Advertisement

Systematic review of comparing single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for right colon cancer

  • Xin Liu
  • Wei-hong Yang
  • Zhou-guang Jiao
  • Ji-fu Zhang
  • Rui ZhangEmail author
Open Access
Research
  • 113 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (SILS) has long used in surgery for a long time. However, there is barely a systemic review related to the comparison between the SILS and the conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (CLS) for the right colon cancer in the long term follow-up. Herein, we used the most recent articles to compare these two techniques by meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Wanfang databases to compare SILS with CLS for right colon cancer up to May 2019. The operative, postoperative, pathological and mid-term follow-up outcomes of nine studies were extracted and compared.

Results

A total of 1356 patients participated in 9 studies, while 653 patients were assigned to the SILS group and 703 patients were assigned to the CLS group. The patients’ baselines in the SILS group were consistent with those in the CLS group. Compared to the CLS group, the SILS group had a shorter operation duration (SMD − 23.49, 95%CI − 36.71 to − 10.27, P < 0.001, chi-square = 24.11), shorter hospital stay (SMD − 0.76, 95% `CI − 1.07 to − 0.45, P < 0.001, chi-square = 9.85), less blood loss (SMD − 8.46, 95% CI − 14.59 to − 2.34; P < 0.05; chi-square = 2.26), smaller incision length (SMD − 1.60, 95% CI − 2.66 to − 0.55, P < 0.001; chi-square = 280.44), more lymph node harvested (SMD − 0.98, 95% CI − 1.79 to − 0.16, P < 0.05; chi-square = 4.61), and a longer proximal surgical edge (SMD − 0.51, 95% CI − 0.93 to − 0.09, P < 0.05; chi-square = 2.42). No significant difference was found in other indexes. After we removed a single large study, we performed another meta-analysis again. The operation duration in the SILS group was still better than that in the CLS group.

Conclusion

SILS could be a faster and more reliable approach than CLS for the right colon cancer and could accelerate patient recovery, especially for patients with a low BMI.

Keywords

Single incision Conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy Right colon cancer Meta-analysis 

Abbreviations

BMI

Body mass index

CLS

Conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy

DSE

Distal surgical edge

NRCT

Non-randomized comparative trial

OR

Odds ratios

OS

Overall survival

PSE

Proximal surgical edge

SILS

Single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy

SMD

Standardized mean difference

Background

Conventional laparoscopic colectomy was reported by Jacobs in 1991. This procedure became increasingly popular in the clinic. Conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (CLS) can decrease postoperative pain and accelerate patient recovery [1]. Additionally, laparoscopic trocar can cause severe trauma to the abdominal wall and hemorrhage at the port site. Single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (SILS) was invented by Remzi in 2008 [2]. A single incision can complete the operation and facilitate the removal of the specimen. According to the previous studies on SLIS and CLS, SILS has some advantages in safety and recovery [3, 4, 5]. However, there have been only two meta-analyses comparing SILS with CLS so far. These analyses were reported by Vettoretto et al. and Dong et al. in 2013 and 2018 respectively. Vettoretto et al. found no significant difference between the two techniques [6]. Dong et al. mainly focused on right colon diseases (including Crohn’s disease, polyp, and inflammation) and found that SILS had the advantages related to incision length, hospital stay and blood loss [7].

However, considering SILS and CLS, which surgical method is more suitable for the treatment of right colon cancer? Does SILS have more advantages than CLS in right colon cancer treatment? Could SILS replace CLS to treat right colon cancer? In this paper, we will focus on the right colon cancer and perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of SILS and CLS on patients with right colon cancer.

Methods

Literature search

We performed this study according to the PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis). The criteria for the guidelines included patients, intervention, comparator, outcomes and study design (PICOS). Population: patients with right colon cancer; Intervention: SILS or CLS; Comparator: clinical and pathological outcomes of two methods; Outcomes: clinical and long-term outcomes were expressed as the standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for continuous data and relative risks (ORs or RRs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous outcomes.

We systematically searched all the useful studies in PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library and Wanfang databases up to May 2019. The search terms are “single-incision” OR “single-site” OR “single-port” AND “colon cancer” OR “right colon cancer” AND “laparoscopic surgery”. The detail strategies from PubMed are shown in Additional file 1: Table S1.

According to our search strategy, we retained relevant literature and eliminated the duplicated records (Identification). After reading the titles and abstracts carefully, we removed the literature, which was inconsistent with our research (Screening). Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we removed the non-NRCT and obtained the final studies for our research (Eligibility). We tried our best to obtain the most comprehensive information of the related articles. We removed duplicated studies, and studies with no SILS, CLS or laparoscopic approaches, and only focused on the right colon cancer. Reviews, letters, meetings, case reports, and no clinical controlled studies were excluded.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The studies were reviewed carefully according to the criteria as follows. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) the outcomes between SILS and CLS for right hemicolectomy in right colon cancer were compared, (2) only studies written in English were collected, and (3) RCNTs (retrospective comparative non-randomized studies), PCNTs (prospective comparative non-randomized studies), and comparative observational (cohort and case-control) studies were collected.

The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) studies from the same center should be removed to avoid data duplication, (2) reports without a distinct group of right hemicolectomy in right colon diseases, or (3) the main outcomes were not clearly reported.

Data extraction and quality control

The literature was independently searched according to the rules of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) by two reviewers (XL and JXZ) independently [8]. The following data are shown in Table 1, including study characteristics (the first author, publication data, study area, study type, size, and study quality) and patient baselines (age, gender, BMI, previous abdominal surgery, clinical stage, and anastomosis type). The incision length in the CLS group was the sum of all incisions. A third reviewer resolved all disagreements about the articles until a consensus was reached. We contacted the authors of the included studies with incomplete data but did not receive any additional information.
Table 1

Characteristics of the included studies in the meta-analysis

Study

Year

Country

Study type

Patients (n)

Age

Sex (M/F)

NOS stars

SILS/CLS

SILS/CLS

SILS/CLS

 

 Curro [9]

2012

Italy

R

10/10

60/59

4/6

3/7

6

 Yun [10]

2013

Korea

R

66/93

61/59

33/33

58/35

7

Takemasa [11]

2014

Japan

P

69/69

65/66

31/38

36/33

7

 Suzuki [12]

2016

Japan

R

35/35

68/69

21/14

14/21

7

 Yu [13]

2016

Korea

P

38/92

63/65

21/19

45/47

8

Tokudka [14]

2016

Japan

R

27/36

77/77

16/11

15/21

6

 Chouillard [15]

2016

France

R

336/256

61/65

160//176

128/128

8

 Kim [16]

2017

Korea

R

40/80

66/63

22/28

50/30

7

 Song [17]

2018

China

R

32/32

59/65

16/16

16/16

7

Study

BMI

Previous abdominal surgery (n)

Clinical stage

Anastomosis type

SILS/CLS

SILS/CLS

SILS (I/II/III/IV)

CLS (I/II/III/IV)

 

 Curro [9]

25/26

2/3

NR

NR

End to end

 Yun [10]

23.8/24.2

13/23

22/24/20/0

32/31/30/0

NR

 Takemasa [11]

21.5/22.2

16/19

32/23/14/0

31/21/17/0

End to end

 Suzuki [12]

26.2/25.0

14/12

7/12/16/0

8/10/17/0

NR

 Yu [13]

24.6/24.3

8/31

NR

NR

NR

 Tokudka [14]

23.1/21.9

7/9

NR

NR

End to end

 Chouillard [15]

27/26.2

56/56

NR

NR

End to side

 Kim [16]

23.5/23.4

9/19

17/14/9/0

34/30/16/0

End to side

 Song [17]

22.7/22.8

11/9

9/13/10/0

8/14/10/0

End to side

F female, M male, NR No record, R retrospective nonrandomized controlled trials, P prospective comparative nonrandomized trial, SILS single-port laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, CLS conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, NOS stars modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale

Statistical analysis

We used Revman 5.0 and Stata 11.0 to perform a meta-analysis by the standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for continuous data and relative risks (ORs or RRs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous outcomes. The statistical heterogeneity was estimated by I2 statistic and chi-square test. Begg’s test and funnel plots were used to evaluate publication bias. When I2 > 50% and Begg’s test and the funnel plots indicated publication bias, random effects models were used. When I2 < 50% and the funnel plot and Begg’s test showed no publication bias, a fixed effects model was used. P < 0.05 indicated significant differences. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to decrease the impact of a single study.

Results

Study selection

We found 5637 related publications related to SILS and CLS from the database and deleted 3665 duplicated records. After we reviewed over all the titles and abstracts carefully, 1833 studies were deleted due to no SILS, CLS, or right colon cancer. Finally, a total of 1356 patients with right colon cancer in 9 English studies were included [9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17] (Fig. 1). The SILS group had 653 patients and the CLS group had 703 patients (Table 1). There was no significant difference in the baseline characteristics of patients (age, gender, BMI, ratio of pervious surgery, and clinical stage) of the patients.
Fig. 1

Flowchart of the included studies

Quality assessment results

The quality was estimated according to the modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). The study quality was low for 1 < scores ≤ 3, moderate for 4 < scores ≤ 6, and high for 7 ≤ scores ≤ 9. Seven studies had achieved scores of 7 to 8 with high quality, while other studies had moderate quality. The included NRCTs all had moderate- to high-grade quality, and the specific scores are shown in Table 1. This study only included two prospective clinical trials. We did not find any RCTs related to this study after searching many studies.

Operative data

Operation duration, blood loss, and incision length

Six studies reported complete data on operation duration. SILS was associated with significantly less operation time than CLS in the random effects model (SMD − 23.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] − 36.71 to − 10.27, P < 0.001, chi-square = 24.11, P < 0.001, I2 = 79.8%, Fig. 2a).
Fig. 2

Forest plot of operative outcomes: a operation time, b blood loss, c incision length, d postoperative complication, e postoperative complication (C-D grade)

Depending on the available data from four studies, SILS had less blood loss than CLS without significant heterogeneity in the fixed effects model (SMD − 8.46, 95% CI − 14.59 to − 2.34; P < 0.05; chi-square = 2.26, P = 0.5, I2 = 0%, Fig. 2b) (Table 2).
Table 2

Comparison of operative data between SILS and CLS for the included studies

Study

Operation time (min)

Blood loss (ml)

Incision length (cm)

Complication

Complication (C-D grade)

SILS

CLS

SILS

CLS

SILS

CLS

SILS

CLS

SILS

CLS

Curro [9]

170

160

35

50

4.3

4.5

2

1

NR

NR

Yun [10]

155 ± 45

174 ± 56

NR

NR

NR

NR

6

14

0

2

Takemasa [11]

168 ± 32

179 ± 32

41 ± 32

46 ± 33

2.7 ± 0.6

3.2 ± 1.2

9

13

NR

NR

Suzuki [12]

167

162

26

23

4

4.5

4

5

NR

NR

Yu [13]

207.2 ± 49.6

243.5 ± 59.0

128.5 ± 85.1

162.8 ± 56.5

4.0 ± 0.6

4.6 ± 0.9

0

2

NR

NR

Tokudka [14]

217.3 ± 59.9

221.3 ± 69.3

134.1 ± 218.7

105.6 ± 188.7

NR

NR

2

4

NR

NR

Chouillard [15]

129.0 ± 31.8

168.1 ± 48.3

84.9 ± 69.0

98.3 ± 47.2

2.9 ± 0.63

4.9 ± 0.6

72

64

16

12

Kim [16]

195.9 ± 50.5

218.3 ± 68.0

75

50

4.0 ± 0.8

7.3 ± 0.4

7

15

NR

NR

Song [17]

175

145

65

100

4

7

2

5

1

1

SILS single-port laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, CLS conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, NR no record

SILS had a shorter incision length than CLS in the random effects model with high heterogeneity (SMD − 1.60, 95% CI − 2.66 to − 0.55, P < 0.001; chi-square = 280.44, P < 0.001, I2 = 99%; Fig. 2c).

Postoperative complication and postoperative complication (C-D grade)

All included studies reported postoperative complication and three studies reported postoperative complication (C-D grade). There was no significant difference in postoperative complication (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.02, P = 0.07; chi-square = 2.27, P = 0.97, I2 = 0%, Fig. 2d) or postoperative complication (C-D grade) (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.97, P = 0.92; chi-square = 0.23, P = 0.89, I2 = 0%, Fig. 2e) without statistical heterogeneity. The subgroup analysis revealed that postoperative complication was not associated with BMI.

Postoperative data

Conversion rates and hospital stay

Seven studies reported the conversion rate and showed that SILS had a similar conversion rate as CLS (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.80, P = 0.08; chi-square = 9.01, P = 0.17, I2 = 33%, Fig. 3a). A fixed effects model was used without significant heterogeneity. When BMI > 25, SILS had a higher conversion rate than that of CLS without statistical heterogeneity (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.87, P = 0.005; chi-square = 1.15, P = 0. 28, I2 = 13%, Fig. 3a) (Table 3).
Fig. 3

Forest plot of recovery outcomes: a conversion rate, b hospital stay, c bowel movement, d pain score, e fluid intake

Table 3

Comparison of Postoperative data between SILS and CLS for the included studies

Study

Conversion

Bowel movement (day)

Pain score

Hospital stay (day)

Readmission

Fluid intake (day)

SILS

CLS

SILS

CLS

SILS

CLS

SILS

CLS

SILS

CLS

SILS

CLS

Curro [9]

0

0

NR

NR

NR

NR

6

6

NR

NR

NR

NR

Yun [10]

1

5

3 ± 1

3 ± 1

NR

NR

8 ± 4

9 ± 5

1

2

NR

NR

Takemasa [11]

1

2

NR

NR

4.3 ± 3.0

5.3 ± 3.5

8 ± 2.3

8.5 ± 2.8

0

0

NR

NR

Suzuki [12]

2

2

NR

NR

NR

NR

7

9

0

0

NR

NR

Yu [13]

NR

NR

2.4 ± 1.0

2.1 ± 1.1

6.4 ± 1.8

6.0 ± 1.8

12.5 ± 2.9

14.6 ± 6.7

NR

NR

3.4 ± 1

3.1 ± 1.2

Tokudka [14]

0

3

4 ± 1.2

4.3 ± 2.1

NR

NR

8.2 ± 7.3

11.2 ± 10.7

NR

NR

NR

NR

Chouillard [15]

32

8

NR

NR

NR

NR

4.9 ± 2.2

5.5 ± 2.3

NR

NR

NR

NR

Kim [16]

1

1

2.7 ± 1.0

3.1 ± 1.2

4.8 ± 1.8

5.9 ± 1.8

6.1 ± 2.4

8.5 ± 5.5

NR

NR

2.7 ± 1.3

3.1 ± 1.2

Song [17]

1

1

NR

NR

4

4

10

10

0

0

NR

NR

SILS single-port laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, CLS conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, NR no record

Compared to the CLS group, the SILS group had a shorter hospital stay (SMD − 0.76, 95%CI − 1.07 to − 0.45, P < 0.001; chi-square = 9.85, P = 0.08, I2 = 49%, Fig. 3b) in the fixed effects model.

Bowel movement, maximal pain score, and fluid intake

There was no significant difference in bowel movement (SMD − 0.06, 95%CI − 0.38 to 0.26, P = 0.72; chi-square = 6.39, P = 0.09, I2 = 53%, Fig. 3c), pain score (SMD − 0.54, 95%CI − 1.59 to 0.51, P = 0.32; chi-square = 10.46, P < 0.01, I2 = 81%, Fig. 3d), and fluid intake (SMD − 0.04, 95%CI − 0.72 to 0.65, P = 0.92; chi-square = 0.11, P = 0.03, I2 = 79%, Fig. 3e) in the random effects model with statistical heterogeneity.

Pathological and follow-up outcomes

Lymph node dissection, proximal surgical edge (PSE), and distal surgical edge (DSE)

SILS had more lymph node dissection (SMD − 0.98, 95%CI − 1.79 to − 0.16, P = 0.02; chi-square = 4.61, P = 0.46, I2 = 0%, Fig. 4a) and longer PSE (SMD − 0.51, 95%CI − 0.93 to − 0.09, P = 0.02; chi-square = 2.42, P = 0.49, I2 = 0%, Fig. 4b) than CLS in the fixed effects model without huge heterogeneity. The DSE (SMD − 0.32, 95%CI − 1.03 to 0.38, P = 0.37; chi-square = 0.28, P = 0.96, I2 = 0%, Fig. 4c) of SILS showed the same result as that of CLS (Table 4).
Fig. 4

Forest plot of mid-term outcomes: a lymph node harvested, b proximal surgical edge (DSE), c distal surgical edge (DSE), d local recurrence, e metastasis

Table 4

Comparison of pathological and follow-up outcomes between SILS and CLS for the included studies

Study

Lymph node resection (n)

Proximal surgical edge (cm)

Distal surgical edge (cm)

Recurrence

Metastasis

SILS

CLS

SILS

CLS

SILS

CLS

SILS

CLS

SILS

CLS

Curro [9]

25

24

NR

NR

15.5

13

NR

NR

NR

NR

Yun [10]

24 ± 11

27 ± 13

14.4 ± 8.4

15 ± 7.8

16.6 ± 6.2

15.8 ± 7.6

6

3

NR

NR

Takemasa [11]

23.9 ± 6.7

23.7 ± 7.4

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Suzuki [12]

16

15

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

1

2

Yu [13]

28.0 ± 16.3

28.7 ± 12.2

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

1

7

Tokudka [14]

24.3 ± 9.2

24.2 ± 16.9

12.8 ± 6.8

12.5 ± 7.9

9.1 ± 6.9

8.4 ± 4.2

NR

NR

NR

NR

Chouillard [15]

16.5 ± 6.3

17.7 ± 5.2

6.9 ± 4.9

7.2 ± 4.5

6.7 ± 3.0

7.3 ± 2.4

NR

NR

NR

NR

Kim [16]

28.3 ± 13.5

25.6 ± 11.3

17.3 ± 9.2

18.3 ± 11.6

17.9 ± 8.9

17.7 ± 8.2

0

2

1

1

Song [17]

17

17

8.75

12

10.5

12

0

1

3

2

SILS single-port laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, CLS conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, NR no record

Local recurrence and metastasis

SILS had similar local recurrence (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.29, P = 0.49; chi-square = 2.54, P = 0.28, I2 = 21%, Fig. 4d) and metastasis (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.15, P = 0.61; chi-square = 1.76, P = 0.62, I2 = 0%, Fig. 4e) in the fixed effects model without significant heterogeneity.

Subgroup group analysis

The study by Chouillard contained 592 patients and could have an impact on the results. We removed this study and conducted the meta-analysis again. The results indicated that four indexes were different from the above results. Blood loss (SMD − 4.79, 95% CI − 12.88 to 3.29, P = 0.25; chi-square = 1.16, P = 0.82, I2 = 0%, Fig. 5a), incision length (SMD − 1.47, 95% CI − 3.32 to 0.38, P = 0.12; chi-square = 261.61, P < 0.001, I2 = 99%, Fig. 5b), lymph node dissection (SMD − 0.24, 95% CI − 1.93 to 1.46, P = 0.78; chi-square = 3.66, P = 0.45, I2 = 0%, Fig. 5c), and DSE (SMD 0.64, 95% CI − 0.89 to 2.18, P = 0.41; chi-square = 0.09, P = 0.96, I2 = 0%, Fig. 5d) were similar in the two groups.
Fig. 5

Forest plot of subgroup group: a blood loss, b incision length, c lymph node harvested, d distal surgical edge (DSE), e operation time

Other indexes were similar to the previous results, but the operation time (SMD − 18.41, 95% CI − 27.98 to − 8.84, P < 0.001; chi-square = 5.78, P = 0.22, I2 = 31%, Fig. 5e) for the SILS group was still better than that for the CLS group.

Sensitivity analysis

Based on the similar baseline characteristics, Begg’s correlation test (complication, P = 0.34) revealed no clear publication bias. The sensitivity analysis showed that the good quality of research would not impact the final results.

Discussion

In the near future, minimally invasive surgery will become increasingly popular especially in colorectal surgery. This approach could reduce the length of incision and promote the rapid recovery of patients. Medical devices and levels have been developing and improving in recent decades [18]. Currently, an increasing number of laparoscopic surgeries have replaced open surgery. Doctors are also pursuing smaller incisions to solve more problems. Dong et al. had reported that SILS was better than CLS in some data for right colon diseases. We collected the evidence-based data to compare operative, postoperative, pathological, and mid-term outcomes between SILS and CLS in right colon cancer. The good quality of the included studies could provide reliable results.

The results showed that SILS had a shorter operation time and incision length than CLS. The operation time for SILS was 23.49 min shorter than that for CLS and the incision length for SILS was 1.6 cm shorter than that for CLS. Due to the improvement in the device, SILS became easier than before. The cooperation of the surgical term was improved due to the high incidence of malignant tumors, and the surgeon was becoming increasingly skilled. The improved SILS port could contain more instruments, which could reduce the operation duration and incision length. SILS with a shorter operation duration and incision length may accelerate patient recovery, reduce postoperative pain, and promote early activities [19].

SILS had less blood loss than CLS and it could be affected by the surgeons’ experience and surgical skills of the surgeon and other factors. However, intraoperative blood loss was not easy to accurately measure, and the amount of bleeding in the SILS group was only reduced by 8 ml, which would not affect the postoperative recovery of the patient. Therefore, although this indicator was a positive result, it had no clinical significance. SILS also resulted in a shorter hospital stay than that with CLS, and we speculated a short incision could reduce the recovery time of patients and the length of hospital stay. Although the hospital stay after SILS was only shortened by 0.76 days, this effect shows a trend, and we hope that the hospital stay may be shortened significantly in the future. SILS had the advantages of incision length, blood loss, operation duration, and hospital stay. Bowel movement and pain score appeared to be the same in the two groups herein, but these indexes were not the same in the relevant studies [20].

Due to obesity, vascular variation, narrow pelvis, and heavy mesentery, SILS would be more difficult than CLS [21]. The main reason for the high conversion rate was abdominal adhesion, especially in patients with a previous abdominal history (23.3% patients had an abdominal history). We found that the conversion rate of the SILS group with large BMI was higher than that of the CLS group, especially for patients with a large BMI (BMI > 25).

The complication rate was similar in the two groups. Three studies reported complication (C-D grade), and there was no difference between the two groups. We suspected that this effect was related to the suitable cases for SILS chosen by the doctor, and appropriate treatment options facilitated the operation smoothly and reduced the incidence of complications. Through the development of medical devices and technological advancements, the skills of the surgeon have become increasingly sophisticated with the increasing number of surgical procedures. Thus, the complication rate of SILS was similar to that of CLS [22]. The complication rate was the main contributor to surgical technique and operation time.

Due to the large specimen of the right colon, CLS needed to extend the umbilical incision to facilitate specimen removal. However, SILS with the single long incision in the umbilicus might be more convenient to remove specimens without increasing the length. SILS with a short incision length might reduce postoperative pain, promote early activities, and reduce the incidence of complication.

Six studies reported the type of ileocolonic anastomosis, and these studies were all extra-corporeal anastomoses. Three studies were end-to-end ileocolonic anastomoses, and three studies were end-to-side ileocolonic anastomoses. Lymph node dissection and PSE of SILS were better than those of CLS, and DSE tended to be the same in the two groups. In SILS, which had a larger incision than CLS, removing more of the intestine from the abdominal wall was easier and the surgical margin was better than those in CLS. Due to the short development time of SILS, a lack of clinical data might impact the results of distal metastasis and produce bias. We expected more clinical studies to further illuminate the relationship between the groups.

We removed a large study representing almost half of all patients and performed a meta-analysis again. The results indicated that four indexes were different from the above results. Blood loss, incision length, lymph node dissection, and DSE were similar in the two groups. After repeating the statistical analysis, the operation time in the SILS group was still better than that in the CLS group. Due to the large size of the single study, it may cause potential selection bias and affect the results of the study. After repeating the statistical analysis, the results of lymph node dissection, PSE, and DSE were similar to previous research [23].

In addition, the results of this study might have several limitations. First, nine studies only contained a modest number of patients and all the included studies were not of the highest quality of evidence. All the included studies were comparative nonrandomized clinical trials, and no RCTs were included due to short development times. Second, one study contained almost half of all patients and affected the results. Third, different patient conditions and medical facilities could cause potential selection bias. In this study, there were only two European studies and fewer people with a large BMI. This potential selection bias could affect the final results. Finally, the long-term follow-up results were incomplete due to the short development of SILS. Only a few articles had reported recurrence and metastasis data between the two techniques, which would affect the follow-up outcomes. Furthermore, RCTs with long follow-up outcomes were necessary to compare SILS with CLS for patients.

Conclusions

In summary, this study had compared the reliability and safety of the SILS and CLS for the treatment of right colon cancer. SILS had a shorter operation time, shorter hospital stay, shorter incision length, less blood loss, better lymph node dissection, and PSE than CLS. Complication, conversion, follow-up outcomes, and other data were similar between SILS and CLS. After we removed the large study, we performed the meta-analysis again. The operation time in the SILS group was still shorter than that in the CLS group. With the continuous development of professional technology, future evidence of improvements in the long-term outcomes might justify the advantages and disadvantages of SILS and CLS for treating right colon cancer. SILS had the advantages of the only long incisions to remove specimens conveniently without increasing the incision length. Therefore, we propose that SILS could be a feasible model for right colon cancer.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the Department of Colorectal Surgery of the Cancer Hospital of China Medical University, Liaoning Cancer Hospital and Institute for technical assistance.

We are grateful to Dr. Sufang Li from Peking University People’s Hospital for her help in carefully revising the manuscript.

Authors’ contributions

All authors participated in the study. TL and JFZ performed the literature search and the acquisition of data. WHY performed the data analysis. ZGJ and RZ participated in the interpretation of data and revised the article for important intellectual content. All authors approved the final version of the article. The authors thank American Journal Experts (AJE company) for his help in editing the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Cancer Hospital of China Medical University. The funding project is the National Natural Science Fund from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos. 81672427).

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary material

12957_2019_1721_MOESM1_ESM.doc (11 kb)
Additional file 1: Table S1. The detailed retrieval strategy in PubMed database.

References

  1. 1.
    Brockhaus AC, Sauerland S, Saad S. Single-incision versus standard multi-incision laparoscopic colectomy in patients with malignant or benign colonic disease: a systematic review, meta-analysis and assessment of evidence. BMC Surg. 2016;16:71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adair J, Gromski MA, Lim BB, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic right colectomy: experience with 17 consecutive cases and comparison with multiport laparoscopic right colectomy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;53:1549–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bucher P, Pugin F, Morel P. Single port access laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. Int J Color Dis. 2008;23:1013–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Papaconstantinou HT, Sharp N, Thomas JS. Single-incision laparoscopic right colectomy: a case-matched comparison with standard laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic techniques. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;213:72–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen WT, Chang SC, Chiang HC, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic right colectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical results. Surg Endosc. 2010;25:1887–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vettoretto N, Cirocchi R, Randolpg J, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic right colectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Color Dis. 2014;16:O123–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dong B, Luo Z, Lu J, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic right colectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2018;55:31–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Patent Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2007. Available at: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm2008.
  9. 9.
    Currò G, Cogliandolo A, Lazzara S, et al. Single-incision versus three-port conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: is there any real need to go single? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012;22:621–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yun JA, Yun SH, Park YA, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic right colectomy compared with conventional laparoscopy for malignancy: assessment of perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:2122–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Takemasa I, Uemura M, Nishimura J, et al. Feasibility of single-site laparoscopic colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for colon cancer: a prospective case-control comparison. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:1110–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Suzuki O, Nakamura F, Kashimura N, et al. A case-matched comparison of single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic right colectomy for colon cancer. Surg Today. 2016;46:297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yu H, Shin JY. Short-term outcomes following reduced-port, single-port and multi-port laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer: tailored laparoscopic approaches based on tumor size and nodal status. Int J Color Dis. 2016;31:115–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tokuoka M, Ide Y, Takeda M, et al. Single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer in elderly patients. Oncol Lett. 2016;12:1465–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chouillard E, Alsabah S, Daher R, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery could be better than standard laparoscopic in right colectomy for cancer. J Laparoendosc Adv Sur Tech. 2016;26:371–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim CW, Hur H, Min BS, et al. Oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for right colon cancer: a propensity score-matching analysis. In J Surg. 2017;45:125–30.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Song Z, Li Y, Liu K, et al. Clinical and oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for right colon cancer: a propensity score matching analysis. Surg Endosc. 2018;24:1117.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Park Y, Yong YG, Yun SH, et al. Learning curves for single incision and conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a multidimensional analysis. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2015;88:269–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chew MH, Chang MH, Tan WS, et al. Conventional laparoscopic versus single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a case cohort comparison of short-term outcomes in 144 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:471–7.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lai CW, Edwards TJ, Clements DM, et al. Single-port laparoscopic right colonic resection using a ‘vessel-first’ approach. Color Dis. 2012;14:1138–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Velthuis S, Peter B, Lips DJ, et al. Comparison of short-term surgical outcomes after single-incision laparoscopic versus multiport laparoscopic right colectpmy: a two-center, prospective case-controlled study of 100 patients. Dig Surg. 2012;29:477–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosati CM, Boni L, Dionigi G, et al. Single port versus standard laparoscopic right colectomies: results of a case-control retrospective study on one hundard patients. Int J Surg. 2013;11:S50–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hirano Y, Hattori M, Douden K, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2016;8:95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s). 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xin Liu
    • 1
  • Wei-hong Yang
    • 2
  • Zhou-guang Jiao
    • 3
  • Ji-fu Zhang
    • 1
  • Rui Zhang
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Colorectal SurgeryCancer Hospital of China Medical University, Liaoning Cancer Hospital and InstituteShenyangPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Institute of Physical Science and Information Technology, Anhui UniversityHefeiPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.State Key Laboratory of Pathogen and Biosecurity, Beijing Institute of Microbiology and EpidemiologyBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations