PURPOSE: Single incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) attempts to advance laparoscopic appendectomy with the aim of quicker recovery, less pain, a smaller scar, and better patient satisfaction, and it might offer better outcomes than conventional laparoscopic appendectomy. However, conventional SILA (C-SILA) is not widely practiced. C-SILA is associated with several ergonomic challenges when compared with standard multiport laparoscopy owing to the handling of straight instruments in parallel with a camera. The aim of this retrospective study was to review and compare the outcomes of SILA performed by residents in solo approach and a conventional non-solo approach in order to determine whether S-SILA can be performed effectively by residents. METHODS: Between March 2016 and February 2018, at SNUBH, 87 patients underwent SILA performed by residents, and of these patients, 36 underwent S-SILA and 51 underwent C-SILA. RESULTS: Patient characteristics and severities of appendicitis were different between the S-SILA and C-SILA groups. Although cases were more complicated in the S-SILA group, the surgical outcomes were similar between the S-SILA and C-SILA groups. These findings suggest that S-SILA can be a reasonable alternative to C-SILA for surgeons who can competently perform SILA. CONCLUSION: The surgical outcomes were similar between S-SILA and C-SILA. Moreover, S-SILA could reduce the number of required personnel, resulting in a reduction in healthcare cost. S-SILA can be considered a reasonable alternative to C-SILA for surgeons who can competently perform SILA.
Appendectomy* ; Appendicitis ; Cicatrix ; Health Care Costs ; Humans ; Laparoscopes ; Laparoscopy ; Patient Satisfaction ; Retrospective Studies* ; Surgeons

Severe side effects of adenoviral-vectored-DNA COVID-19 vaccines such as thrombosis have been reported. Herein, we report a case of sudden massive deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in a young man with inferior vena cava anomaly 20 hours after the second dose of the mRNA vaccine for COVID-19. There was recurrence of iliofemoral DVT after one year, despite complete resolution and administration of prophylactic anticoagulants. We suggest that the sudden episode was triggered by the vaccine rather than the venous anomaly, which can be associated with recurrence due to inadequate venous return through the small and tortuous infrarenal veins or increased venous pressure and stasis. There are no standard guidelines for the management of DVT following mRNA vaccination. However, we highlight the importance of initial workups, regular follow-ups, and standard treatment options, including the continuous administration of prophylactic anticoagulants which should be considered to prevent recurrence.