• Tech Coloproctol · Apr 2013

    Umbilical incision laparoscopic colectomy with one additional port for colorectal cancer.

    • S Woo Lim, H Jin Kim, C Hyun Kim, J Wook Huh, Y Jin Kim, and H Rok Kim.
    • Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, 322 Seoyang-ro, Hwasun-eup, Gwangju, Hwasun-gun, Jeollanam-do, 519-763, South Korea.
    • Tech Coloproctol. 2013 Apr 1; 17 (2): 193-9.

    BackgroundRecently, laparoscopic colorectal surgery using a single incision usually made at the umbilical area has emerged as a tool to minimize the numbers of scars and provide better cosmetic results. But experience in laparoscopic skills is needed to maintain the oncologic principles of colorectal cancer surgery with the restricted operating field during the procedure. Adding an additional port to single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery (SILS) may be a bridge between conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery and SILS. The present study was undertaken to investigate whether umbilical incision laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery with one additional port (ULAP) could be performed in a similar manner to conventional multiport surgery.MethodsOne hundred and sixty-three patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma underwent laparoscopic colectomy between February 2011 and August 2011. Forty of these patients underwent ULAP and were compared with the other 123 patients who had conventional laparoscopic surgery. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were analyzed.ResultsBoth groups were similar in age (p = 0.438), gender (p = 0.818), body mass index (p = 0.149), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores (p = 0.417), history of previous abdominal operation (p = 0.503), and tumor location (p = 0.051). Operation time was longer in the ULAP group (255.5 min) than in the conventional laparoscopic surgery group (144.6 min) (p < 0.001). No significant differences were evident between groups for estimated blood loss (p = 0.263), transfusion requirements (p = 0.841), conversion to open procedures (p = 0.40), length of umbilical incisions (4.6 vs. 4.4 cm, p = 0.628), postoperative hospital stay (p = 0.862), tumor size (p = 0.455), number of harvested lymph nodes (p = 0.203), proximal margins (p = 0.189), and distal resection margins (p = 0.151). Postoperative morbidity (p = 0.736) was similar in both groups. There was no mortality postoperatively.ConclusionsUmbilical incision laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery with an additional port is a feasible and safe approach, although it is more time consuming than conventional laparoscopic colectomy.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,694,794 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.