A randomized controlled trial comparing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy using a novel instrument to that using a common instrument

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials

Background

Conventional multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CMLC) has become the current 'gold standard' technique in gallbladder disease. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has gained attention due to its benefits in improving patient cosmetic results and pain reduction. We aim to assess the latest evidence on the feasibility, safety and surgical outcomes of SILC and CMLC.

Methods

We conducted searches for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), and Europe PMC between December 2011 and 2021. The latest search was conducted in January 2022. We analyzed several outcomes, including perioperative complications, estimated blood loss, operation time, conversion to open surgery, hospital stay, pain score, cosmesis, and days of return to work. Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 tool was used to evaluate quality of studies. Mantel-Haenszel's formula and Inverse Variance method were conducted to synthesize results. This study was accomplished in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.

Results

A total of 37 studies were eligible, with a total of 2,129 and 2,392 patients who underwent SILC and CMLC. Our study demonstrated a superiority of SILC for the visual analog score (VAS) at six hours post-operation [mean difference (MD) -0.58 (95% CI -1.11, -0.05), p=0.03], cosmesis one-month post-operation [standard MD 2.12 (95% CI 1.10, 3.13), p<0.0001], and cosmesis six months post-operation [standard MD 0.53 (95% CI 0.06, 0.99), p<0.0001]. Meanwhile, SILC showed a longer operation time [MD 10.45 (95% CI 6.74, 14.17), p<0.00001]. In terms of VAS at four time points (4, 8, 12, and 24 hours), perioperative complications, estimated blood loss, conversion to open surgery, hospital stay and days to return to work, SILC did not differ from CMLC.

Conclusions

SILC is a safe, feasible and favorable procedure in terms of pain reduction and cosmetic results. The option between both procedures is based on surgeon preferences. Registration: PROSPERO ( CRD42022306532; 23 February 2022).

Evaluation of Safety and Feasibility of Using LigaSure During Clipless Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Prospective Clinical Study

Background: Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is a minimally invasive procedure designed to minimize the number and size of the incisions needed for cholecystectomy. Titanium clips are traditionally used to close the cystic duct and artery. Although it is considered safe, dislodgement can result in bleeding and biliary leakage. Using LigaSure for duct sealing is still controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of using LigaSure to close the cystic duct during SILC. Methods: A prospective study over two years was conducted at the General Surgery Department, Mansoura University Hospital, on 102 patients, 51 in each group. They underwent SILC using LigaSure (Group 1) or titanium clips (Group 2) to control the cystic duct and artery. Results: The data analyzed included demographic data, operative time, intra- and postoperative complications, postoperative pain, and hospital stay. The operative time was significantly shorter in LigaSure group (68.5 ± 9.8 versus 72.9 ± 10.6 minutes in the clips group, P .03). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding postoperative bile leak or bleeding. However, two cases in Group 1 and four cases in Group 2 were converted to multiple port laparoscopic cholecystectomy; this was statistically nonsignificant. Postoperative pain and hospital stay showed no significant difference between the two groups. Two patients in each group developed port-site incisional hernia. Conclusions: Clipless SILC using LigaSure is a feasible and safe procedure with acceptable morbidity with shorter operative time than SILC using clips. Nevertheless, the risk of port-site incisional hernia should be explained to the patients.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Versus Conventional Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

The present systematic review compares single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) with the aim of assessing early postoperative pain and morbidity. The secondary outcomes assessed were the duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, and conversion to open surgery. A systematic search for medical records was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4. A total of 14 randomized control trials met the eligibility criteria, involving a total of 1762 patients. Early postoperative pain (four to six hours) (mean difference (MD): -0.86; 95%; confidence interval (CI): -1.16 to -0.55) showed significantly better results in the SILC group but showed no difference on the first or second postoperative day. There were significantly fewer complications (relative risk (RR): 1.7; 95%; CI: 1.16-2.50) recorded in the CLC group as compared to the SILC group. Operative time (MD: 19.66; 95% CI: 13.21-26.11) was significantly longer in the SILC group, while the duration of hospital stay (MD: -0.01; 95% CI: -0.28-0.26) and conversion to open surgery (RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.20-4.82) showed no significant difference. SILC had a significantly longer operative time and more complications as compared to CLC. However, it was associated with significantly lower early post-operative pain.

Comparative outcomes of needlescopic, single-incision laparoscopic, standard laparoscopic, mini-laparotomy, and open cholecystectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of 96 randomized controlled trials with 11,083 patients

BACKGROUND

Most randomized trials on minimally invasive cholecystectomy have been conducted with standard (3/4-port) laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy serving as the control group. However, there exists a dearth of head-to-head trials that directly compare different minimally invasive techniques for cholecystectomy (eg, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus needlescopic cholecystectomy). Hence, it remains largely unknown how the different minimally invasive cholecystectomy techniques fare up against one another.

METHODS

To minimize selection and confounding biases, only randomized controlled trials were considered for inclusion. Perioperative outcomes were compared using frequentist network meta-analyses. The interpretation of the results was driven by treatment effects and surface under the cumulative ranking curve values. A sensitivity analysis was also undertaken focusing on a subgroup of randomized controlled trials, which recruited patients with only uncomplicated cholecystitis.

RESULTS

Ninety-six eligible randomized controlled trials comprising 11,083 patients were identified. Risk of intra-abdominal infection or abscess, bile duct injury, bile leak, and open conversion did not differ significantly between minimally invasive techniques. Needlescopic cholecystectomy was associated with the lowest rates of wound infection (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.977) with an odds ratio of 0.095 (95% confidence interval: 0.023-0.39), 0.32 (95% confidence interval: 0.11-0.98), 0.33 (95% confidence interval: 0.11-0.99), 0.36 (95% confidence interval: 0.14-0.98) compared to open cholecystectomy, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, mini-laparotomy, and standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy, respectively. Mini-laparotomy was associated with the shortest operative time (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.981) by a mean difference of 22.20 (95% confidence interval: 13.79-30.62), 12.17 (95% confidence interval: 1.80-22.54), 9.07 (95% confidence interval: 1.59-16.54), and 8.36 (95% confidence interval: -1.79 to 18.52) minutes when compared to single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, needlescopic cholecystectomy, standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and open cholecystectomy, respectively. Needlescopic cholecystectomy appeared to be associated with the shortest hospitalization (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.717) and lowest postoperative pain (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.928).

CONCLUSION

Perioperative outcomes differed across minimally invasive techniques and, in some instances, afforded superior outcomes compared to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. These findings suggest that there may be equipoise for exploring further the utility of novel minimally invasive techniques and potentially incorporating them into the general surgery training curriculum.

Low long-term incidence of incisional hernia after cholecystectomy: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Various surgical approaches are available for cholecystectomy, but their long-term outcomes, such as incidence of incisional hernia, are largely unknown. Our aim was to investigate the long-term incidence of incisional hernia after cholecystectomy for different surgical approaches.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020178906). Three databases were searched for original studies on long-term complications of cholecystectomy with n > 40 and follow-up ≥6 months for incisional hernia. Risk of bias within the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane "risk of bias" tool. Meta-analysis of the incidence of incisional hernia after 6 and 12 months was conducted when possible.

RESULTS

We included 89 studies. Of these, 77 reported on multiport or single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Twelve studies reported on open cholecystectomy and 4 studies on robotic cholecystectomy. Weighted mean incidence proportion of incisional hernia after multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy was 0.3% (95% confidence interval 0-0.6) after 6 months and 0.2% after 12 months (95% confidence interval 0.1-0.3). Weighted mean incidence of incisional hernia 12 months postoperatively was 1.5% (95% confidence interval 0.4-2.6) after open cholecystectomy and 4.5% (95% confidence interval 0.4-8.6) after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. No meta-analysis could be conducted for robotic cholecystectomy, but incidences ranged from 0% to 16.7%.

CONCLUSION

We found low 1-year incidences of incisional hernia after multiport laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy, whereas risks of incisional hernia were considerably higher after single-incision laparoscopic and robotic cholecystectomy.

The Comparison of Postoperative Pain, Nausea, and Vomiting between Veress Needle Entry and Direct Trocar Entry Methods in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND Postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting are the most common side effects of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). In the present study, we investigated the differences in postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting between Veress needle and direct trocar entry methods among patients undergoing LC. METHODS 96 patients with gallstones were studied. They were randomly divided into two groups: the patients in the first group (n = 48) were insufflated 8.1 liters per minute CO2 gas by direct trocar port, and the patients in another group (n = 48) were insufflated 2.1 liters per minute CO2 gas by Veress needle. Pain intensity, nausea, and vomiting were assessed at 20 minutes, 4 hours, and 12 hours after the operations. RESULTS The duration of CO2 gas insufflation in Veress needle was 88.7 ± 10.7 seconds and indirect trocar was 16.6 ± 1.6 seconds. Visual analog scale (VAS) score significantly reduced in Veress needle compared with direct trocar (0.39 ± 0.98 vs. 1.68 ± 1.48) at 20 min after the operation, while there was no difference at 4 hours and 12 hours after the operation. The requirement and dose of pethidine injection were significantly lower in Veress needle than direct trocar. In addition, nausea and vomiting occurred in Veress needle less than direct trocar at 20 min, 4 hours, and 12 hours after LC. CONCLUSION Pain intensity just in the short term after LC in the group with CO2 gas insufflation in Veress needle was significantly less than the other group, while nausea and vomiting were significantly less during the whole follow-up periods in the group with CO2 gas insufflation in Veress needle.

Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a current meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

We performed this study to compare the safety and feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) with conventional multiple-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MPLC).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials comparing SILC versus MPLC. We evaluated the pooled outcomes for complications, pain scores, and surgery-related events. This study was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 48 randomized controlled trials involving 2838 patients in the SILC group and 2956 patients in the MPLC group were included in this study. Our results showed that SILC was associated with a higher incidence of incisional hernia (relative risk = 2.51; 95% confidence interval = 1.23-5.12; p = 0.01) and longer operation time (mean difference = 15.27 min; 95% confidence interval = 9.67-20.87; p < 0.00001). There were no significant differences between SILC and MPLC regarding bile duct injury, bile leakage, wound infection, conversion to open surgery, retained common bile duct stones, total complication rate, and estimated blood loss. No difference was observed in postoperative pain assessed by a visual analogue scale between the two groups at four time points (6 h, 8 h, 12 h, and 24 h postprocedure).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current evidence, SILC did not result in better outcomes compared with MPLC and both were equivalent regarding complications. Considering the additional surgical technology and longer operation time, SILC should be chosen with careful consideration.

European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic 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.

METHODS

An 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.

RESULTS

In 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering 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.

Reporting of complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Consistent measurement and reporting of outcomes, including adequately defined complications, is important for the evaluation of surgical care and the appraisal of new surgical techniques. The range of complications reported after LC has not been evaluated. This study aimed to identify the range of complications currently reported for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), and the adequacy of their definitions.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for prospective studies reporting clinical outcomes of LC, between 2013 and 2016.

RESULTS

In total 233 studies were included, reporting 967 complications, of which 204 (21%) were defined. One hundred and twenty-two studies (52%) did not provide definitions for any of the complications reported. Conversion to open cholecystectomy was the most commonly reported complication, reported in 135 (58%) studies, followed by bile leak in 89 (38%) and bile duct injury in 75 (32%). Mortality was reported in 89 studies (38%).

CONCLUSION

Considerable variation was identified between studies in the choice of measures used to evaluate the complications of LC, and in their definitions. A standardised set of core outcomes of LC should be developed for use in clinical trials and in evaluating the performance of surgical units.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is responsible for increased adverse events: results of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) has gained popularity, although it is not evident if benefits of this procedure overcome the potential increased risk. Aim of the study is to compare the outcome of SLC with conventional multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) in a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials only.

METHODS

A systematic Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials literature search of articles on SLC and MLC for any indication was performed in June 2017. The main outcomes measured were overall adverse events, pain score (VAS), cosmetic results, quality of life, and incisional hernias. Linear regression was used to model the effect of each procedure on the different outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-six trials were included and data from 5141 participants were analysed; 2444 underwent SLC and 2697 MLC, respectively. Mortality reported was nil in both treatment groups. Overall adverse events were higher in the SLC group (RR 1.41; p < 0.001) compared to MLC group, as well severe adverse events (RR 2.06; p < 0.001) and even mild adverse events (RR 1.23; p = 0.041). This was confirmed also when only trials including 4-port techniques (RR 1.37, p = 0.004) or 3-port techniques were considered (RR 1.89, p = 0.020). The pain score showed a standardized mean difference (SMD) of - 0.36 (p < 0.001) in favour of SLC. Cosmetic outcome by time point scored a SMD of 1.49 (p < 0.001) in favour of SLC. Incisional hernias occurred more frequently (RR 2.97, p = 0.005) in the SLC group.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite SLC offers a better cosmetic outcome and reduction of pain, the consistent higher rate of adverse events, both severe and mild, together with the higher rate of incisional hernias, should suggest to reconsider the application of single incision techniques when performing cholecystectomy with the existing technology.

Two-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Reducing Scars in a Simple Way

BACKGROUND

About 20% of the population has cholelithiasis and this is the main abdominal cause of hospitalization in developed countries. Considering that only in the United States about 700,000 cholecystectomies are done each year, it is possible to estimate the importance of the problem for public health.

OBJECTIVE

To describe a two-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TILC) technique using only conventional material, without increasing complications or operative time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A consecutive and prospective case series compared to another historical operated by conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The TILC was performed with three trocars in two incisions, two trocars in umbilical incision, and one in epigastrium.

RESULTS

A total of 72 patients were operated on by the same surgeon (36 in each group). There were no significant differences between groups for gender, mean age, body mass index, or length of hospital stay. The procedures were classified by the surgeon according to surgical difficulty and 58.3% (n = 42) were considered low grade, 9.7% (n = 7) difficult, and the other were intermediaries, with no difference between the series (P < .05). There were minor complications in 6.94% (n = 5) procedures. There were no differences between mean operative time (P = .989), which was 49 (95% confidence interval [CI] 42-56) minutes in LC and 40 (95% CI 35-44) min in TILC. There was no need for additional trocars in any case or for conversion to open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

TILC is feasible, safe, and with good aesthetic result, using the same instruments of LC, without increasing operative time.

Single-incision laparoscopy surgery: a systematic review

Background

Laparoscopic surgery is a modern surgical technique in which operations are performed far from their location through small incisions elsewhere in the body.

Objective

This systematic review is aimed to overview single-incision laparoscopy surgery.

Methods

This systematic review was carried out by searching studies in PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, and IranMedex databases. The initial search strategy identified about 87 references. In this study, 54 studies were accepted for further screening and met all our inclusion criteria [in English, full text, therapeutic effects of single-incision laparoscopy surgery and dated mainly from the year 1990 to 2016]. The search terms were “single-incision,” “surgery,” and “laparoscopy.”

Results

Single-incision laparoscopy surgery is widely used for surgical operations in cholecystectomy, sleeve gastrectomy, cholecystoduodenostomy, hepatobiliary disease, colon cancer, obesity, appendectomy, liver surgery, rectosigmoid cancer, vaginal hysterectomy, vaginoplasty, colorectal lung metastases, pyloroplasty, endoscopic surgery, hernia repair, nephrectomy, rectal cancer, colectomy and uterus-preserving repair, bile duct exploration, ileo-ileal resection, lymphadenectomy, incarcerated inguinal hernia, anastomosis, congenital anomaly, colectomy for cancer.

Conclusion

Based on the findings, single-incision laparoscopy surgery is a scarless surgery with minimal access. Although it possesses lots of benefits, including less incisional pain and scars, cosmesis, and the ability to convert to standard multiport laparoscopic surgery, it has some disadvantages, for example, less freedom of movement, fewer number of ports that can be used, and the proximity of the instruments to each other during the operation.