• Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery
• /
• 제21권4호
• /
• pp.148-153
• /
• 2018

Purpose: Single incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) is a widely used surgical procedure for treatment of appendicitis with better cosmesis. However, many surgeons generally tend to choose conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy regarding with complicated appendicitis. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of SILA for treatment of complicated appendicitis by comparison with 3-ports conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA). Methods: Retrospective chart review of patients diagnosed appendicitis at single hospital during January 2015 to May 2017 collected 500 patients. Among 134 patients with complicated appendicitis, we compared outcomes for 29 patients who got SILA and 105 patients who got CLA. Results: 179 and 321 patients were treated by SILA and CLA, respectively. 134 (26.8%) patients were treated for complicated appendicitis, 29 patients by SILA and 105 patients by CLA, respectively. There was no case converted to open or added additional trocar in both groups. There were no differences in demographics with regard to age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and American society of anesthesiologists (ASA) scores. There was no difference in mean operating time ($58.97{\pm}18.53$ (SILA) vs. $57.57{\pm}21.48$ (CLA), p=0.751). The drain insertion rate (6.9% vs 37.1%, p=0.001) and the length of hospital stay ($2.76{\pm}1.41$ vs. $3.97{\pm}2.97$, p=0.035) were lower in SILA group with significance. There was no significant difference in the rate of surgical site infection (6.9% vs. 6.7%, p=1.000). Conclusion: This study demonstrates that SILA is a feasible and safe procedure for treatment of complicated appendicitis.

• Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery
• /
• 제21권4호
• /
• pp.160-167
• /
• 2018

Purpose: The aim of our study was to present an abdominal wall closure technique using barbed suture $V-Loc^{TM}$ 90 after single incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) and to compare perioperative outcomes with conventional layer by layer abdominal wall closure after SILA. Methods: From March 2014 to July 2016, a retrospective case-control study was conducted for a total of 269 consecutive patients who underwent SILA. According to abdominal wall closure methods, 129 patients were classified into the V-Loc closure group and 140 patients were assigned into the conventional layer by layer closure group. In the V-Loc group, abdominal wall closure was performed from the fascia to the skin with a single thread of unidirectional absorbable barbed suture $V-Loc^{TM}$ 90 2-0 using continuous running suture and reverse overlapping reinforced running technique. Subcutaneous closure and subcuticular suture were performed with the remaining portion of V-Loc. Results: The V-Loc closure group showed shorter total operation time ($40.0{\pm}15.4min$ vs. $44.9{\pm}16.3min$, p=0.013) and abdominal wall cusing continuous running suture and reverse overlapping reinforced running technique. Subcutaneous closure and subcuticular suture were performed with the remaining portion of V-Loc. Results: The V-Loc closure group showed shorter total operation time losure time ($5.5{\pm}0.9min$ vs. $6.5{\pm}0.8min$, p<0.001). Postoperative incision length was significantly shorter in the V-Loc closure group ($1.1{\pm}0.3cm$ vs. $1.8{\pm}0.4cm$, p<0.001). Postoperative wound pain, time to resume diet, postoperative hospital stay, complications including surgical site infection, or mean patient satisfaction score at one month after hospital discharge was not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion: In conclusion, unidirectional knotless barbed suture is a safe alternative method for abdominal wall closure after SILA. It can save time while providing comparable cosmesis.