Abstract
BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has gained worldwide acceptance as a minimally invasive technique in colorectal procedures since its introduction in 2008. However, case series on its feasibility and safety in Saudi Arabia are lacking.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the operative results and clinical outcome of single-port laparoscopic procedures in colorectal surgeries.
DESIGN: Retrospective.
SETTING: This study was conducted at King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Demographic and clinical data, including pathology, and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, were prospectively collected in patients undergoing SILS. This study was conducted during the period from January 2010 and October 2014.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing SILS colectomies.
RESULTS: Thirty-three (33) patients underwent SILS. The mean (SD) age was 51 years (18.2 years), and the average body mass index was 26.6 (6.9) kg/m(2). Patients were primarily diagnosed with cancer (n=20/33, 61%), inflammatory bowel disease (n=12/33, 36%) and diverticulitis (n=1/33, 3%). Procedures included anterior resection (n=9/33, 27%), ileocecal resection (n=8/33 24%), hemicolectomy (n=7/33, 21%), extended right hemicolectomy (n=5/33, 15%) and total colectomy (n=4/33, 12%). The mean SD operative time was 212 minutes (76.4 minutes). The mean SD size of the extraction incision was 4.2 (1.7) cm. Six percent of the cases were converted to open (n=2/33), and 9% required placement of an extra port (n=3/33). Four (12%) patients had intraoperative complications, and 30% experienced postoperative complications. The average length of hospital stay was 6.4 (4.3) days.
CONCLUSIONS: SILS is technically feasible and safe for patients undergoing colorectal surgery with no unusual complications. However, comparative studies are necessary to validate the potential benefits of SILS over conventional colorectal laparoscopic surgery.
LIMITATIONS: The study lacked a comparison to conventional open procedures. Additionally, some evaluation criteria were not considered, including cosmesis, pain control, patient satisfaction and cost effectiveness.