Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes of single-port surgery for transverse colon cancer

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Surgery Today Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes of patients who underwent single-port surgery (SPS) with those of patients who underwent multi-port surgery (MPS) for transverse colon cancer.

Methods

The records of consecutive patients who underwent SPS (n = 75) or MPS (n = 41) for transverse colon cancer in our department between January, 2008 and December, 2015 were analyzed retrospectively.

Results

Operative times were significantly shorter in the SPS group than in the MPS group (185 vs. 195 min, respectively; P = 0.043). There were no significant differences in operative procedures, blood loss, or extent of lymph node dissection. The rate of postoperative complications was similar in both groups, but the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the single-port group than in the multi-port group (8 vs. 11 days, respectively; P < 0.001). Oncological outcomes were similar in both groups. The disease-free survival rate at 2 years did not differ significantly between the groups (91.1 vs. 94.9 %, respectively; P = 0.414).

Conclusions

Our experience demonstrates that SPS is safe and can provide oncological outcomes equal to those of MPS for transverse colon cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lacy AM, García-Valdecasas JC, Delgado S, Castells A, Taurá P, Piqué JM, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;359:2224–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Milsom JW, Böhm B, Hammerhofer KA, Fazio V, Steiger E, Elson P. A prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic versus conventional techniques in colorectal cancer surgery: a preliminary report. J Am Coll Surg. 1998; 187:46–54 (discussion 54–45).

  3. Leung KL, Kwok SP, Lam SC, Lee JF, Yiu RY, Ng SS, et al. Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: prospective randomised trial. Lancet. 2004;363:1187–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. The Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2050–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kim HJ, Lee IK, Lee YS, Kang WK, Park JK, Oh ST, et al. A comparative study on the short-term clinicopathologic outcomes of laparoscopic surgery versus conventional open surgery for transverse colon cancer. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:1812–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Akiyoshi T, Kuroyanagi H, Fujimoto Y, Konishi T, Ueno M, Oya M, et al. Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic colectomy for transverse colon cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14:818–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yamamoto M, Okuda J, Tanaka K, Kondo K, Tanigawa N, Uchiyama K. Clinical outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for advanced transverse and descending colon cancer: a single center experience. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:1566–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fernández-Cebrián JM, Gil Yonte P, Jimenez-Toscano M, Vega L, Ochando F. Laparoscopic colectomy for transverse colon carcinoma: a surgical challenge but oncologically feasible. Colorectal Dis. 2012;15:e79–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mistrangelo M, Allaix ME, Cassoni P, Giraudo G, Arolfo S, Morino M. Laparoscopic versus open resection for transverse colon cancer. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:2196–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Remzi FH, Kirat HT, Kaouk JH, Geisler DP. Single-port laparoscopy in colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis. 2008;10:823–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Papaconstantinou HT, Thomas JS. Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy for cancer: assessment of oncologic resection and short-term outcomes in a case-matched comparison with standard laparoscopy. Surgery. 2011;150:820–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gaujoux S, Maggiori L, Bretagnol F, Ferron M, Panis Y. Safety, feasibility, and short-term outcomes of single port access colorectal surgery: a single institutional case-matched study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16:629–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen WT, Chang SC, Chiang HC, Lo WY, Jeng LB, Wu C, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical results. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:1887–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Champagne BJ, Papaconstantinou HT, Parmar SS, Nagle DA, Young-Fadok TM, Lee EC, et al. Single-incision versus standard multiport laparoscopic colectomy: a multicenter, case-controlled comparison. Ann Surg. 2012;255:66–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Huscher CG, Mingoli A, Sgarzini G, Mereu A, Binda B, Brachini G, et al. Standard laparoscopic versus single-incision laparoscopic colectomy for cancer: early results of a randomized prospective study. Am J Surg. 2012;204:115–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Takemasa I, Uemura M, Nishimura J, Mizushima T, Yamamoto H, Ikeda M, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Yun JA, Yun SH, Park YA, Cho YB, Kim HC, Lee WY, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Suzuki On, Nakamura Fumitaka, Kashimura Nobuichi, Nakamura Toru, Takada Minoru, Ambo Yoshiyasu. A case-matched comparison of single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic right colectomy for colon cancer. Surg Today. 2016;46:297–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Japanese Classification of Colorectal Carcinoma. Japanese Research Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum. 2nd English edn. Tokyo: Kanehara Shuppan; 2009.

  20. Ito Hiroyuki, Kanemitsu Yukihide, Masuda Norikazu, Tsubosa Yasuhiro, Satoh Toyomi, Yokomizo Akira, et al. Extended Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications: Japan Clinical Oncology Group postoperative complications criteria. Surg Today. 2016;46:668–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tei M, Wakasugi M, Omori T, Ueshima S, Tori M, Akamatsu H. Single-port laparoscopic colectomy is safe and feasible in patients with previous abdominal surgery. Am J Surg. 2015;209:1007–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tei M, Wakasugi M, Akamatsu H. Comparison of short-term surgical results of single-port and multi-port laparoscopic rectal resection for rectal cancer. Am J Surg. 2015;210:309–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tei M, Wakasugi M, Akamatsu H. Comparison of the perioperative and short-term oncological outcome after single- or multi-port surgery for colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2015;17:O141–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mitsuyoshi Tei.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest and financial disclosure

Mitsuyoshi Tei, Yozo Suzuki, Masaki Wakasugi, and Hiroki Akamatsu have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tei, M., Suzuki, Y., Wakasugi, M. et al. Perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes of single-port surgery for transverse colon cancer. Surg Today 47, 676–682 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-016-1425-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-016-1425-2

Keywords

Navigation