Surgical endoscopy · 2021
Single-incision laparoscopic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery for appendiceal mucocele: a series of 116 patients.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kim Ho Seung, Kim Han-Gil, Yang Seung Yoon, Han Yoon Dae, Hur Hyuk, Min Byung Soh, Lee Kang Young, Kim Nam Kyu, Cho Min Soo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although the safety and feasibility of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for appendiceal mucocele (AM) has been reported, studies on single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for AM have not been reported. Here, we aimed to compare the perioperative and short-term outcomes between SILS and CLS for AM and to evaluate the oncological safety of SILS.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients, diagnosed based on computed tomography findings, who underwent laparoscopic surgery for AM between 2010 and 2018 at one institution. We excluded patients strongly suspected of having malignant lesions and those with preoperative appendiceal perforation. Patients were divided into two groups-CLS and SILS. Pathological outcomes and long-term results were investigated. The median follow-up period was 43.7 (range: 12.3-118.5) months.
RESULTS: Ultimately, 116 patients (CLS = 68, SILS = 48) were enrolled. Patient demographic characteristics did not differ between the groups. The preoperative mucocele diameter was greater in the CLS than in the SILS group (3.2 ± 2.9 cm vs. 2.3 ± 1.4 cm, P = 0.029). More extensive surgery (right hemicolectomies and ileocecectomies) was performed in the CLS than in the SILS group (P = 0.014). Intraoperative perforation developed in only one patient per group. For appendectomies and cecectomies, the CLS group exhibited a longer operation time than the SILS group (63.3 ± 24.5 min vs. 52.4 ± 17.3 min, P = 0.014); the same was noted for length of postoperative hospital stay (2.9 ± 1.8 days vs. 1.7 ± 0.6 days, P < 0.001). The most common AM etiology was low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (71/116 [61.2%] patients); none of the patients exhibited mucinous cystadenocarcinoma. Among these 71 patients, there were 8 patients with microscopic appendiceal perforation or positive resection margins. No recurrence was detected.
CONCLUSIONS: SILS for AM is feasible and safe perioperatively and in the short-term and yields favorable oncological outcomes. Despite the retrospective nature of the study, SILS may be suitable after careful selection of AM patients.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients, diagnosed based on computed tomography findings, who underwent laparoscopic surgery for AM between 2010 and 2018 at one institution. We excluded patients strongly suspected of having malignant lesions and those with preoperative appendiceal perforation. Patients were divided into two groups-CLS and SILS. Pathological outcomes and long-term results were investigated. The median follow-up period was 43.7 (range: 12.3-118.5) months.
RESULTS: Ultimately, 116 patients (CLS = 68, SILS = 48) were enrolled. Patient demographic characteristics did not differ between the groups. The preoperative mucocele diameter was greater in the CLS than in the SILS group (3.2 ± 2.9 cm vs. 2.3 ± 1.4 cm, P = 0.029). More extensive surgery (right hemicolectomies and ileocecectomies) was performed in the CLS than in the SILS group (P = 0.014). Intraoperative perforation developed in only one patient per group. For appendectomies and cecectomies, the CLS group exhibited a longer operation time than the SILS group (63.3 ± 24.5 min vs. 52.4 ± 17.3 min, P = 0.014); the same was noted for length of postoperative hospital stay (2.9 ± 1.8 days vs. 1.7 ± 0.6 days, P < 0.001). The most common AM etiology was low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (71/116 [61.2%] patients); none of the patients exhibited mucinous cystadenocarcinoma. Among these 71 patients, there were 8 patients with microscopic appendiceal perforation or positive resection margins. No recurrence was detected.
CONCLUSIONS: SILS for AM is feasible and safe perioperatively and in the short-term and yields favorable oncological outcomes. Despite the retrospective nature of the study, SILS may be suitable after careful selection of AM patients.