• 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 / Single-incision Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Colectomy : A Case Matched Series of 90 Cases

Single-incision Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Colectomy : A Case Matched Series of 90 Cases

Goutaro Katsuno, MD PhD, Masaki Fukunaga, MD PhD, Yoshifumi Lee, MD PhD, Masahiko Sugano, MD PhD, Kunihiko Nagakari, MD PhD, Shuichi Sakamoto, MD PhD, Yoshito Iida, MD PhD, Seiichiro Yoshikawa, MD PhD, Yoshitomo Ito, MD PhD, Masakazu Ouchi, MD PhD, Yoshinori Hirasaki, MD PhD, Ayumu Sugai, MD PhD. Department of Surgery, Juntendo Urayasu Hospital, Juntendo University

 

 Background: Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) is an emerging modality. Feasibility and safety of SILC has been reported; however, benefits and outcomes are not well defined. We conducted a retrospective matched case-control study to compare the short-term outcomes of Single Incision Laparoscopic Colectomy (SILC) and conventional laparoscopic colectomy (cLAC) for colon cancer.
Indications for SILC: The indications for SILC were as follows: (1) tumors located at the cecum, ascending colon, sigmoid colon, or upper rectum; (2) relatively small tumor (less than 4cm); (3) cSE(-); (4) cN0 or cN1; (5) cP(-); and (6) thick bulky mesorectum/mesocolon(-) (BMI <25).
Study Design/Method:
The 100 patients who underwent SILC were matched with 100 patients undergoing cLAC from a database of 1600 patients. The two groups were matched in terms of BMI, age, gender, type of resection, and indication criteria for SILC. The outcomes of the patients in the two groups were then compared
Procedures: A single intraumbilical 25-30 mm incision was made, and the umbilicus was pulled out, exposing the fascia with moderate subcutaneous exfoliation. Three 5-mm ports or a multi-instrument access port were placed at the umbilical site. The umbilicus was the access point of entry to the abdomen for all patients. SILC was performed using a surgical technique similar to the standard laparoscopic medial-to-lateral approach. The bowel was transected either intracorporeally or extracorporeally with lymph node dissection, and then a stapled anastomosis was performed
Results: Mean operating times were comparable between SILC and cLAC groups (146.3 ± 41.2 min versus 152.7 ± 38.7 min, not significant (NS)). Mean bleeding volumes were comparable between the two groups (27.1 ± 19 ml versus 31.6 ± 21 ml, NS). One patient (1%) required conversion to cLAC due to dense adhesions. There was no open conversion case in SILC group. Postoperatively, there was no mortality in either group. In terms of analgesic use, there was no difference between the two groups (1.0 ± 1.3 times versus 1.1 ± 0.8 times, NS). The mean hospital stay was 9.6 ± 1.5 days in the SILC group and 9.7 ± 1.6 days in the LAC group (NS). The overall rate of postoperative complications was similar in both groups (4.4% versus 6.7%, NS). The wound infection was infected in 2.2% of patients in each group. The rate of small bowel obstruction was similar. Other postoperative complications included hematochezia in one patient in the SILC group, and enteritis in two patients in the cLAC group. The number of harvested lymph nodes was comparable between the two groups (20.3 ± 4 versus 19.4 ± 4, NS)
Conclusion: This matched case–control study of 90 patients suggested that SILC for colon cancer is feasible and safe in selected patients and can result in good surgical results, with similar postoperative outcomes to cLAC.


Session Number: Poster – Poster Presentations
Program Number: P030
View Poster

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