Patient scar assessment after single-incision versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: long-term follow-up from a prospective randomized trial

Pediatric Single-Incision Robotic Cholecystectomy: A 6-Year Update from a Single Institution

Introduction: In children, gallbladder disease has become more common due to the rise in childhood obesity and subsequent shift in etiology. While the gold standard of surgical management remains a laparoscopic technique, there has been increasing interest in robotic-assisted techniques. The aim of this study is to report a 6-year update on the experience of treating gallbladder disease with robotic-assisted surgery at a single institution. Materials and Methods: A database was created to prospectively collect patient demographic and operative variables at the time of operation from October 2015 to May 2021. Descriptive analysis of select available variables was performed using median and interquartile ranges (IQRs) for all continuous variables. Results: In total, 102 single-incision robotic cholecystectomies and one single-port subtotal cholecystectomy were performed. From available data, 82 (79.6%) patients were female, median weight was 66.25 kg (IQR: 58.09-74.24 kg), and median age was 15 years (IQR: 15-18 years). Median procedure time was 84 minutes (IQR: 70.25-103.5 minutes) and median console time was 41 minutes (IQR: 30-59.5 minutes). The most frequent preoperative diagnosis was symptomatic cholelithiasis (79.6%). One (0.97%) operation was converted from a single-incision robotic approach to open. Conclusion: Single-incision robotic cholecystectomy is a safe and reliable technique for the treatment of gallbladder disease in the adolescent population.

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Versus Standard Multiport Approach for Gallbladder Disease in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Aim: To evaluate comparative outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and standard multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) in the management of children with various hematological or biliary disorders. Methods: A comprehensive systematic review of literature studies with subsequent meta-analysis of outcomes was conducted in line with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement standards. Operative time, length of hospital stay, and postoperation complications were extracted. Results: Seven researches reporting a total number of 479 patients who underwent SILC (n = 235) or SLC (n = 244) were included. There was no difference between SILC and SLC groups in operative time (mean difference (MD) 15.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] [10.50-19.79], P = .07) and length of hospital stay (MD 0.83, 95% CI [-2.41 to 4.06], P = .62). Postoperation complications and the cost also seemed similar. Conclusions: SILC and SLC seem to have comparable effect and safety in children. Future high-quality randomized controlled trials with adequate sample sizes and long-term follow-up are required to provide stronger evidence in favor of the intervention.

The Importance of Psychometric and Physical Scales for the Evaluation of the Consequences of Scars-A Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Scars affect patients after trauma, burns, or surgical procedures and can generate both physical and psychosocial changes. The aesthetic damage represents the modification of a person's physical appearance, in its bodily integrity, causing numerous sufferings and determining social or economic consequences. The aim of this research is to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages offered by the available psychosocial and physical scar scales in assessing the physical, aesthetic, psychosocial, and juridical consequences of scars. This will aid to inform medical examiners about the most valued existing scales to allow them to select the most appropriate instrument to manage their patient.

METHODS

A broad search of relevant scientific studies on the psychosocial determinants of post-traumatic and surgical scars was conducted by using the following international database tools: PsycINFO, MedLine Social Science Index, Scopus, Web of Science, published from 1960 until 2022.

RESULTS

We analyzed 63 scientific studies to assess the advantages and limits of several psychometric and physical scar evaluation scales.

CONCLUSIONS

The researchers analyzed in this review highlight the advantages and limitation of existing instruments, evidencing the demand for future scar evaluation instruments and a scar-assessing algorithm that takes into account the physical, aesthetic, psychosocial, and legal consequences of scars.

Comparative analysis of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in pediatric patients

BACKGROUND

Despite increased utilization of robotic-assisted surgery in the pediatric population during the past decade, reports of comparative analysis between robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery are lacking. Our aim was to evaluate outcomes between pediatric robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

METHODS

A single institution retrospective analysis of 299 patients undergoing either RC or LC, between January 2015 and December 2018 was performed. Demographic data as well as clinical characteristics and related outcomes were abstracted and compared using univariate analysis. Related hospital costs were estimated using a charge to cost methodology.

RESULTS

The median age of the cohort was 15.5 years (IQR 14.0-17.0); 76% females and 70% white, with 74% (n = 220) undergoing LC and 26% (n = 79) undergoing RC. The majority of RC were performed using single-site technique and RC proportion increased with time (10% in 2015 vs. 41% in 2018, p<0.001). The majority of RC were more commonly attributed to patients with nonacute indications for cholecystectomy compared to acute clinical indications (87% vs. 13%). Median operative time was 98 min vs. 79 min for RC and LC respectively (p<0.001). Median postoperative LOS was similar between groups (22 h). There were no significant differences in postoperative complication, in-hospital opioid utilization and 30-day readmissions. Average total hospital costs for RC were $15,519 compared to $11,197 for LC.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is feasible with similar outcomes compared to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, it is associated with longer operative times and higher costs. The single-site RC technique may provide a potential cosmetic benefit.

20 Years of Single-Incision-Pediatric-Endoscopic-Surgery: A Survey on Opinion and Experience Among International Pediatric Endosurgery Group Members

Aim/Background: Assessment of current role and future trends of Single-Incision-Pediatric-Endoscopic-Surgery (SIPES) in pediatric surgery among International Pediatric Endosurgery Group (IPEG) members two decades after introduction. Materials and Methods: An online survey was conducted between December 2019 and April 2020 on behalf of the IPEG Research Committee. All IPEG members were contacted by e-mail and asked to complete an anonymous questionnaire that included 39 items on SIPES. Results: One hundred eighty-four practicing pediatric surgeons completed the questionnaire from a pool of 890 IPEG members. The majority (76%) of respondents performed SIPES for more than 6 years with the following caseload per month: 1 case (31%), 2-5 cases (30%), 6-10 cases (24%), and >10 cases (17%). The four most commonly performed procedures were appendectomy (95%), Meckel diverticulectomy (55%), treatment of ovarian pathologies (43%), and U-stitch gastrostomy (40%). Complex reconstructive SIPES procedures were performed rarely. Most surgeons (95%) stated that better cosmesis is the predominant advantage of SIPES procedures. The majority of respondents (70%) felt that there is no convincing scientific evidence that SIPES offers benefits to multi-port minimally invasive procedures. Conclusion: Twenty years after introduction of SIPES, this technique has found its place in pediatric endoscopic surgery. Eighty percent of participating IPEG members of this survey apply SIPES for cases of lower complexity, such as appendectomy mainly for cosmetic reasons. The fact that 70% of respondents state that the scientific evidence for the benefits of SIPES is not convincing suggests that further studies and discussion on this technique are needed.

Safety and Feasibility of Robotic Reduced-Port Distal Pancreatectomy: a Multicenter Experience of a Novel Technique

BACKGROUND

A reduced-port approach including single-site surgery has been used for distal pancreatectomy. However, triangulation is difficult in reduced-port laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and instrument crowding, and collision may occur, so this approach has not been widely used. Recently, an innovative technique for distal pancreatectomy using a robotic single-site surgical system was introduced. Herein, we evaluate the safety and feasibility of this technique.

METHODS

Twenty-seven patients with a pancreatic tail mass underwent robotic single-site plus one-port distal pancreatectomy at six centers. We collected clinicopathologic data and evaluated the short-term perioperative outcomes of robotic single-site plus one-port distal pancreatectomy.

RESULTS

We evaluated 26 patients who underwent robotic single-site plus one-port distal pancreatectomy excluding one patient who needed more ports because of fatty abdomen. The mean age and body mass index were 47.3 years (range 21-74) and 22.6 kg/m2 (range 15.8-28.8), respectively. The most common pathologic diagnosis was solid papillary neoplasm followed by a neuroendocrine tumor. The mean operating time was 201 min. The mean length of hospital stay after surgery was 7 days (range 4-10). The rate of spleen preservation was 34.6% (9/26). Six patients had postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) grade A, and no patients had POPF grade B or C. Only one patient had class II morbidity.

CONCLUSION

Robotic single-site plus one-port distal pancreatectomy is safe and feasible in terms of short-term outcomes. This technique could be performed in select cases to expand the surgical boundaries of the robotic single-site platform. Further studies are needed with more cases to investigate long-term outcomes.

Clinical Usefulness of a Self-Retaining Internal Organ Retractor for Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Adrenalectomy

INTRODUCTION

Although laparoendoscopic single-site adrenalectomy (LESS-A) is feasible, it is still considered as a challenging procedure because of technical limitations. Making an optimal retraction is one of major obstacles in LESS-A, and it sometimes requires additional ports or needlescopic devices. Internal organ retractor (IOR) is a novel retraction device that is applied intracorporeally without additional port. In this study, we investigated the clinical usefulness of IOR in LESS-A.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medical records of 73 consecutive patients who underwent LESS-A from March 2009 to December 2014 were reviewed. Twenty-two patients underwent LESS-A with IOR and 51 patients without IOR.

RESULTS

Mean age, body mass index, tumor size, operation time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay were not significantly different between two groups. In IOR group, median number of applied IOR was 2.0 (1.0-3.0) per single operation. Mean time for application and removal was 80.0 and 46.5 seconds for a single IOR, respectively. There were no complications related to the IOR. In without IOR group, there were nine cases that needed needlescopic trocars, six cases that needed 5 mm or larger trocars, and one case that was converted to hand-assisted laparoscopy. However, we did not use any needlescopic instrument or additional trocar in IOR group. There was no case of open conversion in both groups.

CONCLUSION

LESS-A could be done effectively and safely using IOR. IOR system maintained optimal retraction throughout the operation. Its application and removal are intuitive and take only a few minutes. We think IOR system is an attractive retraction method in LESS-A.

Robot-Assisted Colectomy for Left-Sided Colon Cancer: Comparison of Reduced-Port and Conventional Multi-Port Robotic Surgery

PURPOSE

The robotic single-port access plus one conventional robotic port, a reduced-port robotic surgery (RPRS) for left-sided colon cancer, can enable lymphovascular dissection using the wristed instrumentation and safe rectal transection through an additional port maintaining the cosmetic advantage of the single-port surgery. The aim of this study is to compare the clinicopathological outcomes between reduced-port and conventional multi-port robotic colectomy for left-sided colon cancer.

METHODS

The study group included 23 patients who underwent an RPRS and 16 patients who underwent a multi-PRS (MPRS) for left-sided colon cancer between August 2013 and January 2016.

RESULTS

The operative time was significantly shorter in the RPRS group than in the MPRS group (mean time 258 ± 67 vs. 319 ± 66 minutes, P = .009). There were no apparent differences in tolerance of diet, postoperative pain score, length of hospital stay, the rate of postoperative complications, and the mean number of harvested lymph node, but the RPRS group had a significantly smaller total incision length (38 ± 12 mm vs. 83 ± 6 mm, P = .013).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows the feasibility and safety of the RPRS, with clinicopathological outcomes that is comparable with that of the MPRS for left-sided colon cancer.

Current status of robotic single-port colonic surgery

INTRODUCTION

The present paper reviews evidence and examines updates in single-port robotic surgery for colonic diseases reported in contemporary studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive online systematic search of PubMed databases was carried out in June 2015, identifying studies conducted on robotic single-port colectomy from 2008 to 2015.

RESULTS

The advantages and disadvantages of several available port-access systems, techniques for configuring robotic arms, and robotic surgical platforms, were presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Current studies show that single-port robotic colectomy is a safe and feasible procedure despite the lack of supporting evidence. Although significant advancements in the development and modification of single-access ports, configuration of robotic arms, and robotic surgical platforms have been achieved in the field of single-port robotic surgery for colonic disease, significant improvements to surgical platforms for single-port robotic surgery are needed. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for biliary tract disease

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), or laparoendoscopic single-site surgery, has been employed in various fields to minimize traumatic effects over the last two decades. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has been the most frequently studied SILS to date. Hundreds of studies on SILC have failed to present conclusive results. Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been small in scale and have been conducted under ideal operative conditions. The role of SILC in complicated scenarios remains uncertain. As common bile duct exploration (CBDE) methods have been used for more than one hundred years, laparoscopic CBDE (LCBDE) has emerged as an effective, demanding, and infrequent technique employed during the laparoscopic era. Likewise, laparoscopic biliary-enteric anastomosis is difficult to carry out, with only a few studies have been published on the approach. The application of SILS to CBDE and biliary-enteric anastomosis is extremely rare, and such innovative procedures are only carried out by a number of specialized groups across the globe. Herein we present a thorough and detailed analysis of SILC in terms of operative techniques, training and learning curves, safety and efficacy levels, recovery trends, and costs by reviewing RCTs conducted over the past three years and two recently updated meta-analyses. All existing literature on single-incision LCBDE and single-incision laparoscopic hepaticojejunostomy has been reviewed to describe these two demanding techniques.

Robotic-assisted single-site cholecystectomy in children

BACKGROUND

Though single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is cosmetically appealing, it is technically a difficult operation. The recent introduction of robotic single-site cholecystectomy (RSSC) has made single incision cholecystectomy easier to perform. While a few papers have reported its application in adults, it has not been documented in children.

METHODS

Data on seventeen consecutive children who underwent RSSC by a single surgeon over a ten-month period were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics, total operative time, console time, hospital stay, complications and reasons for procedural delay were recorded.

RESULTS

Sixteen operations were completed robotically using the single incision robotic platform. No major postoperative complications were noted. Median total operative time was 94 minutes with interquartile range (IQR) being 81.5-119.5 minutes. The median console time was 39 minutes (IQR: 30-72 minutes). The median total operative time for the first eight cases was 118 minutes (IQR: 103-127 minutes) and for the next nine cases 90 minutes (IQR: 76-93 minutes). Common causes for procedural delay were slipped clips, bile spillage, bleeding and leaking Single-Site® port.

CONCLUSIONS

This unique series of RSSC documents its feasibility and safety in children. A short learning curve and operative times comparable to RSSC in adults and SILC in children were observed. Being technically easier, RSSC becomes an attractive alternative to SILC to sustain its cosmetic benefit.

Clinical outcomes and ergonomics analysis of three laparoscopic techniques for Hirschsprung's disease

AIM: To report the clinical outcomes and ergonomics analysis of three laparoscopic approaches in the management of Hirschsprung’s disease (HD).

METHODS: There were 90 pediatric patients (63 boys, 27 girls; mean age: 3.6 ± 2.7 mo; range: 1.0-90.2 mo) who underwent laparoscopic endorectal pull-through Soave procedures for short- and long-segment HD in our hospital. Three laparoscopic approaches were used: conventional laparoscopic pull-through (CLP) in 30 patients between 2009 and 2013, single-incision laparoscopic pull-through (SILP) in 28 patients between 2010 and 2013, and hybrid single-incision laparoscopic pull-through (H-SILP) in 32 patients between 2011 and 2013. We applied the hybrid version of the single-incision approach in 2011 to preserve the cosmetic advantage of SILP and the ergonomic advantage of CLP. We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data, cosmetic results, and ergonomics of these three approaches to have a better understanding of the selection of one approach over another.

RESULTS: The CLP, SILP, and H-SILP groups were similar in regard to age, sex, transition zone, blood loss, hospital stay, and intraoperative complications. Early and late postoperative results were not different, with equal daily defecation frequency and postoperative complications. No conversion to open technique was needed and none of the patients had recurrent constipation. With proper training, the ergonomics challenges were overcome and similar operative times were registered for the general operative time in the patients < 1 year of age and the short-segment HD patients. However, significantly shorter operative times were registered compared to SILP for patients > 1 year of age (CLP and H-SILP: 120 ± 15 min and 119 ± 12 min, respectively, vs 140 ± 7 min; P < 0.05) and for long-segment HD patients (152 ± 3.5 min and 154 ± 3.6 min, respectively, vs 176 ± 2.3 min; P < 0.05). The best cosmetic result was registered with the SILP (scarless), followed by the H-SILP (near scarless appearance) and the CLP (visible scars) procedures.

CONCLUSION: Based on the results, we believed that the laparoscopic approach should be selected according to the age, transition zone, and desired cosmetic result.

Single incision cholecystectomy using a clipless technique with LigaSure in a resource limited environment: The Bahamas experience

•

SILC in the third world.

•

The addition of LigaSure to enhance procedure.

•

Look at feasibility.

•

Look at cost different.

Background

Scarless/single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is a new procedure. It affords a superior cosmetic outcome when compared to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We examine the application of this technique using LigaSure via a clipless method. The present study looks at the experience of a single surgeon using this method with initial evaluation of the safety, feasibility, affordability, and benefits of this procedure.

Methods

Twenty-eight patients underwent transumbilical SILC at Doctors Hospital from January to December, 2014. The cohort included both emergency and elective patients. There was no difference in the preoperative work-up as indicated. To perform the operation, a 2–2.5-cm linear incision was made through the umbilicus and the single port platform utilized. A 10 mm 30-degree laparoscope, a 5 mm LigaSure and straight instruments were used to perform the laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedure.

Results

All patients except two were operated on successfully. Conversion was considered the placement of an additional epigastric/Right upper quadrant (RUQ) port. The conversion rate to standard LC was 7%. No patient was converted to open cholecystectomy. In the 28 successfully completed patients, the median duration of the operation was 38.5 min and estimated operative blood loss was 24 ml. Patients were commenced on liquid diet immediately on being fully conscious and after return to the ward with an estimated time of 6 h. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 1.4 days. Follow-up visits were conducted for all patients at 2-weeks intervals and continued for 6 weeks after surgery where possible. Two patients developed wound infections. All patients were satisfied with the good cosmetic effect of the surgery. The total satisfaction rate was 100%.

Conclusions

SILC is a safe and feasible technique for operating with scarless outcomes and reducing perioperative discomfort at the same time. The GelPOINTTM is a safe and feasible platform to be used. The procedure can be accomplished using regular instruments and laparoscope. Curved instruments and a bariatric length laparoscope may make the procedure easier and result in greater time saving. The addition of LigaSure™ decreases the complexity of the operation, decreases operative time and blood loss. The technique is economical in a resource-limited environment.

Single incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of single incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) in comparison with conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (CMLA) has not been conclusively determined.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (Medline, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) was performed. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SILA with CMLA were carried out by RevMan 5.0 software.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs comparing SILA and CMLA were included. Overall, 1,216 patients were operated on: 611 cases by SILA versus 605 cases by CMLA. Compared with CMLA, SILA was associated with increased procedural difficulty, prolonged procedural duration, shorter length of hospital stay, earlier return to normal activity and better cosmesis. There were no significant differences in postoperative pain scores and complication rates between SILA and CMLA.

CONCLUSION

The current best evidence shows SILA holds the promise of improving postoperative recovery and cosmetic result with equal efficacy and safety, whereas it is associated with higher surgical difficulty with longer surgical time when compared with CMLA.

Can single incision laproscopic cholecystectomy replace the traditional four port laproscopic approach: a review

The major aim of surgeons has always been a minimalist approach towards surgery, thereby reducing the complications associated with the surgery. The gold standard treatment for cholelithiasis with cholecystitis is currently the four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (4 PLC). Recently, a newer technique has been introduced which uses a single port, rather than the four ports, for the removal of the gall bladder laparoscopically; it is known as Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (SILC). This is a comparatively minimal approach towards surgery. Therefore the purpose of this review is to compare the advantages and the disadvantages of SILC versus 4PLC, and hence, to give an idea of whether SILC is ready to replace the traditional approach as the new treatment of choice.

Fewer-than-four ports versus four ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, laparoscopic cholecystectomy is performed using two 10-mm ports and two 5-mm ports. Recently, a reduction in the number of ports has been suggested as a modification of the standard technique with a view to decreasing pain and improving cosmesis. The safety and effectiveness of using fewer-than-four ports has not yet been established.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits (such as improvement in cosmesis and earlier return to activity) and harms (such as increased complications) of using fewer-than-four ports (fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy) versus four ports in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for any reason (symptomatic gallstones, acalculous cholecystitis, gallbladder polyp, or any other condition).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 8, 2013), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal to September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing fewer-than-four ports versus four ports, that is, with standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy that is performed with two ports of at least 10-mm incision and two ports of at least 5-mm incision.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials and extracted the data. We analysed the data using both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis, whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We found nine trials with 855 participants that randomised participants to fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 427) versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 428). Most trials included low anaesthetic risk participants undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Seven of the nine trials used a single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the remaining two trials used three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy as the experimental intervention. Only one trial including 70 participants had low risk of bias. Fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy could be completed successfully in more than 90% of participants in most trials. The remaining participants were mostly converted to four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy but some participants had to undergo open cholecystectomy.There was no mortality in either group in the seven trials that reported mortality (318 participants in fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy group and 316 participants in four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy group). The proportion of participants with serious adverse events was low in both treatment groups and the estimated RR was compatible with a reduction and substantial increased risk with the fewer-than-four-ports group (6/318 (1.9%)) and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy group (0/316 (0%)) (RR 3.93; 95% CI 0.86 to 18.04; 7 trials; 634 participants; very low quality evidence). The estimated difference in the quality of life (measured between 10 and 30 days) was imprecise (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.18; 95% CI -0.05 to 0.42; 4 trials; 510 participants; very low quality evidence), as was the proportion of participants in whom the laparoscopic cholecystectomy had to be converted to open cholecystectomy between the groups (fewer-than-four ports 3/289 (adjusted proportion 1.2%) versus four port: 5/292 (1.7%); RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.35; 5 trials; 581 participants; very low quality evidence). The fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy took 14 minutes longer to complete (MD 14.44 minutes; 95% CI 5.95 to 22.93; 9 trials; 855 participants; very low quality evidence). There was no clear difference in hospital stay between the groups (MD -0.01 days; 95% CI -0.28 to 0.26; 6 trials; 731 participants) or in the proportion of participants discharged as day surgery (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.22; 1 trial; 50 participants; very low quality evidence) between the two groups. The times taken to return to normal activity and work were shorter by two days in the fewer-than-four-ports group compared with four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (return to normal activity: MD -1.20 days; 95% CI -1.58 to -0.81; 2 trials; 325 participants; very low quality evidence; return to work: MD -2.00 days; 95% CI -3.31 to -0.69; 1 trial; 150 participants; very low quality evidence). There was no significant difference in cosmesis scores at 6 to 12 months between the two groups (SMD 0.37; 95% CI -0.10 to 0.84; 2 trials; 317 participants; very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low quality evidence that is insufficient to determine whether there is any significant clinical benefit in using fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared with four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety profile of using fewer-than-four ports is yet to be established and fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be reserved for well-designed randomised clinical trials.