KEY TAKEAWAYS
- The study used a systematic review to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of SILS + 1 and CLS for colorectal cancer.
- The study concluded that SILS + 1 is superior in incision length and postoperative recovery, offering a viable CLS alternative.
The effectiveness of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1) compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for treating colorectal cancer is still uncertain.
Jian Kong and the team aimed to conduct a thorough systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the short-term and long-term outcomes of SILS + 1 and CLS.
The study searched the literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were queried until December 10, 2023. Statistical analysis employed RevMan and Stata.
The review and meta-analysis included 7 studies involving 1740 patients with colorectal cancer. Compared to CLS, SILS + 1 exhibited significant enhancements in operation time (WMD = -18.33, P < 0.00001), blood loss (WMD = -21.31, P< 0.00001), incision length (WMD = -2.07, P< 0.00001), time to first defecation (WMD = -14.91, P= 0.009), time to oral intake (WMD = -11.46, P= 0.04), and time to ambulation (WMD = -11.52, P= 0.01).
No notable disparities were found in lymph node harvest, resection margins, complications, anastomotic leakage, hospital stay, disease-free survival, overall survival, and postoperative recurrence.
The study concluded that SILS + 1 offers advantages over CLS by reducing surgical incision length and enhancing postoperative recovery, providing a viable alternative.
Funding was received by the National Nature Science Foundation of China.
Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38684561/
Kong J, Wu MQ, Yan S, et al. (2024) “Single-incision plus one-port laparoscopy surgery versus conventional multi-port laparoscopy surgery for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Int J Colorectal Dis. 2024 Apr 29;39(1):62. doi: 10.1007/s00384-024-04630-x. PMID: 38684561.
