Single port/incision laparoscopic surgery compared with standard three-port laparoscopic surgery for appendicectomy - a randomised controlled trial

Trials

Irfan Ahmed²  Jonathan A Cook¹  Gladys McPherson¹  Alison McDonald¹  Zygmunt H Krukowski²  Kirsty McCormack¹  Momin Malik² 

[1] Health Services Research Unit, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK;Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZN, UK

关键词: SCARLESS;    Single incision;    Single port;    Laparoscopic;    Appendicectomy;    Appendicitis;   

Others  :  1095238
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-13-201

 received in 2011-08-27, accepted in 2012-09-27,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Laparoscopic surgery has become the preferred approach for many procedures because of reduced post-operative pain, better recovery, shorter hospital stay and improved cosmesis. Single incision laparoscopic surgery is one of the many recent variants where either standard ports or a specially designed single multi-channel port is introduced through a single skin incision. While the cosmetic advantage of this is obvious, the evidence base for claims of reduced morbidity and better post-operative recovery is weak. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of single port/incision laparoscopic appendicectomy with standard three-port laparoscopic appendicectomy in adult patients at six weeks post-surgery. We also wish to assess the feasibility of a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing single port/incision laparoscopic surgery with standard three-port laparoscopic surgery for other surgical techniques.

Methods and design

Patients diagnosed with suspected appendicitis and requiring surgical treatment will be randomised to receive either standard three-port or single incision laparoscopic surgery. Data will be collected from clinical notes, operation notes and patient reported questionnaires. The following outcomes will be considered:

1. Effectiveness of the surgical procedure in terms of:

•patient reported outcomes

•clinical outcomes

•resource use

2. Feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in the emergency surgical setting by quantifying:

•patient eligibility

•randomisation acceptability

•feasibility of blinding participants to the intervention received

•completion rates of case report forms and patient reported questionnaires

Trial registration

ISRCTN66443895 (assigned 10 March 2011, first patient randomised 09 January 2011)

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Malik et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]HES online™. http://www.hesonline.nhs.uk webcite
• [2]Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H, Quirke P, Copeland J, Smith AM, Heath RM, Brown JM, UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group: Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol 2007, 25:3061-3068.
• [3]Lee PC, Lo C, Lai PS, Chang JJ, Huang SJ, Lin MT: Randomized clinical trial of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surgery 2010, 97:1007-1012.
• [4]Tsimoyiannis EC, Tsimogiannis KE, Pappas-Gogos G, Farantos C, Benetatos N, Mavriduo P: Different pain scores in single transumbilical incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 2010, 24:1842-1848.
• [5]Tugcu V, Ilbey YO, Mutlu B, Tasci AI: Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) versus standard laparoscopic simple nephrectomy: a prospective randomized study. J Endourol 2010, 24:1315-1320.
• [6]Marks J, Tacchino R, Roberts K, Onders R, Denoto G, Paraskeva P, Rivas H, Soper N, Rosemurgy A, Shah S: Prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: report of preliminary data. Am J Surg 2011, 201:369-372. discussion 372–373
• [7]Asakuma M, Hayashi M, Komeda K, Shimizu T, Hirokawa F, Miyamoto Y, Okuda J, Tanigawa N: Impact of single port cholecystectomy on post operative pain. Br J Surg 2011, 98:991-995.
• [8]Rehman H, Rao AM, Ahmed I: Single incision versus conventional multi-incision appendicectomy for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011, 6(7):CD009022. July
• [9]Rehman H, Ahmed I: Technical approaches to single port/ incision laparoscopic appendicectomy: a literature review. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2011, 93:508-513.
• [10]Pappalepore N: Transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy (TULAA): a safe and useful alternative for uncomplicated appendicitis. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2002, 12:383-386.
• [11]Meyer A, Preuss M, Roesler S, Lainka M, Omlor G: Transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted “one-trocar” appendectomy—TULAA—as an alternative operation method in the treatment of appendicitis. (German). Zentralbl Chir 2004, 129:391-395.
• [12]Ateş O, Hakgüder G, Olguner M, Akgür FM: Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy conducted intracorporeally with the aid of a transabdominal sling suture. J Pediatr Surg 2007, 42:1071-1074.
• [13]Roberts KE: True single-port appendectomy: first experience with the puppeteer technique. Surg Endosc 2009, 23:1825-1830.
• [14]Hong TH, Kim HL, Lee YS, Lee KH, You YK, Oh SJ, Park SM: Transumbilical single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (TUSPLA): scarless intracorporeal appendectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 2009, 19:75-78.
• [15]Bucher P, Pugin F, Buchs N, Ostermann S, Charara F, Morel P: Single port access laparoscopic cholecystectomy (with video). World J Surg 2009, 33:1015-1019.
• [16]Ahsan R, Kynaston J, MacDonald ER, Ahmed I: Patient Preferences for surgical techniques: should we invest in new approaches? Surg Endosc 2010, 24:3016-3025.
• [17]Buxton MJ: Problems in the economic appraisal of new health technology: the evaluation of heart transplants in the UK. In Economic Appraisal of Health Technology in the European Community. Edited by Drummond MF. Oxford,UK: Oxford Medical Publications; 1987:103-118.
• [18]Meakins JL: Innovation in surgery. Am J Surg 2002, 183:399-405.
• [19]Elashoff JD: nQuery Advisor Version 7.0. Cork, Ireland: Statistical Solutions; 2007.
• [20]Dunker MS, Stiggelbout AM, van Hogezand RA, Ringers J, Griffioen G, Bemelman WA: Cosmesis and body image after laparoscopic-assisted and open ileocolic resection for Crohn’s disease. Surg Endosc 1998, 12:1334-1340.
• [21]Newcombe R: Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions: comparison of eleven methods. Stat Med 1998, 17:873-890.
• [22]Cuzick J: A Wilcoxon-type test for trend. Stat Med 1985, 4:87-90.
• [23]StataCorp: Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. College Station. TX, USA: StataCorp LP; 2011.
• [24]Data Protection Act. 1998. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents webcite
• [25]National Research Ethics Service safety reporting requirements. http://www.nres.nhs.uk/applications/after-ethical-review/safetyreports/safety-reports-for-all-other-research/ webcite