Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgeries for Colorectal Diseases: Early Experiences of a Novel Surgical Method

Table 5

Comparison of intraoperative parameters between single-incision laparoscopic colectomy and other minimally invasive surgeries.

Author	Study type	No. of patients	Incision length	Operative time	Blood loss	Conversion (%)
		(groups)	(cm)	(min)	(mL)
McNally et al. [19]	No case matched	27 versus 46; (SILC versus LAC)	NA	114^# versus 135^#; (𝑃=0.08)	50^# versus 50^#; (𝑃=0.21)	0 versus 13.0; (𝑃 = NA)
Ramos-Valadez et al. [22]	Case matched	20 versus 20; (SILC versus LAC)	3.3 versus 3.2; (𝑃<0.70)	159 versus 162; (𝑃<0.80)	58 versus 99; ( P  <  0.007)	0 versus 0
Wolthuis et al. [24]	Case matched	14 versus 14; (SILC versus LAC)	5^# versus 5^#; (𝑃=0.81)	75^# versus 83^#; (𝑃=0.31)	0^# versus 10^#; (𝑃=0.99)	0 versus 0
Champagne et al. [27]	Case matched	29 versus 29; (SILC versus LAC)	3.8 versus 4.5; (𝑃=0.098)	134 versus 104; ( P  =  0.0002)	NA	17.2 versus 6.9; (𝑃=0.11)
Chen et al. [30]	Case matched	18 versus 21; (SILC versus LAC)	4^# versus 4^#; (𝑃=0.52)	175^# versus 165^#; (𝑃=0.16)	75^# versus 50^#; (𝑃=0.67)	16.7 versus 0; (𝑃=0.052)
Papaconstantinou et al. [31]	Case matched	29 versus 29 versus 29; (SILC versus LAC versus HALS)	4.5 versus 5.1 versus 7.1; ( P <  0.05)	129 versus 128 versus 116; (𝑃=0.27)	60 versus 90 versus 71; (𝑃=0.19)	3.4 versus 13.8 versus 13.8; (𝑃=0.20)
Gandhi et al. [33]	Case matched	24 versus 24; (SILC versus HALS)	3.3 versus 6.6; ( P  <  0.00001)	143 versus 113; (P  =  0.0004 )	63 versus 91; (𝑃=0.06)	12.5 versus 0; (𝑃=0.083)
Waters et al. [35]	No case matched	16 versus 27; (SILC versus LAC)	NA	106 versus 100; (𝑃=0.64)	54 versus 90; (𝑃=0.07)	0 versus 0
Adair et al. [36]	Case matched	17 versus 17; (SILC versus LAC)	3.8 versus 5.1; (extraction port size)	139 versus 134; (𝑃=0.61)	NA	NA

NA: data not available, SILC: single-incision laparoscopic colectomy, LAC: multiport laparoscopic colectomy, HALS: hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (colectomy), ^#median value.