Small Animal Laparoscopy and Thoracoscopy. Группа авторов

of the articulating instruments can be introduced in both single‐port devices and conventional rigid trocar–cannula assemblies. The double pre‐bent instruments are intended to mimic triangulation through a curved design of both ends of the instrument shaft, which leads to antipodal directions of the tips and handles when the instruments are held in parallel [71]. The double‐bent instruments can only be used with soft, flexible, or specifically designed entry devices for bent instruments because the bends in these instruments prevent their introduction into a rigid trocar–cannula assembly.

Figure 6.9 Coaxial instruments used through single‐port devices can obviate some of the disadvantages encountered when the ability to triangulate is compromised.

      Source: Courtesy of J. Brad Case.

Figure 6.10 A right‐angle adaptor placed onto the connection between the light cable and telescope can reduce interference between the light cable and instruments during single‐port surgery.

      Optics

With the close proximity of the telescopes and instruments in single‐port surgery, adjustments are required to create space both internally and externally to avoid instrument and optic interference. The easiest way to avoid optics and instrument clashing during the procedure is the use of an angled telescope. The most common telescope used for single‐port laparoscopy in veterinary medicine is a telescope with a 30° angle. To further reduce the external clashing of instruments with the light cable, a right‐angle adaptor for the light cable can be used (Figure 6.10). Recently, the development of advanced laparoscopes geared specifically for single‐port surgery has emerged. A variety of deflectable telescopes with different mechanical design properties have recently been shown to be effective. One design involves a traditional fixed‐rod design that contains a rotating lens at the distal end (EndoCAMeleon, Karl Storz Endoscopy), or alternatively a design that uses the “chip on the tip” concept by placing an image processor at the distal tip of an articulating laparoscope (EndoEye, Olympus; Idealeye Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI) [72]. During veterinary single‐port surgery, it has been shown that using either a 30° telescope or an advanced deflecting optic enables the telescope's camera head and tip to be directed away from the other instruments during the procedure, improving working space while simultaneously maintaining excellent visualization.

Conclusion

      The single‐port platform is a recent innovation in minimally invasive surgery. This platform may represent the next step forward in minimally invasive techniques. Early reports in the veterinary literature have shown this access method as a feasible and potentially more attractive approach for many common veterinary procedures. The focus of all new surgical techniques should be feasibility, safety, and efficacy, and they should provide a clinical advantage over other existing methods. Further studies are needed to determine if this platform for surgery can be considered a comparable alternative to multiport laparoscopy. Continually pursuing these types of research initiatives will help to drive emerging minimally invasive techniques and technology that ultimately benefits both human and veterinary patients alike.

       All videos cited in this chapter can be found on the book's companion website at www.wiley.com/go/fransson/laparoscopy

References

      1 1. Darzi, A. and Munz, Y. (2004). The impact of minimally invasive surgical techniques. Annu. Rev. Med. 55: 223–237.

      2 2. Keus, F., de Jong, J., Gooszen, H.G. et al. (2006). Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 4: CD006229.

      3 3. Kommu, S.S. and Rane, A. (2009). Devices for laparoendoscopic single‐site surgery in urology. Expert Rev. Med. Devices 6: 95–103.

      4 4. Gill, I.S. (2010). Consensus statement of the consortium for laparoendoscopic single‐site surgery. Surg. Endosc. 24 (4): 262–268.

      5 5. Islam, A., Castellvi, A.O., Tesfay, S.T. et al. (2011). Early surgeon impressions and technical difficulty associated with laparoendoscopic single‐site surgery: a society of American gastrointestinal and endoscopic surgeons learning center study. Surg. Endosc. 8: 2597–2603. (previous 4).

      6 6. Galvao Neto, M., Ramos, A., and Campos, J. (2009). Single port laparoscopic access surgery. Gastrointest. Endosc. 11: 84–93.

      7 7. Qiu, J., Yuan, H., Chen, S. et al. (2013). Single‐port versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. 23: 815–831.

      8 8. Liu, X., Yang, W.H., Jiao, Z.G. et al. (2019). Systematic review of comparing single‐incision versus conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for right colon cancer. World J. Surg. Oncol. 17: 179. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957‐019‐1721‐6.

      9 9. Wheeless, C.R. Jr. and Thompson, B.H. (1973). Laparoscopic sterilization. Review of 3600 cases. Obstet. Gynecol. 42: 751–758. (previous 7).

      10 10 Navarra, G., Pozza, E., Occhionorelli, S. et al. (1997). One‐wound laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br. J. Surg. 84: 695.

      11 11 Podolsky, E.R., Rottman, S.J., Pobete, H. et al. (2009). Single port access (SPA) cholecystectomy: a completely transumbilical approach. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. 19: 219–222.

      12 12 Fader, A.N., Levinson, K.L., Gunderson, C.C. et al. (2011). Laparoendoscopic single‐site surgery in gynaecology: a new frontier in minimally invasive surgery. J. Minim. Access Surg. 7: 71–77.

      13 13 Lin, Y., Liu, M., Ye, H. et al. (2020). Laparoendoscopic single‐site surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery for benign ovarian masses: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. BMJ Open 10 (2): e032331. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen‐2019‐032331. PMID: 32066600; PMCID: PMC7045036.

      14 14 Feng, D., Cong, R., Cheng, H. et al. (2019). Laparoendoscopic single‐site nephrectomy versus conventional laparoendoscopic nephrectomy for kidney tumor: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Biosci. Rep. 39 (8): BSR20190014. https://doi.org/10.1042/BSR20190014. PMID: 31358687; PMCID: PMC6689106.

      15 15 Chauhan, N., Kenwar, D.B., Singh, N. et al. (2018). Retroperitoneal single port versus transperitoneal multiport donor nephrectomy: a prospective randomized control trial. J. Endourol. 32 (6): 496–501. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0829. Epub 2018 Apr 12. PMID: 29641348.

      16 16 Sandberg, E.M., la Chapelle, C.F., van den Tweel, M.M. et al. (2017). Laparoendoscopic single‐site surgery versus conventional laparoscopy for hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 295 (5): 1089–1103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404‐017‐4323‐y. Epub 2017 Mar 29. PMID: 28357561; PMCID: PMC5388711.

      17 17