Reduced port laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is safe and feasible in terms of short-term outcomes: comparative study with conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery

Abstract

PurposeLaparoscopic surgery was previously accepted as an alternative surgical option in treatment for colorectal cancer. Nowadays, single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) is introduced as a method to maximize advantages of minimally invasive surgery. However, SPLS has several limitations compared to conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery (CMLS). To overcome those limitations of SPLS, reduced port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) was introduced. This study aimed at evaluating the short-term outcomes of RPLS.MethodsPatients who underwent CMLS and RPLS of colon cancer between August 2011 and December 2013 were included in this study. Short-term clinical and pathological outcome were compared between the 2 groups.ResultsThirty-two patients underwent RPLS and 217 patients underwent CMLS. Shorter operation time, less blood loss, and faster bowel movement were shown in RPLS group in this study. In terms of postoperative pain, numeric rating scale (NRS) of RPLS was lower than that of CMLS. Significant differences were shown in terms of tumor size, harvested lymph node, perineural invasion, and pathological stage. No significant differences were confirmed in terms of other surgical outcomes.ConclusionIn this study, RPLS was technically feasible and safe. Especially in terms of postoperative pain, RPLS was comparable to CMLS. RPLS may be a feasible alternative option in selected patients with colon cancer.

Comparison of the short-term outcomes of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery and conventional multiport surgery in colon cancer: a propensity score matching analysis

“…The additional port in RPS may provide several advantages over SPS, including the avoidance of internal and external collisions between instruments and the ability to achieve efficient traction [ 17 ]. Although several previous studies have reported the short-term outcomes of RPS for colon cancer [ 17 18 19 20 21 ], the feasibility of RPS for colon cancer remains unclear.…”

Three-Port Versus Five-Port Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Early Gastric Cancer Patients: A Propensity Score Matched Case-Control Study

“…The amount of intraoperative blood loss is considered as one of the parameters of intraoperative morbidity [19]. In this study, the estimated blood loss in the two groups was statistically different, but clinically not much different.…”

Reduced-port surgery for rectal cancer

“…RPS has become more feasible due to the accumulation of experience and improvement of laparoscopic tools, such as energy devices and specific forceps. Although they included relatively few patients with rectal cancer, four retrospective studies have compared RPS with CMLS for the treatment of this disease [27,[30][31][32] . The advantages of RPS over CMLS are summarized in Table 1.…”

“…Regarding short-term outcomes, the operation time is shorter for RPS than for CMLS [27,30,31] , possibly due to selection bias [30,31] or a decreased time to wound closure as a result of the fewer and smaller wounds created during RPS [30] .…”

“…RPS is less invasive than CMLS and results in shorter times to flatus passage, liquid diet consumption, and ambulation [27,31] . In addition, RPS leads to less postoperative pain and better cosmetic results than does CMLS because of the shorter total incision length [27,31] . Therefore, patients who undergo RPS have better postoperative outcomes.…”