Multi-Port vs. Single-port Cholecystectomy View Homepage


Ontology type: schema:MedicalStudy     


Clinical Trial Info

YEARS

2011-2015

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study is to compare results of the new surgical strategy to the traditional 4-ports technique for cholecystectomy in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). In particular we are going to investigate the procedures in terms of overall morbidity, while taking into considerations skin-incision's related morbidity, postoperative pain and cosmetic results which are the hypothetical benefits of the new approach. Other parameters are supposed to be unchanged, considering evidences from recent literature. Surgical procedures: 4 ports cholecystectomy (4PC): a 12mmHg pneumoperitoeum is created either by a 10mm umbilical Hasson's port or by a Verress needle followed by a 10mm umbilical port insertion; further one 10mm and two 5mm ports are placed according to the preferred technique. Single Port Access cholecystectomy (SPC): the single-port device is inserted through the umbilicus, by means of an adeguate incision, as the only access to the abdominal cavity. A trans-abdominal suture in right hypochondrium is placed through the gallbladder wall of the fundus to retract it. Primary endpoint: overall morbidity rate (at 60 days from surgery) Secondary endpoints: 1. skin-incision's related morbidity rate (at 60 days from surgery) 2. perioperative pain 3. cosmetic results 4. long-term morbidity (12 months) 5. intraoperative time 6. "conversion SPC to 4PC" rate 7. "conversion to laparotomy" rate 8. hospital stay Detailed Description Duration of the project Patients will be recruited for this study from September 2010 until September 2012 in all participating centers. All randomized patients will be followed up (after recovery) with outpatient clinic appointments 30 and 60 days from surgery. A long-term evaluation will be done 12 months after surgery. The last 3 months will be used for photographic analysis of cosmetic results, statistical analysis and reporting of data. Hypothesis /Aims SPA technique is a feasible approach to the peritoneal cavity. While performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy the single umbilical access has an overall morbidity comparable to multiport laparoscopy (equivalence study) while it entails a reduced skin-incision's related morbidity rate, a reduced post-operative pain and allows a better cosmetic result. Other considered parameters (operative time, conversion rate and hospital stay) are supposed to be unchanged. Background More recently Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) has been highlighted to the attention of lay literature and media, after first clinical reports. Concept and feasibility had been tested in animal experiments since 20041, leading to the creation of new scientific societies and committees with the declared aim to regulate research activity, through sponsorships and registers, without reaching the goal completely. After less than three years, the race for the first cholecystectomy under NOTES conditions in a human being was having its course. Since then, many authors have reported various case collections, while many others presented consistent research activity in vitro or in vivo, but it looks evident that two different branches of research were being defined2 . The first consists in what we would call Endoscopical Access Natural Orifice Surgery (EA-NOS) which includes all procedures truly performed through natural orifices, having the goal to design new platforms for surgery to be brought within the human body to recreate surgical conditions under safety. The evident difficulties to obtain such an environment with guaranteed ease of use, safety and efficacy, reduced to a mere research activity the interest in this field, with few clinical applications described consisting of hybrid procedures, i.e. procedures which were performed basically under laparoscopic conditions with the help of flexible instruments inserted through natural orifices. In fact, a recent large metanalysis of NOTES literature3 focusing on various surgical intra-abdominal procedures, all ascribable to EA-NOS, concluded that no human studies were found satisfactory for the inclusion criteria, for scarce disposable evidence, minor safety and efficacy compared to laparotomic and laparoscopic alternatives. The recommendation that human procedures should first pass through hybrid NOTES surgery, under strict guidelines, and in apposite controlled registers was later supported, as known, by the revision of NOSCAR "white paper" 4 . In fact, it is out of discussion that there is a need for a worldwide register, a standardization of the nomenclature, safety data to be used by ethical committees in order to authorize human trials, and implementation of the interface between medical societies, industry and regulatory offices. In this field, on behalf of the EURONOTES Foundation, we have promoted an european registry of NOTES procedures (www.euronotes.world.it) which preliminary results are now awaited. The cooling of enthusiasm related to EA-NOS procedures has naturally forced surgeons to concentrate on techniques which could be more easily reproduced in clinical environments. This brought the interest towards what we would call Surgical Access Natural Orifice Surgery (SA-NOS)2 . In fact, an analysis of the literature would unveil that the vast majority of human studies can be ascribed to SA-NOS. A wider vision of what can be considered a SA-NOS approach, includes in this group not only transvaginal, thoroughly described in literature, but also trans-umbilical surgery. Although both approaches have the advantage of not being burdened by problems related to endoscopic defect's closure in terms of infection, safety, consistent technological research and time-consumption, there is no discussion that trans-umbilical techniques encountered more appreciation among surgeons. We have observed a rapid clinical diffusion driven by a technology development supported by all the different major surgical companies. Thus, it has to be said that single-port laparoscopic surgery is nothing new. It was 1992 when Marco Pelosi first described a laparoscopic appendectomy using a single umbilical puncture5 . Even multi-port single-incision trans-umbilical laparoscopic cholecystectomy was first described by Giuseppe Navarra already in 19977 . Despite this, interest towards single-port surgery grew-up only very recently. This might be on one side explained with the better establishment of laparoscopic techniques and skills over the years, but rises doubts about a possible industry driven interest. There is no discussion that the technique has a number of drawbacks. The major one regards the concept of "triangulation" to which laparoscopic surgeons have grown accustomed in terms of both the instruments and scope, which is now lacking. Although this seems to be overshadowed by the increasing acceptability of in-line viewing, it has to be said that industries concentrate on developing and marketing a number of curved instrument with different characteristics with the aim of restoring standard triangulation as under laparoscopic environment. Nevertheless, personal experience gained by conducing a trial on a virtual reality simulator designed for the purpose, demonstrated that only very experienced surgeons performed surgical tasks with safety and effectiveness and requiring a short learning curve, while for all other surgeons technique acquisition was challenging7 . Still a number of different concerns arise. The fundamental hypotheses that were at the base of single-port growing interest were that it could improve cosmesis, decrease post-operative pain and therefore probably allow an earlier return to work with in any case a better patient's satisfaction. None of these has been confirmed yet, if they will ever. It is also clear that those who advocate patients' preference as the main reason for proposing single-port techniques forget that patients' preference is deeply influenced by the assumption that these arguments in favor of single-port surgery are correct, despite there is no realistic certainty about it. Some of the major experts in the field of minimally invasive surgery and active researchers in the field of NOTES share the same skeptical opinion about a real benefit of single port techniques application. Dr Ratner for instance states in a recent interview that "...it is not clear to me whether single port laparoscopy would be beneficial compared to traditional laparoscopy"8 . In any case we should never advocate for even slightly improved cosmetic value over safety, the principal concern. This has implications in both the intraoperative and the postoperative time. While it is recommended not to consider conversion to standard multi-trocars laparoscopy a failure, it might be that, as it happened at the beginning of the diffusion of laparoscopy, an increased number of complications will be observed. In fact, as often in similar circumstances, only a minority of efforts has been dedicated to training programs and very few simulators are available yet. Moreover, it has been advocated that a larger peri-umbilical incision and consequent fascial defect would imply a higher rate of incisional hernia. Although this is likely to happen, only time and data acquired will give us the answer. For these reasons robust studies to show that there is indeed a difference without a significant compromise of safety should be awaited before a wide diffusion of these techniques. In the proposed study cholecystectomy is chosen as a target as it represent the typical and more diffuse indication for laparoscopy. Its morbidity rate related to skin incisions occurs in a range of 1 to 5%9,10. REFERENCES Kalloo AN, Singh VK, Jagannath SB, Niiyama H, Hill SL, Vaughn CA, Magee CA, Kantsevoy SV (2004) Flexible transgastric peritoneoscopy: a novel approach to diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in the peritoneal cavity. Gastrointest Endosc 60(1):114-117 Vettoretto N, Arezzo A. Human natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery: on the way to two different philosophies? Surg Endosc. 2010 Feb;24(2):490-2. Della Flora E, Wilson TG, Martin IJ, O'Rourke NA, Maddern GJ (2008) A review of natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) for intra-abdominal surgery: experimental models, techniques, and applicability to the clinical setting. Ann Surg 247(4):583-602 Hawes RH (2008) Transition from laboratory to clinical practice in NOTES: role of NOSCAR. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 18(2):333-341 Pelosi MA, Pelosi MA 3rd. Laparoscopic appendectomy using a single umbilical puncture (minilaparoscopy). J Reprod Med. 1992 Jul;37(7):588-94. Navarra G, Pozza E, Occhionorelli S, Carcoforo P, Donini I. One-wound laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg. 1997 May;84(5):695 Rimonda R., Brown S., Tang B., Cuschieri A. Ergonomic performance with crossed and uncrossed instruments in single port laparoscopic surgery. Accepted for 12th SAGES (American Society of GastroEndoscopic Surgery) Congress, Washington DC (USA), April 2010; under review on Annals of Surgery. Rattner D. Single port surgery and NOTES: competition or transition?. Epublication: WeBSurg.com, Nov 2007;7(11). URL: http://www.eats.fr/doi-vd02en2227rattner3e.htm Access-related complications - an analysis of 6023 consecutive laparoscopic hernia repairs. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Tecnol (2001) 1: 23-29 Hong T.H., You Y.K., Lee K.H. Transumbilical single-port laparoscopic cholecysectomy. Surg Endosc (2008) DOI 10.1007/s00464-008-0252-y Study Design Design: multi-centric randomized controlled trial (RCT) Primary endpoint: Overall morbidity rate defined as any diagnosed morbidity related to surgical technique within 60 days from surgery. Primary outcome measure (for non-inferiority): Morbidity, defined as the occurrence of any complication, directly or indirectly related to surgery. Complications will be classified according to Dindo [Dindo D., Demartines N., Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13)] Complications will be subdivided into procedural (during treatment) and delayed complications (after ending the procedure), and further subdivided into major (requiring additional surgery) and minor (requiring endoscopic or medical intervention) complications. During admission patients will be monitored for complications. The following standardized discharge criteria will be applied in all participating hospitals: normal intake of nutrition; normal mobility; absence of fever (<38°C); and stable hemoglobin level during 1 day (<1 mmol/L). In case of same day discharge from the hospital patients will be called by telephone 1 day after the procedure whether adverse events have happened. Two weeks after the intervention, a research nurse will contact the patient by telephone again and ask for occurred complications. The patient will undergo a direct check-up by means of a medical doctor at 30 and 60 days after surgery, to conclude evaluation. Secondary endpoints: Skin-incision related morbidity defined as bleeding, infection, necrosis, skin retraction, incisional hernia, suture dehiscence within 60 days from surgery. Postoperative pain defined as a subjective evaluation of the same parameter using an horizontal visual analogical scale daily for the first week and weekly till 60 days after surgery. Patients will be administered Paracetamol IV 3 times a day for the first 24h, than on demand. Tramadol will be administered when Paracetamol will not be judged sufficient for pain control. On request, a single-dose of Ketorolac can be prescribed. Cosmetic results defined as judgement of - three independent surgeons: using a standardized methodology (patient on standing position against a black background), two digital photographs (JPG format, 800x600 pixels resolution, 16x106 colours, 24 bit) will be taken preoperatively (for comparison) and 60 days from surgery, one consisting of a close up of the umbilical area and a large view including just the full abdomen. A Likert scale will be used independently by the three surgeons to score the photographs from 1 to 5 (1= very poor, 2= poor, 3= satisfactory, 4= good, 5= very good) in all cases. The mean value will be considered objective evaluation of cosmetic outcome. - the patient him/her self: the patient will be asked to score his/her subjective perception of cosmetic outcome using the same Likert scale 60 days from surgery. A following comparison of the two different measures will give an interesting proportion of differences between subjective and objective perception. Hospital stay: length (days) of hospital stay after surgery Intra-operative time: minutes between skin incision and end of skin closure Conversion "Single-Port (SPC) to Multi-Ports (4PC) Laparoscopy" rate: number of cases in which the surgeon preferred conversion from SPC to 4PC for safely of technical reasons Conversion "to Open Surgery" rate: number of cases in which the surgeon preferred conversion from SPC or 4PC to laparotomy for safely or technical reasons. Long term morbidity defined as any diagnosed morbidity related to surgical technique within 1 year from surgery. Patient recruitment: Consecutive eligible patients will be recruited at the outpatient clinic in the participating centres by the involved physician. All patients fulfilling the above-mentioned criteria will be informed about the study by the physician. After consent is given, central randomization will take place web-based and patients will be treated according to the study protocol. Patients unable or refusing to provide informed consent will be treated according to current clinical guidelines. Randomization: patient data will be entered into a web-based database and a blind randomization (into two experimental groups: a. traditional 4-Ports Cholecystectomy (4PC) vs. b. Single-Port Cholecystectomy (SPC)) will be done by an unchangeable number-generating software. Blinding: Blinding of patients and physicians during treatment is unfeasible, since the two treatment strategies are highly different and easily recognizable. Since a double-blinded method is not possible in surgical experiments, this system guarantees the highest scientific severity. Study Population: inclusion criteria: - age: 18-75 - BMI: <30 ASA: I-III absence of non-correctable coagulopathy (international normalized ratio >1,5, or platelet count <90 × 109/l). - diagnosis: cholelithiasis (gallstones < 2 cm in diameter) gallbladder dyskinesia gallbladder polyps exclusion criteria: - diagnosis: cholecystitis suspected presence of common duct stones suspected presence of biliary cancer Previous abdominal surgery Previous umbilical surgery Intervention techniques: 4-Ports Cholecystectomy (4PC): a 12mmHg pneumoperitoeum is created either by a 10mm umbelical Hasson's port or by a Verress needle followed by a 10 mm umbelical port insertion; further one 10mm and two 5mm ports are placed according to the preferred technique. A straight or angulated laparoscope may be used. Laparoscopic graspers, monopolar hook, bipolar forceps, scissors and 10mm clips-applier are used. A plastic bag system might be used for gall bladder extraction if necessary. In both 10 and 12mm accesses, fascia is sutured with resorbable sutures. Skin is secured by either metallic agraffes or interrupted sutures. Single-Port Cholecystectomy (SPC): a 2.5cm long skin incision around the umbilicus is performed. The subcutaneous tissue is dissected, the muscular fascia exposed and incised along the middle line (linea alba) respecting the muscular tissue. Peritoneum is identified and incised. The Single-Port device is inserted and anchored. In order to retract the gallbladder a transcutaneous suture is placed in the right hypocondrium with a straight needle and a monofilament thread which are passed through the fundus and knotted outside the skin. The following steps reproduce the traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Each centre will be left free to use dedicated instruments and which or traditional laparoscopic ones. Complication/Intervention failure: Conversion "single-port (SPC) to multi-ports (4PC) laparoscopy" is possible according to surgeon's decision, while performing the surgical procedure. Since the patients' recruitment is based on "intention to treat" the converted procedure will not be excluded from the study. Conversion rate will be considered as a relevant result of the experiment. Similarly, conversion "to open surgery" both from 4PC and SPC is possible according to surgeon's decision, while performing the surgical procedure. Since the patients' recruitment is based on "intention to treat", the converted procedure won't be excluded from the study. Conversion rate will be considered as a relevant result of the experiment. Sample size and Power calculation Assuming a baseline overall morbidity of 5% for both 4PC and SPC group (average morbidity based on specific literature) and considering a level of difference considered clinically significant of 0.05 (4.75 to 5.25%) for SPC to be non-inferior, with a β-error of 0.2 and α-error of 0.05, 300 patients are needed per randomization group. 600 patients in total allow to establish equivalence in terms of overall morbidity, with a statistical power of 80%. If the hypothesis is confirmed, secondary endopoints will eventually define benefits for the new surgical procedure in terms of reduced skin incision's related morbidity, lower postoperative pain and better cosmetic results. The sample size calculation has been obtained by R-software (R Project for Statistical Computing, Lucent Technology, GNU General Public Licence) version 2.10.1, package epicalc, routine sample-size. Data analysis Intra and post-operative results will be inserted in the web-based database at any time during the study by the recruiting surgeon. The photographic material will be up-loaded into the computed database as well; all patients' personal data will be considered strictly reserved in respect of privacy policy. The Kolgoromow-test will be used to establish whether the results are parametric or not. According to data feature, T-Test/Chi-Square or Wilcoxon rank test will be used where appropriate. All analyses will be carried out primarily on an intention-to treat basis. Impact on clinical practice and healthcare system SPA Surgery is an emergent frontier of surgical innovation and represents an alternative to multi-ports standard laparoscopy. The trans-umbilical technique allows to perform laparoscopy with the supposed benefit of reduced invasiveness. In recent literature a large number of studies have aimed to demonstrate feasibility and safety of the new method even if no randomized trial is still available for definitive conclusions. Once feasibility and safety will be shown we will have to investigate benefit for the patients. For these reasons we have chosen as primary endpoint overall morbidity while in order to demonstrate the supposed benefit (patient's reduced discomfort and better cosmetic outcome) and skin incision morbidity will be taken into consideration. Since SPA surgical technique requires a consistent effort in terms of development of new technology and surgeon's adaptation, we consider this definition of primary relevance. As a matter of fact, a concrete introduction of SPA Surgery into daily practice is not possible without a concrete advantage for patients. Except one single trial comparing only postoperative pain (by Tsimoviannis et al. in G. Hatzikosta General Hospital, Ioannina Greece), at present there are no similar studies posted on USA and European trials databanks. For these reasons, we believe the MUSIC trial should produce precious information with obvious recoils on clinical activity. Track record of applicants including their experience in the field and any plot work carry out The present MUSIC project is the result of a collaboration between the members of EAES Technology Committee and the Board of the EAES. All applicants have big experience in the field of new technologies in laparoscopic surgery. In particular, many of them have taken part in development of new instruments and new techniques for trans-luminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). Since SPA surgery is considered part of this new concept for a micro-invasive approach to the abdominal cavity, we consider their knowledge particularly useful in the coordination of the trial. Considering the high interest on SPA-surgery expressed in recent literature by the international surgical community, the Technology Committee has developed a specific interest in this new branch of surgical innovation. Mario Morino, Alberto Arezzo. Video Surgery through Single Port Access: an overview. Revista Portuguesa de Cirurgia, in press Vettoretto N, Arezzo A. Human natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery: on the way to two different philosophies? Surg Endosc. 2010 Feb;24(2):490-2. Epub 2009 Jul 2. Arezzo A, Kratt T, Schurr MO, Morino M. Laparoscopic-assisted transgastric cholecystectomy and secure endoscopic closure of the transgastric defect in a survival porcine model. Endoscopy. 2009 Sep;41(9):767-72. Epub 2009 Aug 14. Arezzo A, Morino M. Endoscopic closure of gastric access in perspective NOTES: an update on techniques and technologies. Surg Endosc. 2010 Feb;24(2):298-303. Epub 2009 Jun 30. Lirici MM, Arezzo A. Surgery without scars: the new frontier of minimally invasive surgery? Controversies, concerns and expectations in advanced operative endoscopy. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2006;15(6):323-4. Rimonda R., Brown S., Tang B., Cuschieri A. Ergonomic performance with crossed and uncrossed instruments in single port laparoscopic surgery. Accepted for 12th SAGES (American Society of GastroEndoscopic Surgery) Congress, Washington DC (USA), Aprile 2010; under review on Annals of Surgery. Neugebauer EA, Becker M, Buess GF, Cuschieri A, Dauben HP, Fingerhut A, Fuchs KH, Habermalz B, Lantsberg L, Morino M, Reiter-Theil S, Soskuty G, Wayand W, Welsch T; On behalf of the EAES. EAES recommendations on methodology of innovation management in endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2010 Jan 7 Neugebauer EA, Morino M, Habermalz B. Surgical research or comic opera? Let's give answers! Surg Endosc. 2008 Jun;22(6):1411-2. Meining A, Kähler G, von Delius S, Buess G, Schneider A, Hochberger J, Wilhelm D, Kübler H, Kranzfelder M, Bajbouj M, Fuchs KH, Gillen S, Feussner H.[Natural orifices transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) in Germany: summary of the working group reports of the "D-NOTES meeting 2009"] Z Gastroenterol. 2009 Nov;47(11):1160-7 Fuchs KH, Breithaupt W. [Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in future obesity treatment] Chirurg. 2008 Sep;79(9):837-42. Sylla P, Rattner DW, Delgado S, Lacy AM. NOTES transanal rectal cancer resection using transanal endoscopic microsurgery and laparoscopic assistance. Surg Endosc. 2010 Feb 26. Lacy AM, Delgado S, Rojas OA, Ibarzabal A, Fernandez-Esparrach G, Taura P. Hybrid vaginal MA-NOS sleeve gastrectomy: technical note on the procedure in a patient. Surg Endosc. 2009 May;23(5):1130-7. MA-NOS radical sigmoidectomy: report of a transvaginal resection in the human. Surg Endosc. 2008 Jul;22(7):1717-23. Project management structure Once patients accept to be included in the MUSIC study, the randomization will be performed in one of the two groups: 1. Treatment A: 4 Ports Cholecystectomy (4PC) 2. Treatment B: Single-Port Access Cholecystectomy (SPC) Randomization will take place by connection to a dedicated web-site where initial data of the patient will be inserted and the group assignment will be displayed, sent by e-mail to the centre logged in and recruiting the patient, and stored in a dedicated database. All the clinical informations related to the per-operative time and the follow-up as described in the appendix will be stored through the same website and collected in a database format. This will be accessible in an anonymous way, respecting the privacy of each patient, at any time. Basic statistical analysis as well as more advanced data analysis such as Wilcoxon tests and t-Student's test will be available online. Furthermore, the entire database can be downloaded at anytime in xls format for more advanced data analysis. This will allow to complete an interim analysis and report to the Ethical committee at any time during the project. Proposed interval for analysis and reporting will be 3 months, if not suggested differently. All applicants will be in charge of collection of data and analysis of results. Dissemination plan Dissemination of research results, training and exploitation will be actively pursued. Results will be disseminated to the scientific community through specialized media, as selected magazines, conferences, fairs, websites and medical society, including clinicians considered final users and patients. Training activities will be carried out based on the dissemination activities, the target of the courses is expected essentially coming from the medical community. The objective of the Dissemination Plan is to identify and organize the activities to be performed in order to promote the exploitation of the project's results and the widest dissemination of knowledge from the project. MUSIC trial will establish an infrastructure for communications (and therefore dissemination) by building a robust framework in which dialogue and interaction can take place. This applies equally to internal and external communication. These will be used to disseminate information about and solicit input into the Single-Port-Access Surgery project work. Contact can be maintained and facilitated by electronic mailing lists, through Internal Lists within the EAES members, and External Lists including stakeholders using several existing lists to communicate to the wider community. Moreover the MUSIC-working group develop a publications program which at minimum will comprise: targeted informational literature designed to raise awareness about Single-Port-Access Surgery, and its activities instructional literature derived from experience across this trial, including methodological guidelines and strategic guides to good clinical practice. The MUSIC-working group will develop effective mechanisms for dissemination material including the worldwide web, with a website which will include - information about MUSIC study and its activities including contact details, background information, working papers, events (seminars, workshops, conferences) etc. - instructional materials as discussed above n(the web in this respect acts as a principal means of publication): - frequent news and updates to keep the community informed Finally printed publications will be submitted to the EAES Official Journal, Surgical Endoscopy. The MUSIC-working group will be promoting dissemination, advocacy and other events. Conferences, workshops, seminars will be organized to: raise awareness about activities, resources, results, etc.; act as training venues e.g. For disseminating instructional material as required by a particular stakeholding community or communities; act as for a for more public discussion of research, development, collections, standards or other strategic and substantive issues of interest to SPA Surgery and the wider community. Long term sustainability of the work The program has the potential for long term sustainability according to its underlying concept. Since Single-Port surgery is a traditional laparoscopy-like technique, the cost of procedure is expected to be similar. Other than different ports and instruments (already present on the market), SPC and 4PC require the same laparoscopic equipment, largely available in every operative room. From this point of view, the study doesn't imply any supplementary expense. The follow up of both procedures is identical. It will consist in outpatient clinical meetings and doesn't require expenses for new material and devices. Cost for complications and hospital stay is supposed to be unchanged between the two experimental groups. More... »

URL

https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01104727

JSON-LD is the canonical representation for SciGraph data.

TIP: You can open this SciGraph record using an external JSON-LD service: JSON-LD Playground Google SDTT

[
  {
    "@context": "https://springernature.github.io/scigraph/jsonld/sgcontext.json", 
    "about": [
      {
        "id": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/3053", 
        "inDefinedTermSet": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/", 
        "type": "DefinedTerm"
      }
    ], 
    "description": "The aim of this study is to compare results of the new surgical strategy to the traditional 4-ports technique for cholecystectomy in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). In particular we are going to investigate the procedures in terms of overall morbidity, while taking into considerations skin-incision's related morbidity, postoperative pain and cosmetic results which are the hypothetical benefits of the new approach. Other parameters are supposed to be unchanged, considering evidences from recent literature. Surgical procedures: 4 ports cholecystectomy (4PC): a 12mmHg pneumoperitoeum is created either by a 10mm umbilical Hasson's port or by a Verress needle followed by a 10mm umbilical port insertion; further one 10mm and two 5mm ports are placed according to the preferred technique. Single Port Access cholecystectomy (SPC): the single-port device is inserted through the umbilicus, by means of an adeguate incision, as the only access to the abdominal cavity. A trans-abdominal suture in right hypochondrium is placed through the gallbladder wall of the fundus to retract it. Primary endpoint: overall morbidity rate (at 60 days from surgery) Secondary endpoints: 1. skin-incision's related morbidity rate (at 60 days from surgery) 2. perioperative pain 3. cosmetic results 4. long-term morbidity (12 months) 5. intraoperative time 6. \"conversion SPC to 4PC\" rate 7. \"conversion to laparotomy\" rate 8. hospital stay\n\nDetailed Description\nDuration of the project Patients will be recruited for this study from September 2010 until September 2012 in all participating centers. All randomized patients will be followed up (after recovery) with outpatient clinic appointments 30 and 60 days from surgery. A long-term evaluation will be done 12 months after surgery. The last 3 months will be used for photographic analysis of cosmetic results, statistical analysis and reporting of data. Hypothesis /Aims SPA technique is a feasible approach to the peritoneal cavity. While performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy the single umbilical access has an overall morbidity comparable to multiport laparoscopy (equivalence study) while it entails a reduced skin-incision's related morbidity rate, a reduced post-operative pain and allows a better cosmetic result. Other considered parameters (operative time, conversion rate and hospital stay) are supposed to be unchanged. Background More recently Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) has been highlighted to the attention of lay literature and media, after first clinical reports. Concept and feasibility had been tested in animal experiments since 20041, leading to the creation of new scientific societies and committees with the declared aim to regulate research activity, through sponsorships and registers, without reaching the goal completely. After less than three years, the race for the first cholecystectomy under NOTES conditions in a human being was having its course. Since then, many authors have reported various case collections, while many others presented consistent research activity in vitro or in vivo, but it looks evident that two different branches of research were being defined2 . The first consists in what we would call Endoscopical Access Natural Orifice Surgery (EA-NOS) which includes all procedures truly performed through natural orifices, having the goal to design new platforms for surgery to be brought within the human body to recreate surgical conditions under safety. The evident difficulties to obtain such an environment with guaranteed ease of use, safety and efficacy, reduced to a mere research activity the interest in this field, with few clinical applications described consisting of hybrid procedures, i.e. procedures which were performed basically under laparoscopic conditions with the help of flexible instruments inserted through natural orifices. In fact, a recent large metanalysis of NOTES literature3 focusing on various surgical intra-abdominal procedures, all ascribable to EA-NOS, concluded that no human studies were found satisfactory for the inclusion criteria, for scarce disposable evidence, minor safety and efficacy compared to laparotomic and laparoscopic alternatives. The recommendation that human procedures should first pass through hybrid NOTES surgery, under strict guidelines, and in apposite controlled registers was later supported, as known, by the revision of NOSCAR \"white paper\" 4 . In fact, it is out of discussion that there is a need for a worldwide register, a standardization of the nomenclature, safety data to be used by ethical committees in order to authorize human trials, and implementation of the interface between medical societies, industry and regulatory offices. In this field, on behalf of the EURONOTES Foundation, we have promoted an european registry of NOTES procedures (www.euronotes.world.it) which preliminary results are now awaited. The cooling of enthusiasm related to EA-NOS procedures has naturally forced surgeons to concentrate on techniques which could be more easily reproduced in clinical environments. This brought the interest towards what we would call Surgical Access Natural Orifice Surgery (SA-NOS)2 . In fact, an analysis of the literature would unveil that the vast majority of human studies can be ascribed to SA-NOS. A wider vision of what can be considered a SA-NOS approach, includes in this group not only transvaginal, thoroughly described in literature, but also trans-umbilical surgery. Although both approaches have the advantage of not being burdened by problems related to endoscopic defect's closure in terms of infection, safety, consistent technological research and time-consumption, there is no discussion that trans-umbilical techniques encountered more appreciation among surgeons. We have observed a rapid clinical diffusion driven by a technology development supported by all the different major surgical companies. Thus, it has to be said that single-port laparoscopic surgery is nothing new. It was 1992 when Marco Pelosi first described a laparoscopic appendectomy using a single umbilical puncture5 . Even multi-port single-incision trans-umbilical laparoscopic cholecystectomy was first described by Giuseppe Navarra already in 19977 . Despite this, interest towards single-port surgery grew-up only very recently. This might be on one side explained with the better establishment of laparoscopic techniques and skills over the years, but rises doubts about a possible industry driven interest. There is no discussion that the technique has a number of drawbacks. The major one regards the concept of \"triangulation\" to which laparoscopic surgeons have grown accustomed in terms of both the instruments and scope, which is now lacking. Although this seems to be overshadowed by the increasing acceptability of in-line viewing, it has to be said that industries concentrate on developing and marketing a number of curved instrument with different characteristics with the aim of restoring standard triangulation as under laparoscopic environment. Nevertheless, personal experience gained by conducing a trial on a virtual reality simulator designed for the purpose, demonstrated that only very experienced surgeons performed surgical tasks with safety and effectiveness and requiring a short learning curve, while for all other surgeons technique acquisition was challenging7 . Still a number of different concerns arise. The fundamental hypotheses that were at the base of single-port growing interest were that it could improve cosmesis, decrease post-operative pain and therefore probably allow an earlier return to work with in any case a better patient's satisfaction. None of these has been confirmed yet, if they will ever. It is also clear that those who advocate patients' preference as the main reason for proposing single-port techniques forget that patients' preference is deeply influenced by the assumption that these arguments in favor of single-port surgery are correct, despite there is no realistic certainty about it. Some of the major experts in the field of minimally invasive surgery and active researchers in the field of NOTES share the same skeptical opinion about a real benefit of single port techniques application. Dr Ratner for instance states in a recent interview that \"...it is not clear to me whether single port laparoscopy would be beneficial compared to traditional laparoscopy\"8 . In any case we should never advocate for even slightly improved cosmetic value over safety, the principal concern. This has implications in both the intraoperative and the postoperative time. While it is recommended not to consider conversion to standard multi-trocars laparoscopy a failure, it might be that, as it happened at the beginning of the diffusion of laparoscopy, an increased number of complications will be observed. In fact, as often in similar circumstances, only a minority of efforts has been dedicated to training programs and very few simulators are available yet. Moreover, it has been advocated that a larger peri-umbilical incision and consequent fascial defect would imply a higher rate of incisional hernia. Although this is likely to happen, only time and data acquired will give us the answer. For these reasons robust studies to show that there is indeed a difference without a significant compromise of safety should be awaited before a wide diffusion of these techniques. In the proposed study cholecystectomy is chosen as a target as it represent the typical and more diffuse indication for laparoscopy. Its morbidity rate related to skin incisions occurs in a range of 1 to 5%9,10. REFERENCES Kalloo AN, Singh VK, Jagannath SB, Niiyama H, Hill SL, Vaughn CA, Magee CA, Kantsevoy SV (2004) Flexible transgastric peritoneoscopy: a novel approach to diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in the peritoneal cavity. Gastrointest Endosc 60(1):114-117 Vettoretto N, Arezzo A. Human natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery: on the way to two different philosophies? Surg Endosc. 2010 Feb;24(2):490-2. Della Flora E, Wilson TG, Martin IJ, O'Rourke NA, Maddern GJ (2008) A review of natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) for intra-abdominal surgery: experimental models, techniques, and applicability to the clinical setting. Ann Surg 247(4):583-602 Hawes RH (2008) Transition from laboratory to clinical practice in NOTES: role of NOSCAR. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 18(2):333-341 Pelosi MA, Pelosi MA 3rd. Laparoscopic appendectomy using a single umbilical puncture (minilaparoscopy). J Reprod Med. 1992 Jul;37(7):588-94. Navarra G, Pozza E, Occhionorelli S, Carcoforo P, Donini I. One-wound laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg. 1997 May;84(5):695 Rimonda R., Brown S., Tang B., Cuschieri A. Ergonomic performance with crossed and uncrossed instruments in single port laparoscopic surgery. Accepted for 12th SAGES (American Society of GastroEndoscopic Surgery) Congress, Washington DC (USA), April 2010; under review on Annals of Surgery. Rattner D. Single port surgery and NOTES: competition or transition?. Epublication: WeBSurg.com, Nov 2007;7(11). URL: http://www.eats.fr/doi-vd02en2227rattner3e.htm Access-related complications - an analysis of 6023 consecutive laparoscopic hernia repairs. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Tecnol (2001) 1: 23-29 Hong T.H., You Y.K., Lee K.H. Transumbilical single-port laparoscopic cholecysectomy. Surg Endosc (2008) DOI 10.1007/s00464-008-0252-y Study Design Design: multi-centric randomized controlled trial (RCT) Primary endpoint: Overall morbidity rate defined as any diagnosed morbidity related to surgical technique within 60 days from surgery. Primary outcome measure (for non-inferiority): Morbidity, defined as the occurrence of any complication, directly or indirectly related to surgery. Complications will be classified according to Dindo [Dindo D., Demartines N., Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13)] Complications will be subdivided into procedural (during treatment) and delayed complications (after ending the procedure), and further subdivided into major (requiring additional surgery) and minor (requiring endoscopic or medical intervention) complications. During admission patients will be monitored for complications. The following standardized discharge criteria will be applied in all participating hospitals: normal intake of nutrition; normal mobility; absence of fever (<38\u00b0C); and stable hemoglobin level during 1 day (<1 mmol/L). In case of same day discharge from the hospital patients will be called by telephone 1 day after the procedure whether adverse events have happened. Two weeks after the intervention, a research nurse will contact the patient by telephone again and ask for occurred complications. The patient will undergo a direct check-up by means of a medical doctor at 30 and 60 days after surgery, to conclude evaluation. Secondary endpoints: Skin-incision related morbidity defined as bleeding, infection, necrosis, skin retraction, incisional hernia, suture dehiscence within 60 days from surgery. Postoperative pain defined as a subjective evaluation of the same parameter using an horizontal visual analogical scale daily for the first week and weekly till 60 days after surgery. Patients will be administered Paracetamol IV 3 times a day for the first 24h, than on demand. Tramadol will be administered when Paracetamol will not be judged sufficient for pain control. On request, a single-dose of Ketorolac can be prescribed. Cosmetic results defined as judgement of - three independent surgeons: using a standardized methodology (patient on standing position against a black background), two digital photographs (JPG format, 800x600 pixels resolution, 16x106 colours, 24 bit) will be taken preoperatively (for comparison) and 60 days from surgery, one consisting of a close up of the umbilical area and a large view including just the full abdomen. A Likert scale will be used independently by the three surgeons to score the photographs from 1 to 5 (1= very poor, 2= poor, 3= satisfactory, 4= good, 5= very good) in all cases. The mean value will be considered objective evaluation of cosmetic outcome. - the patient him/her self: the patient will be asked to score his/her subjective perception of cosmetic outcome using the same Likert scale 60 days from surgery. A following comparison of the two different measures will give an interesting proportion of differences between subjective and objective perception. Hospital stay: length (days) of hospital stay after surgery Intra-operative time: minutes between skin incision and end of skin closure Conversion \"Single-Port (SPC) to Multi-Ports (4PC) Laparoscopy\" rate: number of cases in which the surgeon preferred conversion from SPC to 4PC for safely of technical reasons Conversion \"to Open Surgery\" rate: number of cases in which the surgeon preferred conversion from SPC or 4PC to laparotomy for safely or technical reasons. Long term morbidity defined as any diagnosed morbidity related to surgical technique within 1 year from surgery. Patient recruitment: Consecutive eligible patients will be recruited at the outpatient clinic in the participating centres by the involved physician. All patients fulfilling the above-mentioned criteria will be informed about the study by the physician. After consent is given, central randomization will take place web-based and patients will be treated according to the study protocol. Patients unable or refusing to provide informed consent will be treated according to current clinical guidelines. Randomization: patient data will be entered into a web-based database and a blind randomization (into two experimental groups: a. traditional 4-Ports Cholecystectomy (4PC) vs. b. Single-Port Cholecystectomy (SPC)) will be done by an unchangeable number-generating software. Blinding: Blinding of patients and physicians during treatment is unfeasible, since the two treatment strategies are highly different and easily recognizable. Since a double-blinded method is not possible in surgical experiments, this system guarantees the highest scientific severity. Study Population: inclusion criteria: - age: 18-75 - BMI: <30 ASA: I-III absence of non-correctable coagulopathy (international normalized ratio >1,5, or platelet count <90 \u00d7 109/l). - diagnosis: cholelithiasis (gallstones < 2 cm in diameter) gallbladder dyskinesia gallbladder polyps exclusion criteria: - diagnosis: cholecystitis suspected presence of common duct stones suspected presence of biliary cancer Previous abdominal surgery Previous umbilical surgery Intervention techniques: 4-Ports Cholecystectomy (4PC): a 12mmHg pneumoperitoeum is created either by a 10mm umbelical Hasson's port or by a Verress needle followed by a 10 mm umbelical port insertion; further one 10mm and two 5mm ports are placed according to the preferred technique. A straight or angulated laparoscope may be used. Laparoscopic graspers, monopolar hook, bipolar forceps, scissors and 10mm clips-applier are used. A plastic bag system might be used for gall bladder extraction if necessary. In both 10 and 12mm accesses, fascia is sutured with resorbable sutures. Skin is secured by either metallic agraffes or interrupted sutures. Single-Port Cholecystectomy (SPC): a 2.5cm long skin incision around the umbilicus is performed. The subcutaneous tissue is dissected, the muscular fascia exposed and incised along the middle line (linea alba) respecting the muscular tissue. Peritoneum is identified and incised. The Single-Port device is inserted and anchored. In order to retract the gallbladder a transcutaneous suture is placed in the right hypocondrium with a straight needle and a monofilament thread which are passed through the fundus and knotted outside the skin. The following steps reproduce the traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Each centre will be left free to use dedicated instruments and which or traditional laparoscopic ones. Complication/Intervention failure: Conversion \"single-port (SPC) to multi-ports (4PC) laparoscopy\" is possible according to surgeon's decision, while performing the surgical procedure. Since the patients' recruitment is based on \"intention to treat\" the converted procedure will not be excluded from the study. Conversion rate will be considered as a relevant result of the experiment. Similarly, conversion \"to open surgery\" both from 4PC and SPC is possible according to surgeon's decision, while performing the surgical procedure. Since the patients' recruitment is based on \"intention to treat\", the converted procedure won't be excluded from the study. Conversion rate will be considered as a relevant result of the experiment. Sample size and Power calculation Assuming a baseline overall morbidity of 5% for both 4PC and SPC group (average morbidity based on specific literature) and considering a level of difference considered clinically significant of 0.05 (4.75 to 5.25%) for SPC to be non-inferior, with a \u03b2-error of 0.2 and \u03b1-error of 0.05, 300 patients are needed per randomization group. 600 patients in total allow to establish equivalence in terms of overall morbidity, with a statistical power of 80%. If the hypothesis is confirmed, secondary endopoints will eventually define benefits for the new surgical procedure in terms of reduced skin incision's related morbidity, lower postoperative pain and better cosmetic results. The sample size calculation has been obtained by R-software (R Project for Statistical Computing, Lucent Technology, GNU General Public Licence) version 2.10.1, package epicalc, routine sample-size. Data analysis Intra and post-operative results will be inserted in the web-based database at any time during the study by the recruiting surgeon. The photographic material will be up-loaded into the computed database as well; all patients' personal data will be considered strictly reserved in respect of privacy policy. The Kolgoromow-test will be used to establish whether the results are parametric or not. According to data feature, T-Test/Chi-Square or Wilcoxon rank test will be used where appropriate. All analyses will be carried out primarily on an intention-to treat basis. Impact on clinical practice and healthcare system SPA Surgery is an emergent frontier of surgical innovation and represents an alternative to multi-ports standard laparoscopy. The trans-umbilical technique allows to perform laparoscopy with the supposed benefit of reduced invasiveness. In recent literature a large number of studies have aimed to demonstrate feasibility and safety of the new method even if no randomized trial is still available for definitive conclusions. Once feasibility and safety will be shown we will have to investigate benefit for the patients. For these reasons we have chosen as primary endpoint overall morbidity while in order to demonstrate the supposed benefit (patient's reduced discomfort and better cosmetic outcome) and skin incision morbidity will be taken into consideration. Since SPA surgical technique requires a consistent effort in terms of development of new technology and surgeon's adaptation, we consider this definition of primary relevance. As a matter of fact, a concrete introduction of SPA Surgery into daily practice is not possible without a concrete advantage for patients. Except one single trial comparing only postoperative pain (by Tsimoviannis et al. in G. Hatzikosta General Hospital, Ioannina Greece), at present there are no similar studies posted on USA and European trials databanks. For these reasons, we believe the MUSIC trial should produce precious information with obvious recoils on clinical activity. Track record of applicants including their experience in the field and any plot work carry out The present MUSIC project is the result of a collaboration between the members of EAES Technology Committee and the Board of the EAES. All applicants have big experience in the field of new technologies in laparoscopic surgery. In particular, many of them have taken part in development of new instruments and new techniques for trans-luminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). Since SPA surgery is considered part of this new concept for a micro-invasive approach to the abdominal cavity, we consider their knowledge particularly useful in the coordination of the trial. Considering the high interest on SPA-surgery expressed in recent literature by the international surgical community, the Technology Committee has developed a specific interest in this new branch of surgical innovation. Mario Morino, Alberto Arezzo. Video Surgery through Single Port Access: an overview. Revista Portuguesa de Cirurgia, in press Vettoretto N, Arezzo A. Human natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery: on the way to two different philosophies? Surg Endosc. 2010 Feb;24(2):490-2. Epub 2009 Jul 2. Arezzo A, Kratt T, Schurr MO, Morino M. Laparoscopic-assisted transgastric cholecystectomy and secure endoscopic closure of the transgastric defect in a survival porcine model. Endoscopy. 2009 Sep;41(9):767-72. Epub 2009 Aug 14. Arezzo A, Morino M. Endoscopic closure of gastric access in perspective NOTES: an update on techniques and technologies. Surg Endosc. 2010 Feb;24(2):298-303. Epub 2009 Jun 30. Lirici MM, Arezzo A. Surgery without scars: the new frontier of minimally invasive surgery? Controversies, concerns and expectations in advanced operative endoscopy. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2006;15(6):323-4. Rimonda R., Brown S., Tang B., Cuschieri A. Ergonomic performance with crossed and uncrossed instruments in single port laparoscopic surgery. Accepted for 12th SAGES (American Society of GastroEndoscopic Surgery) Congress, Washington DC (USA), Aprile 2010; under review on Annals of Surgery. Neugebauer EA, Becker M, Buess GF, Cuschieri A, Dauben HP, Fingerhut A, Fuchs KH, Habermalz B, Lantsberg L, Morino M, Reiter-Theil S, Soskuty G, Wayand W, Welsch T; On behalf of the EAES. EAES recommendations on methodology of innovation management in endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2010 Jan 7 Neugebauer EA, Morino M, Habermalz B. Surgical research or comic opera? Let's give answers! Surg Endosc. 2008 Jun;22(6):1411-2. Meining A, K\u00e4hler G, von Delius S, Buess G, Schneider A, Hochberger J, Wilhelm D, K\u00fcbler H, Kranzfelder M, Bajbouj M, Fuchs KH, Gillen S, Feussner H.[Natural orifices transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) in Germany: summary of the working group reports of the \"D-NOTES meeting 2009\"] Z Gastroenterol. 2009 Nov;47(11):1160-7 Fuchs KH, Breithaupt W. [Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in future obesity treatment] Chirurg. 2008 Sep;79(9):837-42. Sylla P, Rattner DW, Delgado S, Lacy AM. NOTES transanal rectal cancer resection using transanal endoscopic microsurgery and laparoscopic assistance. Surg Endosc. 2010 Feb 26. Lacy AM, Delgado S, Rojas OA, Ibarzabal A, Fernandez-Esparrach G, Taura P. Hybrid vaginal MA-NOS sleeve gastrectomy: technical note on the procedure in a patient. Surg Endosc. 2009 May;23(5):1130-7. MA-NOS radical sigmoidectomy: report of a transvaginal resection in the human. Surg Endosc. 2008 Jul;22(7):1717-23. Project management structure Once patients accept to be included in the MUSIC study, the randomization will be performed in one of the two groups: 1. Treatment A: 4 Ports Cholecystectomy (4PC) 2. Treatment B: Single-Port Access Cholecystectomy (SPC) Randomization will take place by connection to a dedicated web-site where initial data of the patient will be inserted and the group assignment will be displayed, sent by e-mail to the centre logged in and recruiting the patient, and stored in a dedicated database. All the clinical informations related to the per-operative time and the follow-up as described in the appendix will be stored through the same website and collected in a database format. This will be accessible in an anonymous way, respecting the privacy of each patient, at any time. Basic statistical analysis as well as more advanced data analysis such as Wilcoxon tests and t-Student's test will be available online. Furthermore, the entire database can be downloaded at anytime in xls format for more advanced data analysis. This will allow to complete an interim analysis and report to the Ethical committee at any time during the project. Proposed interval for analysis and reporting will be 3 months, if not suggested differently. All applicants will be in charge of collection of data and analysis of results. Dissemination plan Dissemination of research results, training and exploitation will be actively pursued. Results will be disseminated to the scientific community through specialized media, as selected magazines, conferences, fairs, websites and medical society, including clinicians considered final users and patients. Training activities will be carried out based on the dissemination activities, the target of the courses is expected essentially coming from the medical community. The objective of the Dissemination Plan is to identify and organize the activities to be performed in order to promote the exploitation of the project's results and the widest dissemination of knowledge from the project. MUSIC trial will establish an infrastructure for communications (and therefore dissemination) by building a robust framework in which dialogue and interaction can take place. This applies equally to internal and external communication. These will be used to disseminate information about and solicit input into the Single-Port-Access Surgery project work. Contact can be maintained and facilitated by electronic mailing lists, through Internal Lists within the EAES members, and External Lists including stakeholders using several existing lists to communicate to the wider community. Moreover the MUSIC-working group develop a publications program which at minimum will comprise: targeted informational literature designed to raise awareness about Single-Port-Access Surgery, and its activities instructional literature derived from experience across this trial, including methodological guidelines and strategic guides to good clinical practice. The MUSIC-working group will develop effective mechanisms for dissemination material including the worldwide web, with a website which will include - information about MUSIC study and its activities including contact details, background information, working papers, events (seminars, workshops, conferences) etc. - instructional materials as discussed above n(the web in this respect acts as a principal means of publication): - frequent news and updates to keep the community informed Finally printed publications will be submitted to the EAES Official Journal, Surgical Endoscopy. The MUSIC-working group will be promoting dissemination, advocacy and other events. Conferences, workshops, seminars will be organized to: raise awareness about activities, resources, results, etc.; act as training venues e.g. For disseminating instructional material as required by a particular stakeholding community or communities; act as for a for more public discussion of research, development, collections, standards or other strategic and substantive issues of interest to SPA Surgery and the wider community. Long term sustainability of the work The program has the potential for long term sustainability according to its underlying concept. Since Single-Port surgery is a traditional laparoscopy-like technique, the cost of procedure is expected to be similar. Other than different ports and instruments (already present on the market), SPC and 4PC require the same laparoscopic equipment, largely available in every operative room. From this point of view, the study doesn't imply any supplementary expense. The follow up of both procedures is identical. It will consist in outpatient clinical meetings and doesn't require expenses for new material and devices. Cost for complications and hospital stay is supposed to be unchanged between the two experimental groups.", 
    "endDate": "2015-07-01T00:00:00Z", 
    "id": "sg:clinicaltrial.NCT01104727", 
    "keywords": [
      "port", 
      "cholecystectomy", 
      "surgical strategy", 
      "technique", 
      "RCT", 
      "method", 
      "morbidity", 
      "consideration", 
      "related morbidity", 
      "postoperative pain", 
      "cosmetic", 
      "benefit", 
      "parameter", 
      "evidence", 
      "recent literature", 
      "surgical procedure", 
      "needle", 
      "insertion", 
      "mean", 
      "incision", 
      "access", 
      "abdominal cavity", 
      "suture", 
      "right", 
      "gallbladder", 
      "fundus", 
      "retract", 
      "primary endpoint", 
      "morbidity rate", 
      "General Surgery", 
      "secondary endpoint", 
      "pain", 
      "long-term morbidity", 
      "Time", 
      "conversion", 
      "laparotomy", 
      "hospital", 
      "detailed description", 
      "patient", 
      "September", 
      "randomized patient", 
      "recovery", 
      "clinic appointment", 
      "long-term evaluation", 
      "statistical analysis", 
      "SpA", 
      "feasible approach", 
      "peritoneal cavity", 
      "Laparoscopy", 
      "equivalence", 
      "entail", 
      "post-operative pain", 
      "Operative Time", 
      "conversion rate", 
      "endoscopic surgery", 
      "medium", 
      "clinical report", 
      "concept", 
      "feasibility", 
      "Animal Experimentation", 
      "creation", 
      "scientific society", 
      "committee", 
      "Research", 
      "sponsorship", 
      "register", 
      "Continental Population Group", 
      "author", 
      "collection", 
      "vitro", 
      "vivo", 
      "different branch", 
      "orifice", 
      "EA", 
      "platform", 
      "human body", 
      "condition", 
      "safety", 
      "environment", 
      "ease", 
      "efficacy", 
      "clinical application", 
      "help", 
      "flexible instrument", 
      "intra", 
      "human study", 
      "inclusion criterion", 
      "alternative", 
      "recommendation", 
      "human", 
      "guideline", 
      "revision", 
      "white paper", 
      "discussion", 
      "worldwide", 
      "Reference Standard", 
      "terminology", 
      "safety data", 
      "human trial", 
      "implementation", 
      "interface", 
      "society", 
      "industry", 
      "office", 
      "behalf", 
      "registry", 
      "preliminary result", 
      "cooling", 
      "enthusiasm", 
      "surgeon", 
      "clinical environment", 
      "SA", 
      "vast majority", 
      "advantage", 
      "defect", 
      "closure", 
      "infection", 
      "technological research", 
      "appreciation", 
      "diffusion", 
      "technology development", 
      "company", 
      "nothing", 
      "MARCO", 
      "establishment", 
      "skill", 
      "drawback", 
      "triangulation", 
      "instrument", 
      "scope", 
      "acceptability", 
      "in-line", 
      "marketing", 
      "different characteristic", 
      "trial", 
      "virtual reality", 
      "effectiveness", 
      "curve", 
      "acquisition", 
      "fundamental hypothesise", 
      "base", 
      "return", 
      "Personal Satisfaction", 
      "patient preference", 
      "main reason", 
      "assumption", 
      "argument", 
      "certainty", 
      "expert", 
      "invasive surgery", 
      "active researcher", 
      "opinion", 
      "real benefit", 
      "instance", 
      "interview", 
      "advocate", 
      "principal", 
      "implication", 
      "failure", 
      "beginning", 
      "increased number", 
      "complication", 
      "similar circumstance", 
      "minority", 
      "Education", 
      "simulator", 
      "high rate", 
      "incisional hernia", 
      "Robust", 
      "difference", 
      "target", 
      "indication", 
      "reference", 
      "Singh", 
      "Sb", 
      "hill", 
      "CA", 
      "SV", 
      "novel approach", 
      "diagnostic and therapeutic intervention", 
      "philosophy", 
      "Feb", 
      "DELLAs", 
      "Wilson", 
      "Martin", 
      "Na", 
      "GJ", 
      "review", 
      "abdominal surgery", 
      "Theoretical Model", 
      "applicability", 
      "clinical setting", 
      "Ann", 
      "Rh", 
      "transition", 
      "laboratory", 
      "clinical practice", 
      "Clin", 
      "AM", 
      "MA", 
      "puncture", 
      "MED", 
      "br", 
      "May", 
      "Brown", 
      "Tang", 
      "SAGE", 
      "American society", 
      "Washington DC", 
      "USA", 
      "April", 
      "Annals", 
      "competition", 
      "URL", 
      "related complication", 
      "hernia", 
      "ther", 
      "Hong", 
      "Lee", 
      "DOI", 
      "study design", 
      "surgical technique", 
      "primary outcome measure", 
      "non-inferiority", 
      "occurrence", 
      "PA", 
      "classification", 
      "surgical complication", 
      "Evaluation Study as Topic", 
      "cohort", 
      "Data Collection", 
      "Aug", 
      "additional surgery", 
      "medical intervention", 
      "admission", 
      "discharge", 
      "intake", 
      "nutrition", 
      "mobility", 
      "absence", 
      "fever", 
      "hemoglobin level", 
      "mmol/L", 
      "hospital patient", 
      "telephone", 
      "adverse event", 
      "intervention", 
      "research nurse", 
      "check", 
      "medical doctor", 
      "necrosis", 
      "retraction", 
      "subjective evaluation", 
      "same parameter", 
      "scale", 
      "demand", 
      "tramadol", 
      "acetaminophen", 
      "pain control", 
      "request", 
      "single dose", 
      "ketorolac", 
      "judgment", 
      "standardized methodology", 
      "black", 
      "digital photograph", 
      "format", 
      "resolution", 
      "color", 
      "bit", 
      "comparison", 
      "abdomen", 
      "score", 
      "photograph", 
      "mean value", 
      "objective evaluation", 
      "subjective perception", 
      "different measure", 
      "proportion", 
      "perception", 
      "technical reason", 
      "open surgery", 
      "Patient Selection", 
      "eligible patient", 
      "Ambulatory Care Facility", 
      "physician", 
      "criterion", 
      "consent", 
      "study protocol", 
      "informed consent", 
      "clinical guideline", 
      "Random Allocation", 
      "patient data", 
      "web-based database", 
      "Blind", 
      "experimental group", 
      "software", 
      "blinding", 
      "treatment strategy", 
      "experiment", 
      "guarantee", 
      "severity", 
      "study population", 
      "age", 
      "BMI", 
      "ASA", 
      "coagulopathy", 
      "International Normalized Ratio", 
      "platelet count", 
      "diagnosis", 
      "cholelithiasis", 
      "gallstone", 
      "cm", 
      "diameter", 
      "exclusion criterion", 
      "stone", 
      "intervention technique", 
      "laparoscope", 
      "hook", 
      "Bipolar", 
      "scissors", 
      "plastic bag", 
      "gall bladder", 
      "fascia", 
      "skin", 
      "subcutaneous tissue", 
      "middle", 
      "tissue", 
      "peritoneum", 
      "thread", 
      "reproduce", 
      "dedicated instrument", 
      "intention", 
      "relevant result", 
      "sample size", 
      "power calculation", 
      "non-inferior", 
      "error", 
      "statistical power", 
      "sample size calculation", 
      "Lucent Technologies", 
      "GNU", 
      "general public", 
      "version", 
      "package", 
      "database", 
      "personal data", 
      "respect", 
      "privacy policy", 
      "feature", 
      "square", 
      "rank", 
      "Delivery of Health Care", 
      "emergent", 
      "innovation", 
      "invasiveness", 
      "large number", 
      "randomized trial", 
      "definitive conclusion", 
      "discomfort", 
      "development", 
      "technology", 
      "adaptation", 
      "definition", 
      "introduction", 
      "practice", 
      "single trial", 
      "General Hospital", 
      "Greece", 
      "similar study", 
      "databank", 
      "music", 
      "recoil", 
      "clinical activity", 
      "track record", 
      "plot", 
      "Cooperative Behavior", 
      "EAE", 
      "taken part", 
      "considered part", 
      "invasive approach", 
      "coordination", 
      "high interest", 
      "International", 
      "specific interest", 
      "branch", 
      "video", 
      "overview", 
      "de", 
      "press", 
      "mo", 
      "porcine model", 
      "endoscopy", 
      "SEP", 
      "mm", 
      "Cicatrix", 
      "controversy", 
      "expectation", 
      "becker", 
      "GF", 
      "HP", 
      "methodology", 
      "surgical research", 
      "comic", 
      "Jun", 
      "von", 
      "Schneider", 
      "Germany", 
      "summary", 
      "Nov", 
      "obesity treatment", 
      "DW", 
      "LacY", 
      "microsurgery", 
      "assistance", 
      "OA", 
      "Fernandez", 
      "sleeve", 
      "note", 
      "radical", 
      "resection", 
      "management structure", 
      "connection", 
      "dedicated web site", 
      "initial data", 
      "group assignment", 
      "Electronic Mail", 
      "clinical information", 
      "Appendix", 
      "website", 
      "privacy", 
      "advanced data analysis", 
      "available online", 
      "entire database", 
      "interim analysis", 
      "interval", 
      "Fee and Charge", 
      "dissemination plan", 
      "research result", 
      "exploitation", 
      "scientific community", 
      "conference", 
      "FAIR", 
      "clinician", 
      "teaching", 
      "dissemination activity", 
      "medical community", 
      "dissemination", 
      "infrastructure", 
      "communication", 
      "building", 
      "robust framework", 
      "dialog", 
      "input", 
      "project work", 
      "electronics", 
      "list", 
      "stakeholder", 
      "wide community", 
      "Working Group", 
      "publication", 
      "awareness", 
      "guide", 
      "Good Clinical Practice", 
      "effective mechanism", 
      "worldwide web", 
      "detail", 
      "background information", 
      "paper", 
      "seminar", 
      "instructional material", 
      "web", 
      "principal mean", 
      "news", 
      "update", 
      "Residence Characteristic", 
      "official", 
      "advocacy", 
      "Health Resource", 
      "venue", 
      "public discussion", 
      "substantive issue", 
      "long-term sustainability", 
      "market", 
      "room", 
      "expense", 
      "outpatient", 
      "Equipment and Supply"
    ], 
    "name": "Multi-Port vs. Single-port Cholecystectomy", 
    "sameAs": [
      "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/clinical_trial/NCT01104727"
    ], 
    "sdDataset": "clinical_trials", 
    "sdDatePublished": "2019-03-07T15:23", 
    "sdLicense": "https://scigraph.springernature.com/explorer/license/", 
    "sdPublisher": {
      "name": "Springer Nature - SN SciGraph project", 
      "type": "Organization"
    }, 
    "sdSource": "file:///pack/app/us_ct_data_00008.json", 
    "sponsor": [
      {
        "id": "https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.7605.4", 
        "type": "Organization"
      }, 
      {
        "id": "https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.489622.3", 
        "type": "Organization"
      }
    ], 
    "startDate": "2011-04-01T00:00:00Z", 
    "subjectOf": [
      {
        "id": "sg:pub.10.1186/1471-2482-11-24", 
        "sameAs": [
          "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1012225805", 
          "https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-11-24"
        ], 
        "type": "CreativeWork"
      }, 
      {
        "id": "sg:pub.10.1007/s00464-011-1679-0", 
        "sameAs": [
          "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1037743847", 
          "https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1679-0"
        ], 
        "type": "CreativeWork"
      }, 
      {
        "id": "sg:pub.10.1007/s00464-011-1679-0", 
        "sameAs": [
          "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1037743847", 
          "https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1679-0"
        ], 
        "type": "CreativeWork"
      }, 
      {
        "id": "sg:pub.10.1007/s00464-016-5298-7", 
        "sameAs": [
          "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1047091155", 
          "https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5298-7"
        ], 
        "type": "CreativeWork"
      }, 
      {
        "id": "sg:pub.10.1007/s00464-016-5298-7", 
        "sameAs": [
          "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1047091155", 
          "https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5298-7"
        ], 
        "type": "CreativeWork"
      }
    ], 
    "type": "MedicalStudy", 
    "url": "https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01104727"
  }
]
 

Download the RDF metadata as:  json-ld nt turtle xml License info

HOW TO GET THIS DATA PROGRAMMATICALLY:

JSON-LD is a popular format for linked data which is fully compatible with JSON.

curl -H 'Accept: application/ld+json' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/clinicaltrial.NCT01104727'

N-Triples is a line-based linked data format ideal for batch operations.

curl -H 'Accept: application/n-triples' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/clinicaltrial.NCT01104727'

Turtle is a human-readable linked data format.

curl -H 'Accept: text/turtle' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/clinicaltrial.NCT01104727'

RDF/XML is a standard XML format for linked data.

curl -H 'Accept: application/rdf+xml' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/clinicaltrial.NCT01104727'


 

This table displays all metadata directly associated to this object as RDF triples.

521 TRIPLES      16 PREDICATES      507 URIs      497 LITERALS      1 BLANK NODES

Subject Predicate Object
1 sg:clinicaltrial.NCT01104727 schema:about anzsrc-for:3053
2 schema:description The aim of this study is to compare results of the new surgical strategy to the traditional 4-ports technique for cholecystectomy in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). In particular we are going to investigate the procedures in terms of overall morbidity, while taking into considerations skin-incision's related morbidity, postoperative pain and cosmetic results which are the hypothetical benefits of the new approach. Other parameters are supposed to be unchanged, considering evidences from recent literature. Surgical procedures: 4 ports cholecystectomy (4PC): a 12mmHg pneumoperitoeum is created either by a 10mm umbilical Hasson's port or by a Verress needle followed by a 10mm umbilical port insertion; further one 10mm and two 5mm ports are placed according to the preferred technique. Single Port Access cholecystectomy (SPC): the single-port device is inserted through the umbilicus, by means of an adeguate incision, as the only access to the abdominal cavity. A trans-abdominal suture in right hypochondrium is placed through the gallbladder wall of the fundus to retract it. Primary endpoint: overall morbidity rate (at 60 days from surgery) Secondary endpoints: 1. skin-incision's related morbidity rate (at 60 days from surgery) 2. perioperative pain 3. cosmetic results 4. long-term morbidity (12 months) 5. intraoperative time 6. "conversion SPC to 4PC" rate 7. "conversion to laparotomy" rate 8. hospital stay Detailed Description Duration of the project Patients will be recruited for this study from September 2010 until September 2012 in all participating centers. All randomized patients will be followed up (after recovery) with outpatient clinic appointments 30 and 60 days from surgery. A long-term evaluation will be done 12 months after surgery. The last 3 months will be used for photographic analysis of cosmetic results, statistical analysis and reporting of data. Hypothesis /Aims SPA technique is a feasible approach to the peritoneal cavity. While performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy the single umbilical access has an overall morbidity comparable to multiport laparoscopy (equivalence study) while it entails a reduced skin-incision's related morbidity rate, a reduced post-operative pain and allows a better cosmetic result. Other considered parameters (operative time, conversion rate and hospital stay) are supposed to be unchanged. Background More recently Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) has been highlighted to the attention of lay literature and media, after first clinical reports. Concept and feasibility had been tested in animal experiments since 20041, leading to the creation of new scientific societies and committees with the declared aim to regulate research activity, through sponsorships and registers, without reaching the goal completely. After less than three years, the race for the first cholecystectomy under NOTES conditions in a human being was having its course. Since then, many authors have reported various case collections, while many others presented consistent research activity in vitro or in vivo, but it looks evident that two different branches of research were being defined2 . The first consists in what we would call Endoscopical Access Natural Orifice Surgery (EA-NOS) which includes all procedures truly performed through natural orifices, having the goal to design new platforms for surgery to be brought within the human body to recreate surgical conditions under safety. The evident difficulties to obtain such an environment with guaranteed ease of use, safety and efficacy, reduced to a mere research activity the interest in this field, with few clinical applications described consisting of hybrid procedures, i.e. procedures which were performed basically under laparoscopic conditions with the help of flexible instruments inserted through natural orifices. In fact, a recent large metanalysis of NOTES literature3 focusing on various surgical intra-abdominal procedures, all ascribable to EA-NOS, concluded that no human studies were found satisfactory for the inclusion criteria, for scarce disposable evidence, minor safety and efficacy compared to laparotomic and laparoscopic alternatives. The recommendation that human procedures should first pass through hybrid NOTES surgery, under strict guidelines, and in apposite controlled registers was later supported, as known, by the revision of NOSCAR "white paper" 4 . In fact, it is out of discussion that there is a need for a worldwide register, a standardization of the nomenclature, safety data to be used by ethical committees in order to authorize human trials, and implementation of the interface between medical societies, industry and regulatory offices. In this field, on behalf of the EURONOTES Foundation, we have promoted an european registry of NOTES procedures (www.euronotes.world.it) which preliminary results are now awaited. The cooling of enthusiasm related to EA-NOS procedures has naturally forced surgeons to concentrate on techniques which could be more easily reproduced in clinical environments. This brought the interest towards what we would call Surgical Access Natural Orifice Surgery (SA-NOS)2 . In fact, an analysis of the literature would unveil that the vast majority of human studies can be ascribed to SA-NOS. A wider vision of what can be considered a SA-NOS approach, includes in this group not only transvaginal, thoroughly described in literature, but also trans-umbilical surgery. Although both approaches have the advantage of not being burdened by problems related to endoscopic defect's closure in terms of infection, safety, consistent technological research and time-consumption, there is no discussion that trans-umbilical techniques encountered more appreciation among surgeons. We have observed a rapid clinical diffusion driven by a technology development supported by all the different major surgical companies. Thus, it has to be said that single-port laparoscopic surgery is nothing new. It was 1992 when Marco Pelosi first described a laparoscopic appendectomy using a single umbilical puncture5 . Even multi-port single-incision trans-umbilical laparoscopic cholecystectomy was first described by Giuseppe Navarra already in 19977 . Despite this, interest towards single-port surgery grew-up only very recently. This might be on one side explained with the better establishment of laparoscopic techniques and skills over the years, but rises doubts about a possible industry driven interest. There is no discussion that the technique has a number of drawbacks. The major one regards the concept of "triangulation" to which laparoscopic surgeons have grown accustomed in terms of both the instruments and scope, which is now lacking. Although this seems to be overshadowed by the increasing acceptability of in-line viewing, it has to be said that industries concentrate on developing and marketing a number of curved instrument with different characteristics with the aim of restoring standard triangulation as under laparoscopic environment. Nevertheless, personal experience gained by conducing a trial on a virtual reality simulator designed for the purpose, demonstrated that only very experienced surgeons performed surgical tasks with safety and effectiveness and requiring a short learning curve, while for all other surgeons technique acquisition was challenging7 . Still a number of different concerns arise. The fundamental hypotheses that were at the base of single-port growing interest were that it could improve cosmesis, decrease post-operative pain and therefore probably allow an earlier return to work with in any case a better patient's satisfaction. None of these has been confirmed yet, if they will ever. It is also clear that those who advocate patients' preference as the main reason for proposing single-port techniques forget that patients' preference is deeply influenced by the assumption that these arguments in favor of single-port surgery are correct, despite there is no realistic certainty about it. Some of the major experts in the field of minimally invasive surgery and active researchers in the field of NOTES share the same skeptical opinion about a real benefit of single port techniques application. Dr Ratner for instance states in a recent interview that "...it is not clear to me whether single port laparoscopy would be beneficial compared to traditional laparoscopy"8 . In any case we should never advocate for even slightly improved cosmetic value over safety, the principal concern. This has implications in both the intraoperative and the postoperative time. While it is recommended not to consider conversion to standard multi-trocars laparoscopy a failure, it might be that, as it happened at the beginning of the diffusion of laparoscopy, an increased number of complications will be observed. In fact, as often in similar circumstances, only a minority of efforts has been dedicated to training programs and very few simulators are available yet. Moreover, it has been advocated that a larger peri-umbilical incision and consequent fascial defect would imply a higher rate of incisional hernia. Although this is likely to happen, only time and data acquired will give us the answer. For these reasons robust studies to show that there is indeed a difference without a significant compromise of safety should be awaited before a wide diffusion of these techniques. In the proposed study cholecystectomy is chosen as a target as it represent the typical and more diffuse indication for laparoscopy. Its morbidity rate related to skin incisions occurs in a range of 1 to 5%9,10. REFERENCES Kalloo AN, Singh VK, Jagannath SB, Niiyama H, Hill SL, Vaughn CA, Magee CA, Kantsevoy SV (2004) Flexible transgastric peritoneoscopy: a novel approach to diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in the peritoneal cavity. Gastrointest Endosc 60(1):114-117 Vettoretto N, Arezzo A. Human natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery: on the way to two different philosophies? Surg Endosc. 2010 Feb;24(2):490-2. Della Flora E, Wilson TG, Martin IJ, O'Rourke NA, Maddern GJ (2008) A review of natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) for intra-abdominal surgery: experimental models, techniques, and applicability to the clinical setting. Ann Surg 247(4):583-602 Hawes RH (2008) Transition from laboratory to clinical practice in NOTES: role of NOSCAR. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 18(2):333-341 Pelosi MA, Pelosi MA 3rd. Laparoscopic appendectomy using a single umbilical puncture (minilaparoscopy). J Reprod Med. 1992 Jul;37(7):588-94. Navarra G, Pozza E, Occhionorelli S, Carcoforo P, Donini I. One-wound laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg. 1997 May;84(5):695 Rimonda R., Brown S., Tang B., Cuschieri A. Ergonomic performance with crossed and uncrossed instruments in single port laparoscopic surgery. Accepted for 12th SAGES (American Society of GastroEndoscopic Surgery) Congress, Washington DC (USA), April 2010; under review on Annals of Surgery. Rattner D. Single port surgery and NOTES: competition or transition?. Epublication: WeBSurg.com, Nov 2007;7(11). URL: http://www.eats.fr/doi-vd02en2227rattner3e.htm Access-related complications - an analysis of 6023 consecutive laparoscopic hernia repairs. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Tecnol (2001) 1: 23-29 Hong T.H., You Y.K., Lee K.H. Transumbilical single-port laparoscopic cholecysectomy. Surg Endosc (2008) DOI 10.1007/s00464-008-0252-y Study Design Design: multi-centric randomized controlled trial (RCT) Primary endpoint: Overall morbidity rate defined as any diagnosed morbidity related to surgical technique within 60 days from surgery. Primary outcome measure (for non-inferiority): Morbidity, defined as the occurrence of any complication, directly or indirectly related to surgery. Complications will be classified according to Dindo [Dindo D., Demartines N., Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13)] Complications will be subdivided into procedural (during treatment) and delayed complications (after ending the procedure), and further subdivided into major (requiring additional surgery) and minor (requiring endoscopic or medical intervention) complications. During admission patients will be monitored for complications. The following standardized discharge criteria will be applied in all participating hospitals: normal intake of nutrition; normal mobility; absence of fever (<38°C); and stable hemoglobin level during 1 day (<1 mmol/L). In case of same day discharge from the hospital patients will be called by telephone 1 day after the procedure whether adverse events have happened. Two weeks after the intervention, a research nurse will contact the patient by telephone again and ask for occurred complications. The patient will undergo a direct check-up by means of a medical doctor at 30 and 60 days after surgery, to conclude evaluation. Secondary endpoints: Skin-incision related morbidity defined as bleeding, infection, necrosis, skin retraction, incisional hernia, suture dehiscence within 60 days from surgery. Postoperative pain defined as a subjective evaluation of the same parameter using an horizontal visual analogical scale daily for the first week and weekly till 60 days after surgery. Patients will be administered Paracetamol IV 3 times a day for the first 24h, than on demand. Tramadol will be administered when Paracetamol will not be judged sufficient for pain control. On request, a single-dose of Ketorolac can be prescribed. Cosmetic results defined as judgement of - three independent surgeons: using a standardized methodology (patient on standing position against a black background), two digital photographs (JPG format, 800x600 pixels resolution, 16x106 colours, 24 bit) will be taken preoperatively (for comparison) and 60 days from surgery, one consisting of a close up of the umbilical area and a large view including just the full abdomen. A Likert scale will be used independently by the three surgeons to score the photographs from 1 to 5 (1= very poor, 2= poor, 3= satisfactory, 4= good, 5= very good) in all cases. The mean value will be considered objective evaluation of cosmetic outcome. - the patient him/her self: the patient will be asked to score his/her subjective perception of cosmetic outcome using the same Likert scale 60 days from surgery. A following comparison of the two different measures will give an interesting proportion of differences between subjective and objective perception. Hospital stay: length (days) of hospital stay after surgery Intra-operative time: minutes between skin incision and end of skin closure Conversion "Single-Port (SPC) to Multi-Ports (4PC) Laparoscopy" rate: number of cases in which the surgeon preferred conversion from SPC to 4PC for safely of technical reasons Conversion "to Open Surgery" rate: number of cases in which the surgeon preferred conversion from SPC or 4PC to laparotomy for safely or technical reasons. Long term morbidity defined as any diagnosed morbidity related to surgical technique within 1 year from surgery. Patient recruitment: Consecutive eligible patients will be recruited at the outpatient clinic in the participating centres by the involved physician. All patients fulfilling the above-mentioned criteria will be informed about the study by the physician. After consent is given, central randomization will take place web-based and patients will be treated according to the study protocol. Patients unable or refusing to provide informed consent will be treated according to current clinical guidelines. Randomization: patient data will be entered into a web-based database and a blind randomization (into two experimental groups: a. traditional 4-Ports Cholecystectomy (4PC) vs. b. Single-Port Cholecystectomy (SPC)) will be done by an unchangeable number-generating software. Blinding: Blinding of patients and physicians during treatment is unfeasible, since the two treatment strategies are highly different and easily recognizable. Since a double-blinded method is not possible in surgical experiments, this system guarantees the highest scientific severity. Study Population: inclusion criteria: - age: 18-75 - BMI: <30 ASA: I-III absence of non-correctable coagulopathy (international normalized ratio >1,5, or platelet count <90 × 109/l). - diagnosis: cholelithiasis (gallstones < 2 cm in diameter) gallbladder dyskinesia gallbladder polyps exclusion criteria: - diagnosis: cholecystitis suspected presence of common duct stones suspected presence of biliary cancer Previous abdominal surgery Previous umbilical surgery Intervention techniques: 4-Ports Cholecystectomy (4PC): a 12mmHg pneumoperitoeum is created either by a 10mm umbelical Hasson's port or by a Verress needle followed by a 10 mm umbelical port insertion; further one 10mm and two 5mm ports are placed according to the preferred technique. A straight or angulated laparoscope may be used. Laparoscopic graspers, monopolar hook, bipolar forceps, scissors and 10mm clips-applier are used. A plastic bag system might be used for gall bladder extraction if necessary. In both 10 and 12mm accesses, fascia is sutured with resorbable sutures. Skin is secured by either metallic agraffes or interrupted sutures. Single-Port Cholecystectomy (SPC): a 2.5cm long skin incision around the umbilicus is performed. The subcutaneous tissue is dissected, the muscular fascia exposed and incised along the middle line (linea alba) respecting the muscular tissue. Peritoneum is identified and incised. The Single-Port device is inserted and anchored. In order to retract the gallbladder a transcutaneous suture is placed in the right hypocondrium with a straight needle and a monofilament thread which are passed through the fundus and knotted outside the skin. The following steps reproduce the traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Each centre will be left free to use dedicated instruments and which or traditional laparoscopic ones. Complication/Intervention failure: Conversion "single-port (SPC) to multi-ports (4PC) laparoscopy" is possible according to surgeon's decision, while performing the surgical procedure. Since the patients' recruitment is based on "intention to treat" the converted procedure will not be excluded from the study. Conversion rate will be considered as a relevant result of the experiment. Similarly, conversion "to open surgery" both from 4PC and SPC is possible according to surgeon's decision, while performing the surgical procedure. Since the patients' recruitment is based on "intention to treat", the converted procedure won't be excluded from the study. Conversion rate will be considered as a relevant result of the experiment. Sample size and Power calculation Assuming a baseline overall morbidity of 5% for both 4PC and SPC group (average morbidity based on specific literature) and considering a level of difference considered clinically significant of 0.05 (4.75 to 5.25%) for SPC to be non-inferior, with a β-error of 0.2 and α-error of 0.05, 300 patients are needed per randomization group. 600 patients in total allow to establish equivalence in terms of overall morbidity, with a statistical power of 80%. If the hypothesis is confirmed, secondary endopoints will eventually define benefits for the new surgical procedure in terms of reduced skin incision's related morbidity, lower postoperative pain and better cosmetic results. The sample size calculation has been obtained by R-software (R Project for Statistical Computing, Lucent Technology, GNU General Public Licence) version 2.10.1, package epicalc, routine sample-size. Data analysis Intra and post-operative results will be inserted in the web-based database at any time during the study by the recruiting surgeon. The photographic material will be up-loaded into the computed database as well; all patients' personal data will be considered strictly reserved in respect of privacy policy. The Kolgoromow-test will be used to establish whether the results are parametric or not. According to data feature, T-Test/Chi-Square or Wilcoxon rank test will be used where appropriate. All analyses will be carried out primarily on an intention-to treat basis. Impact on clinical practice and healthcare system SPA Surgery is an emergent frontier of surgical innovation and represents an alternative to multi-ports standard laparoscopy. The trans-umbilical technique allows to perform laparoscopy with the supposed benefit of reduced invasiveness. In recent literature a large number of studies have aimed to demonstrate feasibility and safety of the new method even if no randomized trial is still available for definitive conclusions. Once feasibility and safety will be shown we will have to investigate benefit for the patients. For these reasons we have chosen as primary endpoint overall morbidity while in order to demonstrate the supposed benefit (patient's reduced discomfort and better cosmetic outcome) and skin incision morbidity will be taken into consideration. Since SPA surgical technique requires a consistent effort in terms of development of new technology and surgeon's adaptation, we consider this definition of primary relevance. As a matter of fact, a concrete introduction of SPA Surgery into daily practice is not possible without a concrete advantage for patients. Except one single trial comparing only postoperative pain (by Tsimoviannis et al. in G. Hatzikosta General Hospital, Ioannina Greece), at present there are no similar studies posted on USA and European trials databanks. For these reasons, we believe the MUSIC trial should produce precious information with obvious recoils on clinical activity. Track record of applicants including their experience in the field and any plot work carry out The present MUSIC project is the result of a collaboration between the members of EAES Technology Committee and the Board of the EAES. All applicants have big experience in the field of new technologies in laparoscopic surgery. In particular, many of them have taken part in development of new instruments and new techniques for trans-luminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). Since SPA surgery is considered part of this new concept for a micro-invasive approach to the abdominal cavity, we consider their knowledge particularly useful in the coordination of the trial. Considering the high interest on SPA-surgery expressed in recent literature by the international surgical community, the Technology Committee has developed a specific interest in this new branch of surgical innovation. Mario Morino, Alberto Arezzo. Video Surgery through Single Port Access: an overview. Revista Portuguesa de Cirurgia, in press Vettoretto N, Arezzo A. Human natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery: on the way to two different philosophies? Surg Endosc. 2010 Feb;24(2):490-2. Epub 2009 Jul 2. Arezzo A, Kratt T, Schurr MO, Morino M. Laparoscopic-assisted transgastric cholecystectomy and secure endoscopic closure of the transgastric defect in a survival porcine model. Endoscopy. 2009 Sep;41(9):767-72. Epub 2009 Aug 14. Arezzo A, Morino M. Endoscopic closure of gastric access in perspective NOTES: an update on techniques and technologies. Surg Endosc. 2010 Feb;24(2):298-303. Epub 2009 Jun 30. Lirici MM, Arezzo A. Surgery without scars: the new frontier of minimally invasive surgery? Controversies, concerns and expectations in advanced operative endoscopy. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2006;15(6):323-4. Rimonda R., Brown S., Tang B., Cuschieri A. Ergonomic performance with crossed and uncrossed instruments in single port laparoscopic surgery. Accepted for 12th SAGES (American Society of GastroEndoscopic Surgery) Congress, Washington DC (USA), Aprile 2010; under review on Annals of Surgery. Neugebauer EA, Becker M, Buess GF, Cuschieri A, Dauben HP, Fingerhut A, Fuchs KH, Habermalz B, Lantsberg L, Morino M, Reiter-Theil S, Soskuty G, Wayand W, Welsch T; On behalf of the EAES. EAES recommendations on methodology of innovation management in endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2010 Jan 7 Neugebauer EA, Morino M, Habermalz B. Surgical research or comic opera? Let's give answers! Surg Endosc. 2008 Jun;22(6):1411-2. Meining A, Kähler G, von Delius S, Buess G, Schneider A, Hochberger J, Wilhelm D, Kübler H, Kranzfelder M, Bajbouj M, Fuchs KH, Gillen S, Feussner H.[Natural orifices transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) in Germany: summary of the working group reports of the "D-NOTES meeting 2009"] Z Gastroenterol. 2009 Nov;47(11):1160-7 Fuchs KH, Breithaupt W. [Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in future obesity treatment] Chirurg. 2008 Sep;79(9):837-42. Sylla P, Rattner DW, Delgado S, Lacy AM. NOTES transanal rectal cancer resection using transanal endoscopic microsurgery and laparoscopic assistance. Surg Endosc. 2010 Feb 26. Lacy AM, Delgado S, Rojas OA, Ibarzabal A, Fernandez-Esparrach G, Taura P. Hybrid vaginal MA-NOS sleeve gastrectomy: technical note on the procedure in a patient. Surg Endosc. 2009 May;23(5):1130-7. MA-NOS radical sigmoidectomy: report of a transvaginal resection in the human. Surg Endosc. 2008 Jul;22(7):1717-23. Project management structure Once patients accept to be included in the MUSIC study, the randomization will be performed in one of the two groups: 1. Treatment A: 4 Ports Cholecystectomy (4PC) 2. Treatment B: Single-Port Access Cholecystectomy (SPC) Randomization will take place by connection to a dedicated web-site where initial data of the patient will be inserted and the group assignment will be displayed, sent by e-mail to the centre logged in and recruiting the patient, and stored in a dedicated database. All the clinical informations related to the per-operative time and the follow-up as described in the appendix will be stored through the same website and collected in a database format. This will be accessible in an anonymous way, respecting the privacy of each patient, at any time. Basic statistical analysis as well as more advanced data analysis such as Wilcoxon tests and t-Student's test will be available online. Furthermore, the entire database can be downloaded at anytime in xls format for more advanced data analysis. This will allow to complete an interim analysis and report to the Ethical committee at any time during the project. Proposed interval for analysis and reporting will be 3 months, if not suggested differently. All applicants will be in charge of collection of data and analysis of results. Dissemination plan Dissemination of research results, training and exploitation will be actively pursued. Results will be disseminated to the scientific community through specialized media, as selected magazines, conferences, fairs, websites and medical society, including clinicians considered final users and patients. Training activities will be carried out based on the dissemination activities, the target of the courses is expected essentially coming from the medical community. The objective of the Dissemination Plan is to identify and organize the activities to be performed in order to promote the exploitation of the project's results and the widest dissemination of knowledge from the project. MUSIC trial will establish an infrastructure for communications (and therefore dissemination) by building a robust framework in which dialogue and interaction can take place. This applies equally to internal and external communication. These will be used to disseminate information about and solicit input into the Single-Port-Access Surgery project work. Contact can be maintained and facilitated by electronic mailing lists, through Internal Lists within the EAES members, and External Lists including stakeholders using several existing lists to communicate to the wider community. Moreover the MUSIC-working group develop a publications program which at minimum will comprise: targeted informational literature designed to raise awareness about Single-Port-Access Surgery, and its activities instructional literature derived from experience across this trial, including methodological guidelines and strategic guides to good clinical practice. The MUSIC-working group will develop effective mechanisms for dissemination material including the worldwide web, with a website which will include - information about MUSIC study and its activities including contact details, background information, working papers, events (seminars, workshops, conferences) etc. - instructional materials as discussed above n(the web in this respect acts as a principal means of publication): - frequent news and updates to keep the community informed Finally printed publications will be submitted to the EAES Official Journal, Surgical Endoscopy. The MUSIC-working group will be promoting dissemination, advocacy and other events. Conferences, workshops, seminars will be organized to: raise awareness about activities, resources, results, etc.; act as training venues e.g. For disseminating instructional material as required by a particular stakeholding community or communities; act as for a for more public discussion of research, development, collections, standards or other strategic and substantive issues of interest to SPA Surgery and the wider community. Long term sustainability of the work The program has the potential for long term sustainability according to its underlying concept. Since Single-Port surgery is a traditional laparoscopy-like technique, the cost of procedure is expected to be similar. Other than different ports and instruments (already present on the market), SPC and 4PC require the same laparoscopic equipment, largely available in every operative room. From this point of view, the study doesn't imply any supplementary expense. The follow up of both procedures is identical. It will consist in outpatient clinical meetings and doesn't require expenses for new material and devices. Cost for complications and hospital stay is supposed to be unchanged between the two experimental groups.
3 schema:endDate 2015-07-01T00:00:00Z
4 schema:keywords AM
5 ASA
6 Ambulatory Care Facility
7 American society
8 Animal Experimentation
9 Ann
10 Annals
11 Appendix
12 April
13 Aug
14 BMI
15 Bipolar
16 Blind
17 Brown
18 CA
19 Cicatrix
20 Clin
21 Continental Population Group
22 Cooperative Behavior
23 DELLAs
24 DOI
25 DW
26 Data Collection
27 Delivery of Health Care
28 EA
29 EAE
30 Education
31 Electronic Mail
32 Equipment and Supply
33 Evaluation Study as Topic
34 FAIR
35 Feb
36 Fee and Charge
37 Fernandez
38 GF
39 GJ
40 GNU
41 General Hospital
42 General Surgery
43 Germany
44 Good Clinical Practice
45 Greece
46 HP
47 Health Resource
48 Hong
49 International
50 International Normalized Ratio
51 Jun
52 LacY
53 Laparoscopy
54 Lee
55 Lucent Technologies
56 MA
57 MARCO
58 MED
59 Martin
60 May
61 Na
62 Nov
63 OA
64 Operative Time
65 PA
66 Patient Selection
67 Personal Satisfaction
68 RCT
69 Random Allocation
70 Reference Standard
71 Research
72 Residence Characteristic
73 Rh
74 Robust
75 SA
76 SAGE
77 SEP
78 SV
79 Sb
80 Schneider
81 September
82 Singh
83 SpA
84 Tang
85 Theoretical Model
86 Time
87 URL
88 USA
89 Washington DC
90 Wilson
91 Working Group
92 abdomen
93 abdominal cavity
94 abdominal surgery
95 absence
96 acceptability
97 access
98 acetaminophen
99 acquisition
100 active researcher
101 adaptation
102 additional surgery
103 admission
104 advanced data analysis
105 advantage
106 adverse event
107 advocacy
108 advocate
109 age
110 alternative
111 applicability
112 appreciation
113 argument
114 assistance
115 assumption
116 author
117 available online
118 awareness
119 background information
120 base
121 becker
122 beginning
123 behalf
124 benefit
125 bit
126 black
127 blinding
128 br
129 branch
130 building
131 certainty
132 check
133 cholecystectomy
134 cholelithiasis
135 classification
136 clinic appointment
137 clinical activity
138 clinical application
139 clinical environment
140 clinical guideline
141 clinical information
142 clinical practice
143 clinical report
144 clinical setting
145 clinician
146 closure
147 cm
148 coagulopathy
149 cohort
150 collection
151 color
152 comic
153 committee
154 communication
155 company
156 comparison
157 competition
158 complication
159 concept
160 condition
161 conference
162 connection
163 consent
164 consideration
165 considered part
166 controversy
167 conversion
168 conversion rate
169 cooling
170 coordination
171 cosmetic
172 creation
173 criterion
174 curve
175 databank
176 database
177 de
178 dedicated instrument
179 dedicated web site
180 defect
181 definition
182 definitive conclusion
183 demand
184 detail
185 detailed description
186 development
187 diagnosis
188 diagnostic and therapeutic intervention
189 dialog
190 diameter
191 difference
192 different branch
193 different characteristic
194 different measure
195 diffusion
196 digital photograph
197 discharge
198 discomfort
199 discussion
200 dissemination
201 dissemination activity
202 dissemination plan
203 drawback
204 ease
205 effective mechanism
206 effectiveness
207 efficacy
208 electronics
209 eligible patient
210 emergent
211 endoscopic surgery
212 endoscopy
213 entail
214 enthusiasm
215 entire database
216 environment
217 equivalence
218 error
219 establishment
220 evidence
221 exclusion criterion
222 expectation
223 expense
224 experiment
225 experimental group
226 expert
227 exploitation
228 failure
229 fascia
230 feasibility
231 feasible approach
232 feature
233 fever
234 flexible instrument
235 format
236 fundamental hypothesise
237 fundus
238 gall bladder
239 gallbladder
240 gallstone
241 general public
242 group assignment
243 guarantee
244 guide
245 guideline
246 help
247 hemoglobin level
248 hernia
249 high interest
250 high rate
251 hill
252 hook
253 hospital
254 hospital patient
255 human
256 human body
257 human study
258 human trial
259 implementation
260 implication
261 in-line
262 incision
263 incisional hernia
264 inclusion criterion
265 increased number
266 indication
267 industry
268 infection
269 informed consent
270 infrastructure
271 initial data
272 innovation
273 input
274 insertion
275 instance
276 instructional material
277 instrument
278 intake
279 intention
280 interface
281 interim analysis
282 interval
283 intervention
284 intervention technique
285 interview
286 intra
287 introduction
288 invasive approach
289 invasive surgery
290 invasiveness
291 judgment
292 ketorolac
293 laboratory
294 laparoscope
295 laparotomy
296 large number
297 list
298 long-term evaluation
299 long-term morbidity
300 long-term sustainability
301 main reason
302 management structure
303 market
304 marketing
305 mean
306 mean value
307 medical community
308 medical doctor
309 medical intervention
310 medium
311 method
312 methodology
313 microsurgery
314 middle
315 minority
316 mm
317 mmol/L
318 mo
319 mobility
320 morbidity
321 morbidity rate
322 music
323 necrosis
324 needle
325 news
326 non-inferior
327 non-inferiority
328 note
329 nothing
330 novel approach
331 nutrition
332 obesity treatment
333 objective evaluation
334 occurrence
335 office
336 official
337 open surgery
338 opinion
339 orifice
340 outpatient
341 overview
342 package
343 pain
344 pain control
345 paper
346 parameter
347 patient
348 patient data
349 patient preference
350 perception
351 peritoneal cavity
352 peritoneum
353 personal data
354 philosophy
355 photograph
356 physician
357 plastic bag
358 platelet count
359 platform
360 plot
361 porcine model
362 port
363 post-operative pain
364 postoperative pain
365 power calculation
366 practice
367 preliminary result
368 press
369 primary endpoint
370 primary outcome measure
371 principal
372 principal mean
373 privacy
374 privacy policy
375 project work
376 proportion
377 public discussion
378 publication
379 puncture
380 radical
381 randomized patient
382 randomized trial
383 rank
384 real benefit
385 recent literature
386 recoil
387 recommendation
388 recovery
389 reference
390 register
391 registry
392 related complication
393 related morbidity
394 relevant result
395 reproduce
396 request
397 research nurse
398 research result
399 resection
400 resolution
401 respect
402 retract
403 retraction
404 return
405 review
406 revision
407 right
408 robust framework
409 room
410 safety
411 safety data
412 same parameter
413 sample size
414 sample size calculation
415 scale
416 scientific community
417 scientific society
418 scissors
419 scope
420 score
421 secondary endpoint
422 seminar
423 severity
424 similar circumstance
425 similar study
426 simulator
427 single dose
428 single trial
429 skill
430 skin
431 sleeve
432 society
433 software
434 specific interest
435 sponsorship
436 square
437 stakeholder
438 standardized methodology
439 statistical analysis
440 statistical power
441 stone
442 study design
443 study population
444 study protocol
445 subcutaneous tissue
446 subjective evaluation
447 subjective perception
448 substantive issue
449 summary
450 surgeon
451 surgical complication
452 surgical procedure
453 surgical research
454 surgical strategy
455 surgical technique
456 suture
457 taken part
458 target
459 teaching
460 technical reason
461 technique
462 technological research
463 technology
464 technology development
465 telephone
466 terminology
467 ther
468 thread
469 tissue
470 track record
471 tramadol
472 transition
473 treatment strategy
474 trial
475 triangulation
476 update
477 vast majority
478 venue
479 version
480 video
481 virtual reality
482 vitro
483 vivo
484 von
485 web
486 web-based database
487 website
488 white paper
489 wide community
490 worldwide
491 worldwide web
492 schema:name Multi-Port vs. Single-port Cholecystectomy
493 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/details/clinical_trial/NCT01104727
494 schema:sdDatePublished 2019-03-07T15:23
495 schema:sdLicense https://scigraph.springernature.com/explorer/license/
496 schema:sdPublisher N88c399c581fa403fa4cae06512b77c9f
497 schema:sponsor https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.489622.3
498 https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.7605.4
499 schema:startDate 2011-04-01T00:00:00Z
500 schema:subjectOf sg:pub.10.1007/s00464-011-1679-0
501 sg:pub.10.1007/s00464-016-5298-7
502 sg:pub.10.1186/1471-2482-11-24
503 schema:url https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01104727
504 sgo:license sg:explorer/license/
505 sgo:sdDataset clinical_trials
506 rdf:type schema:MedicalStudy
507 N88c399c581fa403fa4cae06512b77c9f schema:name Springer Nature - SN SciGraph project
508 rdf:type schema:Organization
509 anzsrc-for:3053 schema:inDefinedTermSet anzsrc-for:
510 rdf:type schema:DefinedTerm
511 sg:pub.10.1007/s00464-011-1679-0 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1037743847
512 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1679-0
513 rdf:type schema:CreativeWork
514 sg:pub.10.1007/s00464-016-5298-7 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1047091155
515 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5298-7
516 rdf:type schema:CreativeWork
517 sg:pub.10.1186/1471-2482-11-24 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1012225805
518 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-11-24
519 rdf:type schema:CreativeWork
520 https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.489622.3 schema:Organization
521 https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.7605.4 schema:Organization
 




Preview window. Press ESC to close (or click here)


...