-made glove device versus conventional laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparison of short-term surgical results
Authors
Hong Zhang
Yunzhi Ling
Jinchun Cong
Mingming Cui
Dingsheng Liu
Chunsheng Chen
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7819
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-016-1029-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

World Journal of Surgical Oncology 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research

The surgical strategy for eosinophilic granuloma of the pediatric cervical spine complicated with neurologic deficit and/or spinal instability

Research

Associations between BRAFV600E and prognostic factors and poor outcomes in papillary thyroid carcinoma: a meta-analysis

Research

Results of optimal debulking surgery with bowel resection in patients with advanced ovarian cancer

Research

Early identification of DPAM in at-risk low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm patients: a new approach to surveillance for peritoneal metastasis

Research

Study on the expression of PAK4 and P54 protein in breast cancer

Research

ALK-rearranged pulmonary adenocarcinoma in Thai Patients: From diagnosis to treatment efficacy