• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
    • Why Should You Support SAGES?
    • SAGES Swag
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Annual Meeting
      • 2027 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2027 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Lead Up Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • Innovative Surgical Trends
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Advanced Laparoscopy and Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
    • Foregut Video Atlas
  • Opportunities
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs
  • Learning Hub
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Comparison of Single Port and Conventional Laparoscopic Colectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparison of Single Port and Conventional Laparoscopic Colectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Jensen T Poon, MBBS MS, Chi-wai Cheung, MBBS, Wai-lun Law, MBBS MS, Joe K Fan, MBBS MS, Siu-hung Lo, MBBS, Miu Y Chan, MBBS. Department of Surgery & Department of Anesthesia, The University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong

Introduction:This randomized controlled study compared the operative outcome of single port laparoscopic colectomy (SPLC) and conventional laparoscopic colectomy (CLC). The primary outcome measure was the post-operative pain.

Methods: Patients who had small cancer (<4cm) or adenomatous polyp requiring colectomy were randomized to have SPLC or CLC. All patients had patient controlled analgesia after operation and their visual analogue score of pain (pain score) on day 1-3 and14 were recorded by research staff. Both the patients and research staff were blinded to the type of procedure. Other operative outcomes and the characteristics of the two groups of patients were also recorded prospectively and compared. Categorical variables were compared by Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test as appropriate. Continuous variables were presented as their median (interquartile range) and were compared by Mann-Whitney U test. P value of <0.05 was regarded as statistically significant.

Results: The SPLC group had 23 patients (8 right colectomy, 3 left colectomy, 12 anterior resection) and complication occurred in one patient who had wound infection. The CLC groups had also 23 patients (9 right colectomy, 3 left colectomy, 12 anterior resection) and complication occurred in three patients (wound infection x2 & ileus x1). There was no operative mortality in both groups. The comparison of patient characteristics and operative outcomes was presented in Table 1. The patient demographics, operating time, blood loss were similar between the 2 groups. When compared to the CLC group, the SPLC group had significantly lower pain score at rest on day 1 [3 (1-5) vs. 0 (0-2); p <0.01], day 2 [2 (0-4) vs. 0 (0-2); p=0.02] after operation and shorter hospital stay [5 (4-6) vs. 4 (3-4) days; p<0.01]. There was no difference in the margins of resection. 

Conclusions: Single port laparoscopic colectomy is a safe procedure with low complication rate. Compared with conventional laparoscopic colectomy, single port procedure is associated with reduced wound pain in early post-operative period and shorter hospital stay. 

 

SPLC (n=23)

CLC(n=23)

P value

Age

69 (60-78)

67 (57-74)

0.48

Body mass index

22.6 (19.4-25.5)

23.6 (20.5-26.2)

0.59

Male

52.2% 69.6%

0.23

ASA class 1 – 2 – 3

3 – 17 – 3 

3 – 16 – 3 

0.92

Previous operation

26%

34.7%

0.52

Operating time (minutes)

152 (111-175)

124 (124-170)

0.32

Blood loss (ml)

62.3 (30-90)

80 (45-97.5)

0.28

Hospital stay (days)

4 (3-4)

5 (4-6)

<0.01

Malignant lesion

19 

19 

1

Complication rate

4.3%

13%

0.35

Tumor size (cm)

3 (2.5-4)

4 (3-4)

0.38

Proximal margin (cm)

8 (6-23.5)

9 (6-10.5)

0.80

Distal margin (cm)

5.5 (5-8.5)

6 (5-9)

0.84

Morphine usage (mg) 

              11 (5-24)               19 (8-41)         0.12

Pain score at rest

     

Day 1

0 (0-2)

3 (1-5)

<0.01

Day 2

0 (0-2)

2 (0-4)

0.02

Day 3

0 (0-2)

2 (0-3)

0.14

Day 14

0 (0-1)

0 (0-1)

0.93

Pain score at cough

     

Day 1

5 (3-6)

5 (4-8)

0.06

Day 2

4 (2-5)

5 (3-7)

0.05

Day 3

3 (1-5)

4 (2-5)

0.12

Day 14

0 (0-3)

1 (0-3)

0.34

       

Session Number: SS16 – SILS
Program Number: S090

Related



Hours & Info

15821 Ventura Blvd Ste 400
Encino, CA 91436

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2026 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals

Refine Search