Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010:2010:913216.
doi: 10.1155/2010/913216. Epub 2010 May 30.

Single incision laparoscopic colectomy: technical aspects, feasibility, and expected benefits

F Leblanc  1 , B J Champagne, K M Augestad, S L Stein, E Marderstein, H L Reynolds, C P Delaney
Affiliations

Single incision laparoscopic colectomy: technical aspects, feasibility, and expected benefits

F Leblanc et al. Diagn Ther Endosc. 2010.

Abstract

Background. This paper studied technical aspects and feasibility of single incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC). Methods. Bibliographic search was carried out up to October 2009 including original articles, case reports, and technical notes. Assessed criteria were techniques, operative time, scar length, conversion, complications, and hospitalization duration. Results. The review analyzed seventeen SILCs by seven surgical teams. A single port system was used by four teams. No team used the same laparoscope. Two teams used two laparoscopes. All teams used curved instruments. SILC time was 116 +/- 34 minutes. Final scar was longer than port incision (31 +/- 7 versus 24 +/- 8 mm; P = .036). No conversion was reported. The only complication was a bacteremia. Hospitalization was 5 +/- 2 days. Conclusion. SILC is feasible. A single incision around the umbilical scar represents cosmetic progress. Comparative studies are needed to assess potential abdominal wall and recovery benefits to justify the increased cost of SILC.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Single incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery: studies selection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Single port systems used in the studies selected. (a) SILS Port (Covidien, Norwalk, Connecticut, USA); (b) ASC Triport (Advanced Surgical Concepts, Wicklow, Ireland); (c) Uni-X (Pnavel Systems, Morganville, New Jersey, USA); (d) GelPort (Applied Medical, Rancho Santa Margarita, California, USA).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bonjer HJ, Hop WCJ, Nelson H, et al. Laparoscopically assisted vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a meta-analysis. Archives of Surgery. 2007;142(3):298–303. - PubMed
    1. Laurent C, Leblanc F, Wütrich P, Scheffler M, Rullier E. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: long-term oncologic results. Annals of Surgery. 2009;250(1):54–61. - PubMed
    1. Nelson H, Sargent DJ, Wieand HS, et al. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2004;350(20):2050–2059. - PubMed
    1. Laurent C, Leblanc F, Bretagnol F, Capdepont M, Rullier E. Long-term wound advantages of the laparoscopic approach in rectal cancer. British Journal of Surgery. 2008;95(7):903–908. - PubMed
    1. Remzi FH, Kirat HT, Kaouk JH, Geisler DP. Single-port laparoscopy in colorectal surgery. Colorectal Disease. 2008;10(8):823–826. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources