Cargando…
SILS Sigmoidectomy Versus Multiport Laparoscopic Sigmoidectomy for Diverticulitis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In this single-institution study, we aimed to compare the safety, feasibility, and outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (SILSS) with multiport laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (MLS) for recurrent diverticulitis. METHODS: Between October 2011 and February 2013,...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4154429/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25392639 http://dx.doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2014.00319 |
_version_ | 1782333418833444864 |
---|---|
author | D'Hondt, Mathieu Pottel, Hans Devriendt, Dirk Van Rooy, Frank Vansteenkiste, Franky Van Ooteghem, Barbara De Corte, Wouter |
author_facet | D'Hondt, Mathieu Pottel, Hans Devriendt, Dirk Van Rooy, Frank Vansteenkiste, Franky Van Ooteghem, Barbara De Corte, Wouter |
author_sort | D'Hondt, Mathieu |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In this single-institution study, we aimed to compare the safety, feasibility, and outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (SILSS) with multiport laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (MLS) for recurrent diverticulitis. METHODS: Between October 2011 and February 2013, 60 sigmoidectomies were performed by the same surgeon. Forty patients had a MLS and 20 patients had a SILSS. Outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were similar. There was no difference in morbidity, mortality or readmission rates. The mean operative time was longer in the SILSS group (P = .0012). In a larger proportion of patients from the SILSS group, 2 linear staplers were needed for transection at the rectum (P = .006). The total cost of disposable items was higher in the SILSS group (P < .0001). No additional ports were placed in the SILSS group. Return to bowel function or return to oral intake was faster in the SILSS group (P = .0446 and P = .0137, respectively). Maximum pain scores on postoperative days 1 and 2 were significantly less for the SILSS group (P = .0014 and P = .047, respectively). Hospital stay was borderline statistically shorter in the SILSS group (P = .0053). SILSS was also associated with better cosmesis (P < .0011). CONCLUSION: SILSS is feasible and safe and is associated with earlier recovery of bowel function, a significant reduction in postoperative pain, and better cosmesis. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4154429 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-41544292014-09-08 SILS Sigmoidectomy Versus Multiport Laparoscopic Sigmoidectomy for Diverticulitis D'Hondt, Mathieu Pottel, Hans Devriendt, Dirk Van Rooy, Frank Vansteenkiste, Franky Van Ooteghem, Barbara De Corte, Wouter JSLS Scientific Papers BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In this single-institution study, we aimed to compare the safety, feasibility, and outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (SILSS) with multiport laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (MLS) for recurrent diverticulitis. METHODS: Between October 2011 and February 2013, 60 sigmoidectomies were performed by the same surgeon. Forty patients had a MLS and 20 patients had a SILSS. Outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were similar. There was no difference in morbidity, mortality or readmission rates. The mean operative time was longer in the SILSS group (P = .0012). In a larger proportion of patients from the SILSS group, 2 linear staplers were needed for transection at the rectum (P = .006). The total cost of disposable items was higher in the SILSS group (P < .0001). No additional ports were placed in the SILSS group. Return to bowel function or return to oral intake was faster in the SILSS group (P = .0446 and P = .0137, respectively). Maximum pain scores on postoperative days 1 and 2 were significantly less for the SILSS group (P = .0014 and P = .047, respectively). Hospital stay was borderline statistically shorter in the SILSS group (P = .0053). SILSS was also associated with better cosmesis (P < .0011). CONCLUSION: SILSS is feasible and safe and is associated with earlier recovery of bowel function, a significant reduction in postoperative pain, and better cosmesis. Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC4154429/ /pubmed/25392639 http://dx.doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2014.00319 Text en © 2014 by JSLS, Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/), which permits for noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not altered in any way. |
spellingShingle | Scientific Papers D'Hondt, Mathieu Pottel, Hans Devriendt, Dirk Van Rooy, Frank Vansteenkiste, Franky Van Ooteghem, Barbara De Corte, Wouter SILS Sigmoidectomy Versus Multiport Laparoscopic Sigmoidectomy for Diverticulitis |
title | SILS Sigmoidectomy Versus Multiport Laparoscopic Sigmoidectomy for Diverticulitis |
title_full | SILS Sigmoidectomy Versus Multiport Laparoscopic Sigmoidectomy for Diverticulitis |
title_fullStr | SILS Sigmoidectomy Versus Multiport Laparoscopic Sigmoidectomy for Diverticulitis |
title_full_unstemmed | SILS Sigmoidectomy Versus Multiport Laparoscopic Sigmoidectomy for Diverticulitis |
title_short | SILS Sigmoidectomy Versus Multiport Laparoscopic Sigmoidectomy for Diverticulitis |
title_sort | sils sigmoidectomy versus multiport laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis |
topic | Scientific Papers |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4154429/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25392639 http://dx.doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2014.00319 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dhondtmathieu silssigmoidectomyversusmultiportlaparoscopicsigmoidectomyfordiverticulitis AT pottelhans silssigmoidectomyversusmultiportlaparoscopicsigmoidectomyfordiverticulitis AT devriendtdirk silssigmoidectomyversusmultiportlaparoscopicsigmoidectomyfordiverticulitis AT vanrooyfrank silssigmoidectomyversusmultiportlaparoscopicsigmoidectomyfordiverticulitis AT vansteenkistefranky silssigmoidectomyversusmultiportlaparoscopicsigmoidectomyfordiverticulitis AT vanooteghembarbara silssigmoidectomyversusmultiportlaparoscopicsigmoidectomyfordiverticulitis AT decortewouter silssigmoidectomyversusmultiportlaparoscopicsigmoidectomyfordiverticulitis |