Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy versus traditional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy: an analysis of outcomes at a single institution.

backgroundQuestions have emerged as to whether single-incision laparoscopy has reproducible or superior patient outcomes compared with traditional laparoscopy. A retrospective review comparing single-incision laparoscopic (SILS) appendectomy and traditional multiport laparoscopic (MP) appendectomy was conducted to assess the safety and feasibility of the less invasive laparoscopic technique.

methodsAll SILS and MP appendectomies performed by three surgeons at a single institution during 43 months were reviewed. Statistical evaluation included descriptive analysis of demographic data including age and gender, as well as bi- and multi-variate analyses of operative outcomes including operative time, conversions, complications, and hospital length of stay.

resultsThe study reviewed 168 patients who underwent SILS appendectomy and 108 patients who underwent MP appendectomy. No statistically significant difference was found between the mean SILS and MP operative times (43.63 vs. 40.95 min; p = 0.29). Additionally, no statistically significant association was noted between surgical approach and length of hospital stay. Although 0.93 % of MP appendectomies and 2.38 % of SILS appendectomies were converted to open procedure, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.65, Fisher's exact test). After exclusion of cases converted to open procedure from the study, the findings showed that 3.66 % of SILS cases were converted to multiport laparoscopy. No increase in the overall complication rate was associated with SILS compared with MP appendectomy. The wound complications documented included one incisional hernia for SILS appendectomy and two wound infections for MP appendectomy.

conclusionThe findings showed SILS appendectomy to be a safe and feasible alternative to traditional MP appendectomy that can be conducted with operative times, lengths of stay, and complication rates similar to those of the standardized technique. This review is a precursor to prospective studies, which are warranted to demonstrate conclusively the equivalence of operative times, complications, and lengths of hospital stay, as well as to elucidate differences in patient-centered outcomes including postoperative pain, cosmesis, and quality of life.