Comparison of postoperative pain after needle grasper-assisted single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial (PANASILA trial)
- PMID: 34934762
- PMCID: PMC8651985
- DOI: 10.4174/astr.2021.101.6.350
Comparison of postoperative pain after needle grasper-assisted single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial (PANASILA trial)
Abstract
Purpose: This study was performed to compare the efficacies of newly developed needle grasper-assisted (Endo Relief) single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (NASILA) and single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA).
Methods: This study enrolled 110 patients with acute appendicitis without periappendiceal abscess, diagnosed using computed tomography, who were randomized to the SILA (n = 54) and NASILA groups (n = 56) between December 2017 and August 2018 (6 patients withdrawn). The NASILA technique entailed a small umbilical incision for the glove port (equivalent to that for a 12-mm trocar), and a 2.5-mm suprapubic incision for the needle grasper.
Results: The SILA and NASILA groups included 49 (male, 61.2%) and 55 (male, 54.5%) patients, respectively. Age, body mass index, abdominal surgical history, symptom duration, and use of patient-controlled analgesia did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. The main wound size was significantly smaller in the NASILA group than in the SILA group (1.8 ± 0.4 cm vs. 2.2 ± 0.4 cm, P < 0.001). The operative time and estimated blood loss did not differ significantly between both groups. The immediate postoperative pain score, i.e., the primary endpoint, was significantly lower in the NASILA group than in the SILA group (2.33 ± 0.98 vs. 2.82 ± 1.29, P = 0.031). The complaints for scar status 1 month postoperatively did not differ significantly between the groups.
Conclusion: NASILA could attenuate postoperative pain by minimizing the size of the surgical wound; further, NASILA may not be inferior to SILA in terms of cosmetic results.
Keywords: Appendectomy; Laparoscopy; Surgical instruments; Surgical wound.
Copyright © 2021, the Korean Surgical Society.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of Interest: Jong Won Kim received research funding from Meditech Inframed. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Figures





References
-
- Körner H, Söndenaa K, Söreide JA, Andersen E, Nysted A, Lende TH, et al. Incidence of acute nonperforated and perforated appendicitis: age-specific and sex-specific analysis. World J Surg. 1997;21:313–317. - PubMed
-
- Semm K. Endoscopic appendectomy. Endoscopy. 1983;15:59–64. - PubMed
-
- Pelosi MA, Pelosi MA., 3rd Laparoscopic appendectomy using a single umbilical puncture (minilaparoscopy) J Reprod Med. 1992;37:588–594. - PubMed
-
- Park JH, Hyun KH, Park CH, Choi SY, Choi WH, Kim DJ, et al. Laparoscopic vs transumbilical single-port laparoscopic appendectomy: results of prospective randomized trial. J Korean Surg Soc. 2010;78:213–218.
-
- Carter JT, Kaplan JA, Nguyen JN, Lin MY, Rogers SJ, Harris HW. A prospective, randomized controlled trial of single-incision laparoscopic vs conventional 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy for treatment of acute appendicitis. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218:950–959. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources