BackgroundLaparoscopic surgery changed the management of numerous surgical conditions. It was associated with many advantages over open surgery, such as decreased postoperative pain, faster recovery, shorter hospital stay and excellent cosmesis. Since two decades single-incision endoscopic surgery (SIES) was introduced to the surgical community. SIES could possibly result in even better postoperative outcomes than multi-port laparoscopic surgery, especially concerning cosmetic outcomes and pain. However, the single-incision surgical procedure is associated with quite some challenges.MethodsAn expert panel of surgeons has been selected and invited to participate in the preparation of the material for a consensus meeting on the topic SIES, which was held during the EAES congress in Frankfurt, June 16, 2017. The material presented during the consensus meeting was based on evidence identified through a systematic search of literature according to a pre-specified protocol. Three main topics with respect to SIES have been identified by the panel: (1) General, (2) Organ specific, (3) New development. Within each of these topics, subcategories have been defined. Evidence was graded according to the Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Recommendations were made according to the GRADE criteria.ResultsIn general, there is a lack of high level evidence and a lack of long-term follow-up in the field of single-incision endoscopic surgery. In selected patients, the single-incision approach seems to be safe and effective in terms of perioperative morbidity. Satisfaction with cosmesis has been established to be the main advantage of the single-incision approach. Less pain after single-incision approach compared to conventional laparoscopy seems to be considered an advantage, although it has not been consistently demonstrated across studies.ConclusionsConsidering the increased direct costs (devices, instruments and operating time) of the SIES procedure and the prolonged learning curve, wider acceptance of the procedure should be supported only after demonstration of clear benefits.

BACKGROUND:The aim of this study was to establish the incidence of postoperative complications after single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.MATERIALS AND METHODS:A literature search was performed using the PubMed database. Search terms included single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, single port cholecystectomy, minimal invasive laparoscopic cholecystectomy, nearly scarless cholecystectomy and complications.RESULTS:A total of 38 articles meeting the selection criteria were reviewed. A total of 1180 patients were selected to undergo single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Introduction of extra ports was necessary in 4% of the patients. Conversion to open cholecystectomy was required in 0.4% of the patients. Laparoscopic cholangiography was attempted in 4% of the patients. The incidence of major complications requiring surgical intervention or ERCP with stenting was 1.7%. The mortality rate was zero.CONCLUSION:Although the number of complications after single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy seems favourable, it is too early to conclude that single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a safe procedure. Large randomised controlled trials will be necessary to further establish its safety.

BackgroundSingle-incision laparoscopy is a step forward toward nearly scarless surgery. Concern has been raised that single-incision laparoscopy is technically more challenging than conventional laparoscopy. This study researched the performance curves of novice trainees for single-incision laparoscopy (SILS) versus conventional laparoscopy for performing two basic tasks on a box trainer.MethodsIn this study, 20 novice participants performed two tasks (peg transfer and a dissection task) on a standard box trainer. All the participants practiced each task 11 times and were randomized in two groups. The first group performed the tasks on a box trainer through three incisions. The second group used a single-incision access with the same box trainer. The assessment scores for errors and time were recorded. The 2nd, 8th, and 11th runs of both tasks in both settings were assessed to objectify the gain in basic laparoscopic skills.ResultsThe performance curves for both groups improved significantly in terms of both time and errors in performing the two tasks [P < 0.01, analysis of variance (ANOVA)]. For the first task, no significant difference in time between the two groups was observed at the top of the performance curve (mean, 212 ± 64 vs. 182 ± 48 s), but the SILS group performed with fewer errors (1.3 ± 1.5 vs. 2.7 ± 2.11). However, the difference was not significant (P = 0.10). The dissection task was performed faster in the SILS group (mean, 205 ± 78 vs. 243 ± 40 s; P = 0, 18) with fewer errors (0.7 ± 1.05 vs. 1.9 ± 2.1; P = 0. 12), but the difference was not significant.ConclusionThis study showed a significant improvement in basic skills for both the SILS and conventional laparoscopy settings after 11 repetitions. These data suggest that box training shows no significant difference between conventional laparoscopic and single-incision laparoscopic settings in terms of error or time in performing basic tasks at a low complexity level for the novice. These data also show significant improvement in basic skills over a relatively short period.

BackgroundSingle-port access (SPA) surgery is a novel surgical technique to create nearly “scarless” surgery. SPA surgery appears to be safe and feasible, but the exposure and handling of tissue may not be optimal. Therefore, the performance of SPA surgery with different instruments used and conventional laparoscopy is compared.MethodsFifteen participants (>50 laparoscopic procedures) performed three basic tasks (translocation, clip & cut, and tissue dissection, based on the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery) in the box trainer in laparoscopy and SPA settings with both (conventional) crossed and curved instruments. All participants completed a questionnaire, which asked their opinion on the use of instruments and preference.ResultsTranslocation was performed significantly faster in both laparoscopy and SPA crossed than SPA curved (means, 130.3 and 137.7 vs. 170.7 sec; p < 0.001 and p = 0.005). The errors also were less in laparoscopy and SPA crossed (means, 0.9 and 1.2 vs. 1.6), but not significant. The time to complete the dissection was almost equal between laparoscopy and SPA curved settings, but took longer for SPA crossed, although not significantly (148.1 and 150.8 vs. 179.5 sec). The errors only differed significantly between laparoscopy and SPA crossed (means, 0.5 vs. 1.27; p = 0.044). Fourteen participants still favored conventional laparoscopy and one SPA curved. They also thought SPA curved was better than crossed (means, 3.6 vs. 2.47; p = 0.003) and that exposure is superior in curved (means, 3.4 vs. 2.27; p = 0.002).ConclusionsAlthough conventional laparoscopy may appear most effective for proper dissection and exposure of tissue, single-port access surgery shows potential. Especially in the tissue dissection task, there is no significant difference in time or errors between conventional laparoscopy and SPA surgery, using specially designed curved instruments. Although the participants favor conventional laparoscopy, this could evolve to a more accepting mind when SPA surgery becomes more available and used in the clinical setting.

A case of gallstone ileus of the colon with illustrative pictures is presented, making the physicians more aware of this rare entity. Furthermore, the use of imaging modalities for diagnosis and decision making in management strategy is discussed.