Transumbilical Gelport access technique for performing single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS).

Emory Endosurgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Emory University, 1364 Clifton Road, Suite H-127, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery (Impact Factor: 2.36). 11/2008; 13(1):159-62. DOI: 10.1007/s11605-008-0737-y
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION: Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is an area of active research within general surgery. DISCUSSION: A number of procedures, including cholecystectomy, appendectomy, urologic procedures, adrenalectomy, and bariatric procedures, are currently being performed with this methodology. There is, as yet, no standard published technique for single-port access to the peritoneal cavity for SILS. We describe, herein, an access technique utilizing existing instrumentation including a Gelport and wound retractor that is reliable and easy. This technique has been used successfully at our institution for a number of single incision laparoscopic procedures.

  • British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 01/2014; · 2.72 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assesse the rate of bile duct injuries (BDI) and overall biliary complications during single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) compared to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). SPLC has recently been proposed as an innovative surgical approach for gallbladder surgery. So far, its safety with respect to bile duct injuries has not been specifically evaluated. A systematic review of the literature published between January 1990 and November 2012 was performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing SPLC versus CLC reporting BDI rate and overall biliary complications were included. The quality of RCT was assessed using the Jadad score. Analysis was made by performing a meta-analysis, using Review Manager 5.2. This study was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A retrospective study including all retrospective reports on SPLC was also performed alongside. From 496 publications, 11 RCT including 898 patients were selected for meta-analysis. No studies were rated as high quality (Jadad score ≥ 4). Operative indications included benign gallbladder disease operated in an elective setting in all studies, excluding all emergency cases and acute cholecystitis. The median follow-up was 1 mo (range 0.03-18 mo). The incidence of BDI was 0.4% for SPLC and 0% for CLC; the difference was not statistically different (P = 0.36). The incidence of overall biliary complication was 1.6% for SPLC and 0.5% for CLC, the difference did not reached statistically significance (P = 0.21, 95%CI: 0.66-15). Sixty non-randomized trials including 3599 patients were also analysed. The incidence of BDI reported then was 0.7%. The safety of SPLC cannot be assumed, based on the current evidence. Hence, this new technology cannot be recommended as standard technique for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 01/2014; 20(3):843-851. · 2.55 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The application of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) in bariatric patients has been limited to less complex procedures. We evaluated the short-term outcomes of SILS sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), compared to a group of well-established minimally invasive techniques. Methods Twenty-eight morbidly obese patients who underwent SILS SG (n = 14) and RYGB (n = 14) were compared to a matched control group composed of 28 cases of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). A single vertical 2.5–3-cm intra-umbilical incision, three-ports placed trans-fascially, and a liver suspension technique were used to perform SILS. Results Both groups were comparable in terms of age (p = 0.96), gender (p = 1.0), type of procedure (p = 1.0), and number of comorbidities (p = 0.63). Two (7 %) SILS patients required placement of one additional port, and no conversions to CLS or open surgery were needed. The estimated blood loss (p = 0.48), operative time (p = 0.33), length of hospital stay (p = 0.79), overall 90-day perioperative complication rate (p = 1.0), and short-term weight loss (p = 0.53) were comparable between the two groups. In terms of pain control, the frequency of patient-controlled analgesia use in both groups was similar. However, the pain score (assessed by visual analog scale) was significantly less for SILS patients on postoperative days 1 (5.0 ± 2.1 vs. 6.5 ± 1.8; p = 0.007) and 2 (4.0 ± 2.0 vs. 5.1 ± 2.4; p = 0.49). Cosmetic satisfaction with the scar was high in the SILS group. No patients required reoperation or readmission during the 90 days after surgery. Conclusion SILS is feasible in carefully selected bariatric patients and results in short-term outcomes comparable to those observed after CLS. Improved pain and cosmesis are potential benefits of SILS.
    Obesity Surgery 07/2014; 24(7). · 3.10 Impact Factor