- Research article
- Open Access
The learning curve of single-port laparoscopic appendectomy performed by emergent operation
© The Author(s). 2016
Received: 23 June 2016
Accepted: 29 July 2016
Published: 5 August 2016
Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SPLA) has the advantage of minimizing abdominal incision scars with patient satisfaction. However, it has the following disadvantages: it provides a narrower surgical field than conventional laparoscopic appendectomy, which requires a considerably longer operative time to achieve surgical skills. This study was conducted to evaluate the learning curve for SPLA.
This study included a total of 120 patients with acute abdomen who visited our emergency department and were diagnosed with acute appendicitis between March 2013 and February 2015. They underwent SPLA by a single surgeon. Patients were divided into 4 groups of 30 patients each according to operation dates. Operative time, time to resume oral intake, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications were analyzed.
The mean operative time was 59.9 ± 19.9 min. It was shortened after completion of 30 operations and remained unchanged until it was further shortened after completion of 90 operations. There was no significant difference in time to resumption of oral intake or length of hospital stay between the 4 groups. Postoperative complications occurred in 18 patients, but the frequency of the complications was not significantly different between the 4 groups.
The results of this study suggest that surgeons can achieve surgical skills for SPLA after completion of 30 operations and more experienced surgical skills by SPLA successfully after completion of 90 operations.
Laparoscopic appendectomy is minimally invasive compared to conventional open appendectomy and has the advantages of decreased postoperative pain, shortened hospital stay, fewer postoperative complications, and better cosmesis. It has replaced conventional open appendectomy in the treatment of acute appendicitis [1, 2]. Therefore, this laparoscopic appendectomy is currently the gold standard operation for acute appendicitis and provides similar surgical outcomes as conventional open appendectomy, even in cases of complicated appendicitis . Recently, advances in laparoscopic instruments and optical systems enabled surgeons to perform intra-abdominal operation through a single incision around the umbilicus; in particular, single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SPLA), which minimizes visible scars in the abdominal wall, satisfies patients [4, 5]. In addition, previous randomized controlled studies reported that SPLA has surgical outcomes similar to those of three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (TPLA) [6, 7]. However, since SPLA has the disadvantages of limited surgical field and difficult access to the operation site through a small incision compared to TPLA, it requires more experience with surgical cases and more skills than TPLA, especially in emergency cases. For this reason, to achieve surgical outcomes similar to those of TPLA, SPLA demands additional training programs. Recent preliminary studies have not yet completely elucidate the learning curve of SPLA [8, 9]. Thus, the aims of this study were to analyze the learning curve of SPLA over a longer period and to assess its surgical safety and feasibility.
This study included a total of 122 patients with acute abdomen who visited our emergency department and were diagnosed with acute appendicitis between March 2013 and February 2015. They underwent SPLA. To make a definite diagnosis of acute appendicitis, all patients were evaluated using a comprehensive history taking, physical examination, laboratory findings, and abdominal computed tomography with contrast enhancement. Each patient gave informed consent to SPLA. Two patients had undergone right hemicolectomy for peritonitis with severe cecal inflammation and diverticular perforation, who were excluded from the study. All operations were performed by a single surgeon in the same surgical team who had experience with more than 500 TPLA cases and more than 500 conventional open appendectomy cases. Patients were consecutively assigned to 4 groups of 30 patients each: group A (the first 30 patients), group B (the second 30 patients), group C (the third 30 patients), and group D (the fourth 30 patients). Clinical data on age, gender, body mass index (BMI), severity of appendicitis, and previous history of abdominal surgery was collected and analyzed with regard to operative time, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, time to resume oral intake, and conversion rate.
Data analysis was performed using MedCalc for Windows version 12.3.0 (MedCalc Software, Ostend, Belgium). In statistical testing, a two-sided P value of >0.05 was considered statistically significant. Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Categorical variables are presented as frequency and percentage. In univariate analysis, Fisher’s exact test and one-way analysis of variance were used as appropriate for group comparisons. Then, multivariate analysis was conducted by fitting multiple linear regression models to identify important predictors of operative time.
Patients demographics and comparisons of learning curve-related variables
45.1 ± 16.1
43.8 ± 17.3
44.9 ± 10.8
44.6 ± 15.2
47.1 ± 17.8
23.38 ± 3.2
23.58 ± 3.3
23.02 ± 3.4
23.63 ± 3.1
23.30 ± 2.9
Previous history of AS
Operation time (minutes)
59.9 ± 19.9
67.0 ± 23.9
61.7 ± 17.9
60.4 ± 17.5
50.6 ± 16.8
Additional port insertion
Time to ROI (days)
1.5 ± 0.7
1.5 ± 0.8
1.6 ± 0.8
1.5 ± 0.6
1.6 ± 0.8
5.1 ± 2.5
5.3 ± 2.7
5.2 ± 2.3
4.9 ± 1.9
4.8 ± 2.0
Multivariate analysis of predictors of operative time
Severity of appendicitis
Location of appendix
Past history of abdominal surgery
Single-puncture tubal ligation via a laparoscopic single-opening approach was first introduced by Wheeless in 1969 . Thereafter, this approach has been employed in the treatment of complicated gynecological diseases and applied for appendectomy, placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters, and resection of intra-abdominal cysts [11, 12]. Despite such applications in various clinical conditions, single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) has not yet been widely performed in real-world practice. The reasons for this may be the limitations of SPLS to clinical indications and the steep learning curve to overcome. A major problem is difficulty in manipulating the laparoscope and the instruments introduced through a single port because surgeons should avoid extra- and intracorporeal conflict between the laparoscope and the instruments. Such drawbacks frequently lead to the loss of triangulation and difficult instrumentation during SPLS, unlike conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery. SPLS requires the surgeon and the assistant to maintain a poor ergonomic position different from that in conventional laparoscopic surgery. SPLS may be more difficult to perform than conventional laparoscopic surgery, prolong operative time, require a steep learning curve, and have low feasibility and safety [11–13]. For addressing these issues, many improved devices have been used in real-world practice: longer laparoscopes (45 cm in length), laparoscopes with various angles, improved port systems, such as Home-made Glove port, SILS™ Port (Covidien Inc, Norwalk, CT, USA), Uni-X™, AirSeal (SurgiQuest, Orange, CT, USA), Glove port (Nelis, Seoul, South Korea), and laparoscopic instruments specifically designed for SPLS, such as Roticulator™ (Covidien Inc, Norwalk, CT, USA), HiQ LS™ Curved instrument (Olympus Surgical & Industrial America Inc, Center Valley, PA, USA) [11, 12]. Despite such advances in laparoscopes and instruments, surgeons should have a substantial learning curve to perform SPLS.
Recently, SPLA has been extensively performed because of the superior cosmesis with no visible scarring . Most of the previous studies have reported that the clinical outcomes of SPLA are the same as those of TPLA [4–7]. Meanwhile, some studies have reported that SPLA requires a longer operative time and a substantial learning curve . Liao et al.  analyzed 30 cases of non-complicated appendicitis undergoing SPLA and documented that the operative time for SPLA was shortened after experience with 10 cases of SPLA, which became the same as that for TPLA. Validad et al.  investigated 65 pediatric cases of acute appendicitis undergoing SPLA and showed that the operative time for SPLA was equal to that for TPLA, regardless of board certification. These studies may have some limitations to interpret their results in that they excluded cases of complicated appendicitis. However, our study analyzed 120 cases of acute appendicitis which included cases of complicated appendicitis, so that it has clinical implications in such aspects. Moreover, since our study included only SPLA cases during the study period, with exclusion of TPLA cases, we avoided selection bias and obtained more general data on the learning curve for SPLA. The learning curve for SPLA can be assessed by various parameters, such as blood loss, complication rates, conversion rates, operative time, and length of hospital stay, of which operative time and length of hospital stay are more important [16, 17]. In this study, the operative time for SPLA was shortened after completion of 30 SPLA cases, remained unchanged, and was further shortened significantly after completion of 90 SPLA cases. Since previous studies on the learning curve for SPLA had a relatively small sample size (n = 20–50), they may have some limitations to generalize their results [16–19]. Pan et al.  divided 180 consecutive single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomies into 9 groups according to operation dates, and each group included 20 patients operated on consecutively in each time period. They also reported that the operative time was significantly longer in group 1 than in the other groups. Lee et al.  divided 160 cases of myoma uteri requiring single-port laparoscopic myomectomy into 4 groups according to operation dates and reported that the operative time declined significantly in the last 3 groups compared to the first group. Our results on the progressive decrease in the operative time for SPLA can provide useful information on a general learning curve for SPLA. Further studies are needed to confirm our results.
In this study, the learning curve for SPLA showed no significant changes in the length of hospital stay between the 4 groups, which is similar to the results of previous studies [8, 22, 23] Additionally, there was no significant difference in the occurrence of postoperative complications between the 4 groups, which is similar to the results of previous studies [8, 23]. In TPLA, the complication rates have been shown to decreases to <10 % with the mastery of the TPLA technique [18, 24]. In this study, the complication rate of SPLA turned out to be 15 %, mainly including wound complications such as seroma (n = 9), which may have attributed to longer umbilical incisions and a larger proportion of cases of complicated appendicitis. The complication rates of SPLA was acceptable with the exclusion of seroma (9/120, 7.5 %).
This study has a limitation because all the SPLA cases were performed by a single surgeon in the same surgical team. Further studies are needed to achieve a general learning curve for SPLA.
The results of this study suggest that equipment conflict, difficulty in manipulating the laparoscope and the laparoscopic instruments through a small umbilical incision, and limited surgical field may hamper the clinical application of SPLA, but that the surgical outcome can be the same as that of TPLA. Even surgeons proficient in TPLA will need a substantial learning curve to safely perform the SPLA technique.
BMI, body mass index; SPLA, single-port laparoscopic appendectomy; SPLS, single-port laparoscopic surgery; TPLA, three-port laparoscopic appendectomy.
This paper was supported by Konkuk University in 2016.
Availability of data and materials
The data supporting the conclusions of this study are included in the article.
YHK and WSL drafted the manuscript, searched the literature, interpreted findings, and prepared for manuscript writing/editing and submission of the manuscript. WSL and YHK critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript submission.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Consent for publication
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not sought for and not necessary as this is a retrospective observational study.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
- Faiz O, Clark J, Brown T, Bottle A, Antoniou A, Farrands P, et al. Traditional and laparoscopic appendectomy in adults: outcomes in English NHS hospitals between 1996 and 2006. Ann Surg. 2008;248:800–6. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e31818b770c.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wei HB, Huang JL, Zheng ZH, Wei B, Zheng F, Qiu WS, et al. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective randomized comparison. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:266–9. doi:10.1007/s00464-009-0563-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tiwari MM, Reynoso JF, Tsang AW, Oleynikov D. Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic and open appendectomy in management of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis. Ann Surg. 2011;254:927–32. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e31822aa8ea.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cai YL, Xiong XZ, Wu SJ, Cheng Y, Lu J, Zhang J, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy vs conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:5165–73. doi:10.3748/wjg.v19.i31.5165.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- St Peter SD, Adibe OO, Juang D, Sharp SW, Garey CL, Laituri CA, et al. Single incision versus standard 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2011;254:586–90. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e31823003b5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hua J, Gong J, Xu B, Yang T, Song Z. Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18:426–36. doi:10.1007/s11605-013-2328-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Markar SR, Karthikesalingam A, Di Franco F, Harris AM. Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-incision versus conventional multiport appendicectomy. Br J Surg. 2013;100:1709–18. doi:10.1002/bjs.9296.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Liao YT, Lin TH, Lee PC, Chou TH, Liang JT, Lin MT. Learning curve of single-port laparoscopic appendectomy for noncomplicated acute appendicitis: a preliminary analysis compared with conventional laparoscopic appendectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2013;23:441–6. doi:10.1089/lap.2012.0265.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Vahdad MR, Nissen M, Semaan A, Klein T, Palade E, Boemers T, et al. Experiences with LESS-appendectomy in Children. Arch Iran Med. 2016;19:57–63. doi: 0161901/AIM.0011.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wheeless Jr CR. A rapid, inexpensive, and effective method of surgical sterilization by laparoscopy. J Reprod Med. 1969;3:65–9.Google Scholar
- Tsai AY, Selzer DJ. Single-port laparoscopic surgery. Adv Surg. 2010;44:1–27. doi:10.1016/i.yasu.2010.05.017.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lee WJ. Single port laparoscopic surgery. J Korean Med Assoc. 2010;53:793–806. doi:10.5124/jkma.2010.53.9.793.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Chouillard E, Dache A, Torcivia A, Helmy N, Ruseykin I, Gumbs A. Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a preliminary experience. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:1861–5. doi:10.1007/s00464-009-0860-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ahmed K, Wang TT, Patel VM, Nagpal K, Clark J, Ali M, et al. The role of single-incision laparoscopic surgery in abdominal and pelvic surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:378–96. doi:10.1007/s00464-010-1208-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kim HJ, Lee JI, Lee YS, Lee IK, Park JH, Lee SK, et al. Single-port transumbilical laparoscopic appendectomy: 43 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:2765–9. doi:10.1007/s00464-010-1043-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lin YY, Shabbir A, So JB. Laparoscopic appendectomy by residents: evaluating outcomes and learning curve. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:125–30. doi:10.1007/s00464-009-0691-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Meinke AK, Kossuth T. What is the learning curve for laparoscopic appendectomy? Surg Endosc. 1994;8:371–5. discussion 376.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jaffer U, Cameron AE. Laparoscopic appendectomy: a junior trainee’s learning curve. JSLS. 2008;12:288–91.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Kim SY, Hong SG, Roh HR, Park SB, Kim YH, Chae GB. Learning curve for a laparoscopic appendectomy by a surgical trainee. J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2010;26:324–8. doi:10.3393/jksc.2010.26.5.324.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Pan MX, Liang ZW, Cheng Y, Jiang ZS, Xu XP, Wang KH, et al. Learning curve of transumbilical suture-suspension single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:4786–90. doi:10.3748/wjg.v19.i29.4786.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Lee HJ, Kim JY, Kim SK, Lee JR, Suh CS, Kim SH. Learning Curve Analysis and Surgical Outcomes of Single-port Laparoscopic Myomectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22:607–11. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2015.01.009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Burjonrappa SC, Nerkar H. Teaching single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy in pediatric patients. JSLS. 2012;16:619–22. doi:10.4293/108680812X13462882737339.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Lee J, Lee SR, Kim HO, Son BH, Choi W. Outcomes of a single-port laparoscopic appendectomy using a glove port with a percutaneous organ-holding device and commercially-available multichannel single-port device. Ann Coloproctol. 2014;30:42–6. doi:10.3393/ac.2014.30.1.42.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Lee J, Baek J, Kim W. Laparoscopic transumbilical single-port appendectomy: initial experience and comparison with three-port appendectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2010;20:100–3. doi:10.1097/SLE.0b013e3181d84922.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chow A, Purkayastha S, Nehme J, Darzi LA, Paraskeva P. Single incision laparoscopic surgery for appendicectomy: a retrospective comparative analysis. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:2567–74. doi:10.1007/s00464-010-1004-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Di Saverio S, Mandrioli M, Birindelli A, Biscardi A, Di Donato L, Gomes CA, et al. Single-Incision Laparoscopic Appendectomy with a Low-Cost Technique and Surgical-Glove Port: “How To Do It” with Comparison of the Outcomes and Costs in a Consecutive Single-Operator Series of 45 Cases. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222:e15–30. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.11.019.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar