BackgroundLaparoscopic surgery changed the management of numerous surgical conditions. It was associated with many advantages over open surgery, such as decreased postoperative pain, faster recovery, shorter hospital stay and excellent cosmesis. Since two decades single-incision endoscopic surgery (SIES) was introduced to the surgical community. SIES could possibly result in even better postoperative outcomes than multi-port laparoscopic surgery, especially concerning cosmetic outcomes and pain. However, the single-incision surgical procedure is associated with quite some challenges.MethodsAn expert panel of surgeons has been selected and invited to participate in the preparation of the material for a consensus meeting on the topic SIES, which was held during the EAES congress in Frankfurt, June 16, 2017. The material presented during the consensus meeting was based on evidence identified through a systematic search of literature according to a pre-specified protocol. Three main topics with respect to SIES have been identified by the panel: (1) General, (2) Organ specific, (3) New development. Within each of these topics, subcategories have been defined. Evidence was graded according to the Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Recommendations were made according to the GRADE criteria.ResultsIn general, there is a lack of high level evidence and a lack of long-term follow-up in the field of single-incision endoscopic surgery. In selected patients, the single-incision approach seems to be safe and effective in terms of perioperative morbidity. Satisfaction with cosmesis has been established to be the main advantage of the single-incision approach. Less pain after single-incision approach compared to conventional laparoscopy seems to be considered an advantage, although it has not been consistently demonstrated across studies.ConclusionsConsidering the increased direct costs (devices, instruments and operating time) of the SIES procedure and the prolonged learning curve, wider acceptance of the procedure should be supported only after demonstration of clear benefits.

Background: Children with a brain tumor are prone to develop visual impairment, which to date is often underestimated and unrecognized. Our aim was to assess the prevalence of ophthalmological evaluation and abnormal ophthalmological findings, and investigate whether demographic and tumor-related characteristics are associated with abnormal ophthalmological findings in children presenting with a primary brain tumor. Methods: Medical records of all 90 children diagnosed with a primary brain tumor between June 2018 and May 2019 and treated at the Princess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, a tertiary referral center in the Netherlands, were retrospectively reviewed. Univariate regression analysis was used to investigate associations between demographic, tumor-related and clinical characteristics, and abnormal ophthalmological findings. Results: Sixty children (34 male [56.7%]; median [range] age, 9.3 [0–16.9] years) underwent ophthalmological evaluation within 6 weeks before or after diagnosis, 11 children (5 male [45.5%]; median [range] age, 5.7 [0.1–17.2] years) were seen more than 6 weeks before or after diagnosis, and 19 children (7 male [36.8%]; median [range] age, 7.2 [1.9–16.6] years) did not receive ophthalmological evaluation within at least 6 months from diagnosis. A total of 19 children (21.1%) presented with visual symptoms as first sign leading to the diagnosis of a brain tumor. Children who presented with visual symptoms (odds ratio [OR], 22.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.90–103.60) and/or hydrocephalus (OR, 3.60; 95% CI, 1.38–9.36) at diagnosis were more often seen for ophthalmological evaluation. The most common abnormal ophthalmological findings were eye movement disorders (66.0%), papilledema (44.1%), and visual field defects (58.1%). Eye movement disorders occurred more frequently in patients with an infratentorial tumor (OR, 4.71; 95% CI, 1.03–21.65). The risk of papilledema was associated with older age (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.05–1.34), hydrocephalus (OR, 9.63; 95% CI, 2.68–34.61), and infratentorial (OR, 9.11; 95% CI, 1.77–46.78) and supratentorial (OR, 13.13; 95% CI, 1.92–89.52) tumors. Conclusions: In this study, most children with a primary brain tumor underwent ophthalmological evaluation around diagnosis, 21% of the children were not evaluated. The high prevalence of abnormal ophthalmological findings stresses the importance of early standardized ophthalmological evaluation to detect visual impairment and provide timely treatment to potentially prevent permanent visual loss.