Cholecystectomy by single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS): early experience and technique standardization

Single Incision Laparoscopic Surgery (SILS) is a recent surgical technique, first described in the 1990s. Its aim is to optimize the esthetic result offered by laparoscopy by minimizing the number of abdominal incisions. Various preliminary studies have been carried out on the application of SILS, especially in cholecystectomy and appendectomy. This study evaluates the preliminary results of cholecystectomy by SILS (SILS™ Port) conducted between October 2009 and February 2011 on 21 patients (4 men and 17 women) with a mean age of 49.9 years and a mean Body Mass Index (BMI) of 22.8. All patients were treated by the same team, which had previously undergone six months’ simulator training. There were two main selection criteria, both evaluated intraoperatively: absence of adhesions and of significant inflammatory sequelae from previous cholecystitis; and suitable distance between gallbladder and SILS access port. Conversion to traditional laparoscopy was necessary in just two cases, while an accessory trocar was introduced in another two cases. Conversion to open surgery was not necessary in any case. One case of SILS cholecystectomy was complicated by postoperative bile leakage, which was treated conservatively, as the fistula had a low output. The mean duration of hospitalization was 3.6 days. This preliminary experience led us to conclude that SILS is safe and highly satisfactory in the postoperative phase, thanks to the reduced need for painkillers and the improved esthetic result.

Diagnosis of intra-abdominal injuries can be challenging in multitrauma patients with associated injuries. Our experience and review of the literature

ntroduction. Trauma is the most common cause of death and disability among patients during the first four decades of life. Abdominal trauma is reported to be the 3rd most common injured region. Clinical examination may be unreliable in the evaluation of these patients especially in the presence of associated injuries. Therefore the use of diagnostic tools is essential in the management of the injured patient with abdominal trauma and additional injuries. Patients and Methods. During 1 year period from December 2010 to November 2011 we recorded the patients that presented to the emergency department of our hospital and were found to suffer from intra-abdominal injuries. These patients were divided in two groups depending on whether they had additional comorbid injuries or not. Several parameters were recorded and compared between the two groups, such as mechanism of injury, general status and hemodynamic stability of the patient on presentation, physical examination, use of imaging modalities and concomitant findings, need for surgical intervention and mortality rates. Furthermore the discrepancy between physical findings and final diagnosis after the use of diagnostic adjuncts is reported. Results. We recorded 31 patients with abdominal trauma. 13 (42%) patients were found to suffer from abdominal trauma and associated injuries (Group I), whereas 18 (58%) presented with abdominal trauma alone (Group II). The patients of the first group presented hemodynamic instability in 38% of cases while the patients of the second in 22% of cases. Reduced consciousness was present in 38% in group I versus 17% in group II. Signs of abdominal injury during clinical examination were present in only 15% in group I versus 72% in group II that represented a remarkable difference between the two groups. Conservative treatment was possible in 15% of patients with additional injuries and in 22% of patients with abdominal injury alone. In group I there were two deaths whereas in group II all patients survived. Conclusion. In patients with abdominal trauma, associated injuries seem to add to the severity of injury and indicate a worse prognosis. Clinical examination is unreliable and misleading in the majority of these patients and the use of diagnostic tools cannot be overemphasized.