Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2012;22:12-16. [PMID: 22318052 DOI: 10.1097/sle.0b013e3182402448]

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).

Cost-effective scarless cholecystectomy using a modified endoscopic minimally invasive reduced appliance technique (Emirate)

ABSTRACT

The current gold-standard surgical treatment for symptomatic gallstone disease is the conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). In recent years, however, celebrities and social media have altered people's attitudes regarding surgery. Consequently, CLC has undergone several changes to reduce scarring and improve patient satisfaction. In this case-matched control study, the cost-effectiveness of a modified endoscopic minimally invasive reduced appliance technique (Emirate) that uses less equipment and three 5 mm reusable ports only at precisely specified anatomical sites was compared to CLC.

METHODS

Single-center retrospective matched cohort analysis including 140 consecutive patients treated with Emirate laparoscopic cholecystectomy ("ELC-group"), matched 1:1 by sex, indications for surgery, surgeon expertise, and preop bile duct imaging, with 140 patients receiving CLC in the same period of time ("CLC group").

RESULTS

We performed a retrospective case-matched review of 140 patients who had Emirate laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallstones between January 2019 and December 2022. The groups included 108 females and 32 males with an equal ratio of surgical expertise-115 procedures were performed by consultants and 25 by trainees. In each group, 18 patients had preoperative MRCP or ERCP and 20 had acute cholecystitis as indications for surgery. Preoperative characteristics such as age (39 years in the Emirates group and 38.6 years in the CLC group), BMI (29.3 years in the Emirates group and 30 years in the CLC group), stone size, or liver enzymes showed no statistical difference between the two groups. In both groups, the average hospital stay was 1.5 days, and there was no conversion to open surgery, nor was there any bleeding requiring blood transfusion, bile leakage, stone slippage, bile duct injury, or invasive intervention postoperatively. When compared to the CLC group, the ELC group had significantly faster surgery times (t-test, p = 0.001), lower levels of the bile duct enzyme ALP (p = 0.003), and much lower costs (t-test, p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The Emirate laparoscopic cholecystectomy method is a safe alternative to the traditional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy that is also much faster and less expensive.

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.

Suprapubic Cholecystectomy Improves Cosmetic Outcome Compared to Classic Cholecystectomy

Currently, cholecystectomy is performed laparoscopically. While the conventional approach (CA) with four access ports persists, other methods seek to reduce trauma or to optimize cosmetic results. In this study, the safety and cosmetic outcome of a suprapubic approach (SA) were evaluated. Between 2015 and 2016, patients undergoing elective cholecystectomy either by CA or by a suprapubic approach (SA) at our institution were included. The cosmetic outcome, postoperative morbidity, operative time and length of stay were evaluated. Pictures of the site of intervention were taken 6−12 months postoperatively and rated on a scale from 1 (unsatisfying aesthetic result) to 5 (excellent aesthetic result). Five “non-medical” and five “medical” raters as well as one board-certified plastic surgeon performed the ratings. A total of 70 patients were included (n = 28 SA, n = 42 CA). The two groups did not differ in baseline characteristics (age, gender, BMI). The SA group showed a significantly better aesthetic outcome compared to the CA group 4.8 (4.8−4.9) vs. 4.2 (3.8−4.4), (p > 0.001). Medical raters: 4.0 (3.8−4.2) vs. 4.8 (4.6−5.0), (p < 0.001); non-medical raters: 4.2 (3.8−4.6) vs. 5.0 (4.8−5.0), (p < 0.001); plastic surgeon: 4.0 (4.0−4.0) vs. 5.0 (5.0−5.0), (p < 0.001). Fair interrater consistency was demonstrated with an ICC of 0.47 (95% CI = 0.38−0.57). No significant difference in the complication rate (1 (3.5%) in SA vs. 6 (14%) in CA, (p = 0.3)), or the operating time 66 (50−86) vs. 70 (65−82) min, (p = 0.3), were observed. Patients stayed for a median of three (3−3) days in the SA group and 3 (3−4) days in the CA group (p = 0.08). This study demonstrated that the suprapubic approach is an appropriate alternative to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy, presenting a better cosmetic outcome with a similar complication rate.

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.

Identification and categorisation of relevant outcomes for symptomatic uncomplicated gallstone disease: in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set

BACKGROUND

Many completed trials of interventions for uncomplicated gallstone disease are not as helpful as they could be due to lack of standardisation across studies, outcome definition, collection and reporting. This heterogeneity of outcomes across studies hampers useful synthesis of primary studies and ultimately negatively impacts on decision making by all stakeholders. Core outcome sets offer a potential solution to this problem of heterogeneity and concerns over whether the 'right' outcomes are being measured. One of the first steps in core outcome set generation is to identify the range of outcomes reported (in the literature or by patients directly) that are considered important.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a systematic map that examines the variation in outcome reporting of interventions for uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease, and to identify other outcomes of importance to patients with gallstones not previously measured or reported in interventional studies.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 794 potentially relevant titles and abstracts of which 137 were deemed eligible for inclusion. A total of 129 randomised controlled trials, 4 gallstone disease specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and 8 qualitative studies were included. This was supplemented with data from 6 individual interviews, 1 focus group (n=5 participants) and analysis of 20 consultations. A total of 386 individual recorded outcomes were identified across the combined evidence: 330 outcomes (which were reported 1147 times) from trials evaluating interventions, 22 outcomes from PROMs, 17 outcomes from existing qualitative studies and 17 outcomes from primary qualitative research. Areas of overlap between the evidence sources existed but also the primary research contributed new, unreported in this context, outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study took a rigorous approach to catalogue and map the outcomes of importance in gallstone disease to enhance the development of the COS 'long' list. A COS for uncomplicated gallstone disease that considers the views of all relevant stakeholders is needed.

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.

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.

Higher cost of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy due to longer operating time. A study of opportunity cost based on meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to calculate the opportunity cost of the operating time to demonstrate that single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is more expensive than classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC).

METHODS

We identified studies comparing use of both techniques during the period 2008-2016, and to calculate the opportunity cost, we performed another search in the same period of time with an economic evaluation of classic laparoscopy. We performed a meta-analysis of the items selected in the first review considering the cost of surgery and surgical time, and we analyzed their differences. We subsequently calculated the opportunity cost of these time differences based on the design of a cost/time variable using the data from the second literature review.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven articles were selected from the first review: 26 for operating time (3.138 patients) and 3 for the cost of surgery (831 patients), and 3 articles from the second review. Both echniques have similar operating costs. Single incision laparoscopy surgery takes longer (16.90min) to perform (p <0.00001) and this difference represents an opportunity cost of 755.97 € (cost/time unit factor of 44.73 €/min).

CONCLUSIONS

SILC costs the same as CLC, but the surgery takes longer to perform, and this difference involves an opportunity cost that increases the total cost of SILC. The value of the opportunity cost of the operating time can vary the total cost of a surgical technique and it should be included in the economic evaluation to support the decision to adopt a new surgical technique.

Meta-analysis of single-port versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy comparing body image and cosmesis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate improvements in cosmetic results and postoperative morbidity for single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) in comparison with multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC).

METHODS

A literature search was undertaken for RCTs comparing SILC with MLC in adult patients with benign gallbladder disease. Primary outcomes were body image and cosmesis scores at different time points. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative and postoperative complications, postoperative pain and frequency of port-site hernia.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven RCTs were included, with a total of 3051 patients. The body image score favoured SILC at all time points (short term: mean difference (MD) -2·09, P < 0·001; mid term: MD -1·33, P < 0·001), as did the cosmesis score (short term: MD 3·20, P < 0·001; mid term: MD 4·03, P < 0·001; long-term: MD 4·87, P = 0·05) and the wound satisfaction score (short term: MD 1·19, P = 0·03; mid term: MD 1·38, P < 0·001; long-term: MD 1·19, P = 0·02). Duration of operation was longer for SILC (MD 13·56 min; P < 0·001) and SILC required more additional ports (odds ratio (OR) 6·78; P < 0·001). Postoperative pain assessed by a visual analogue scale (VAS) was lower for SILC at 12 h after operation (MD in VAS score -0·80; P = 0·007). The incisional hernia rate was higher after SILC (OR 2·50, P = 0·03). All other outcomes were similar for both groups.

CONCLUSION

SILC is associated with better outcomes in terms of cosmesis, body image and postoperative pain. The risk of incisional hernia is four times higher after SILC than after MLC.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis 2016

Cholelithiasis is one of the commonest diseases in gastroenterology. Remarkable improvements in therapeutic modalities for cholelithiasis and its complications are evident. The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology has revised the evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis. Forty-three clinical questions, for four categories-epidemiology and pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatments, and prognosis and complications-were selected, and a literature search was performed for the clinical questions with use of the MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases for the period between 1983 and June 2012. The guidelines were developed with use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. This article preferentially describes the clinical management of cholelithiasis and its complications. Following description of the diagnosis performed stepwise through imaging modalities, treatments of cholecystolithiasis, choledocholithiasis, and hepatolithiasis are introduced along with a flowchart. Since there have been remarkable improvements in endoscopic treatments and surgical techniques, the guidelines ensure flexibility in choices according to the actual clinical environment. The revised clinical practice guidelines are appropriate for use by clinicians in their daily practice.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) might maximize the advantages of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) by reducing postoperative pain and improving cosmesis. However, the safety and feasibility of SILC has not yet been established. This study assesses safety, patient reported outcome measures and feasibility of SILC versus conventional LC.

Methods

Literature search for RCT’s comparing SILC with conventional LC in gallstone-related disease was performed in PubMed and Embase. The conventional LC was defined as two 10-mm and two 5-mm ports. Study selection was done according to predefined criteria. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias. Pooled outcomes were calculated for adverse events, pain, cosmesis, quality of life and feasibility using fixed-effect and random-effects models.

Results

Nine RCT’s were included with total of 860 patients. No mortality was observed. More mild adverse events (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.99–2.42) and significantly more serious adverse events (RR 3.00; 95% CI 1.05–8.58) occurred in the SILC group. Postoperative pain (MD -0.46; 95% CI -0.74 to -0.18) and cosmesis (SMD 2.38; 95% CI 1.50–3.26) showed significantly better results for the SILC group, but no differences were observed in quality of life. Operating time (MD 23.12; 95% CI 11.59–34.65) and the need for additional ports (RR 11.43; 95% CI 3.48–37.50) were significantly higher in the SILC group. No difference was observed in conversion to open cholecystectomy or hospital stay longer than 24 h.

Conclusions

SILC does not provide any clear advantages over conventional LC except for less postoperative pain and improved cosmesis. It is questionable whether these advantages outweigh the higher occurrence of adverse events and shortcomings in feasibility. Considering considerable heterogeneity and low methodological quality of the studies it is advisable to perform well-designed RCT’s in the future to address the safety and clinical benefits of SILC.

[Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: advantages and disadvantages]

AIM

To analyze the outcomes of single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Early and long-term postoperative period has been analyzed in 240 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCE) including 120 cases of single-port technique and 120 cases of four-port technique. Both groups were compared in surgical time, pain syndrome severity (visual analog scale), need for analgesics, postoperative complications, hospital-stay, daily activity recovery and return to physical work, patients' satisfaction of surgical results and their aesthetic effect.

RESULTS

It was revealed that single-port LCE is associated with lower severity of postoperative pain, quick recovery of daily activity and return to physical work, high satisfaction of surgical results and their aesthetic effect compared with four-port LCE. Disadvantages of single-port LCE include longer duration of surgery, high incidence of postoperative umbilical hernia. However hernia was predominantly observed during the period of surgical technique development.

CONCLUSION

Further studies to standardize, evaluate the safety and benefits of single-port LCE are necessary.

Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Less scar, less pain

CONTEXT AND AIMS:

Our study aims to evaluate the post-operative pain and cosmesis of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) in comparison with the standard, 3-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) with respect to the length of incision, cosmetic scores, post-operative pain scores and duration of hospital stay.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN:

This comparative randomised study was conducted in a tertiary care centre teaching hospital between September 2012 and 2014. One hundred and fifty consecutive patients, who qualified as per inclusion criteria, were included in the study.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS:

Seventy-five patients were included in the SLC arm and 75 in the SILC arm. SILC procedure was carried out as transumbilical multiport technique and SLC as 3-port technique utilizing - 5, 5, 10 mm ports.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED:

The data for the primary observations (post-operative pain scores, cosmetic score and incision length) and secondary observation (post-operative hospital stay) were noted. Weighted mean difference was used for calculation of quantitative variables, and odds ratios were used for pooling qualitative variables.

RESULTS:

Pain scores at 4 and 24 h were significantly better for SILC arm than SLC arm (at 4 h - 4.84 ± 0.95 vs. 6.17 ± 0.98, P < 0.05 and at 24 h - 3.84 ± 0.96 vs. 5.17 ± 0.09, P < 0.05). Length of incision was significantly smaller (SILC - 2.631 ± 0.44 cm vs. SLC - 5.11 ± 0.44 cm), P < 0.05 and cosmetic score was significantly better in SILC arm (6.25 ± 1.24) than SLC arm (4.71 ± 1.04), P < 0.05. Difference between the hospital stay is insignificant for two arms SILC (2.12 ± 0.34) and SLC (2.13 ± 0.35), P > 0.05.

DISCUSSION:

Significant difference was found in duration and intensity of pain between two procedures at 4 and 24 h. Cosmesis was significantly better in SILC than SLC group, the sample size in our study was small to arrive at a definite conclusion. The procedure can be selectively and judiciously performed by surgeons trained in regular laparoscopic surgery. Furthermore, the threshold for conversion should be low in learning phase. Widespread application must await Level 1 evidence from prospective trials.

Expanding the indications for single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy to all patients with biliary disease: is it safe?

PURPOSE

The safety of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has been proven in well-selected patients. The objective of this study was to determine whether SILC can be offered to all patients with any indication for cholecystectomy.

METHODS

A total of 173 consecutive SILCs were performed between January 2010 and November 2012 with no exclusion criteria. Demographic data, operative, and postoperative outcomes were prospectively collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Patients with acute cholecystitis and gallstone pancreatitis had longer operative times and a higher conversion to 4-port cholecystectomy than patients with biliary colic. Similar relationships were seen when comparing patients with obesity to nonobese patients. There were no differences in complication rates between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC can be safely offered to patients with a wide spectrum of biliary disease with the understanding that this may result in increased operative times and a higher likelihood of conversion to multiport laparoscopy.

The early outcome of single-incision versus multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background:

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is a newly developed method of performing cholecystectomy and has been increasingly used. The aim of this study is to see if SILC has any advantages over conventional (three-port) laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC).

Materials and Methods:

In this cross-sectional study, 52 patients who underwent SILC (group A) during the period from May 2011 to March 2013 were compared with 62 patients who underwent CLC (group B) at two centers affiliated to Shiraz University of Medical Sciences in Shiraz, Iran. Data were gathered on operation time, pre- and postoperative complications, patients’ postoperative pain, pain reliever use, duration of hospital stay, and return to work, and these data were compared using SPSS software version 16.

Results:

The mean age of patients was 38.01 ± 13.24 in group A and 44.82 ± 15.11 in group B. Mean body mass index (BMI) was 23.97 ± 4.78 and 26.22 ± 4.67 in groups A and B, respectively. The mean operation time was 76.4 ± 29.0 min in group A and 72.9 ± 24.1 min in group B (P = 0.496). Preoperative complications were 3.8% in group A and 0 in group B (P = 0.206). Postoperative complications were 17.3% in group A and 11.3% in group B (P = 0.423). The mean for early postoperative pain revealed no significant difference (P = 0.814), but the mean pain on discharge was significantly higher in group A patients (P = 0.034). Regarding the mean admission time and return to normal activity, we found no significant differences.

Conclusion:

SILC does not have any special advantages over CLC with regard to surgical outcomes, but it can be a safe alternative to CLC, especially in patients concerned about cosmoses.

Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A non-randomized, age-matched single center trial

AIM: To compare the safety of single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomies with standard four-port cholecystectomies.

METHODS: Between January 2011 and December 2012 datas were gathered from 100 consecutive patients who received a single-port cholecystectomy. Patient baseline characteristics of all 100 single-port cholecystectomies were collected (body mass index, age, etc.) in a database. This group was compared with 100 age-matched patients who underwent a conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the same period. Retrospectively, per- and postoperative data were added. The two groups were compared to each other using independent t-tests and χ²-tests, P values below 0.05 were considered significantly different.

RESULTS: No differences were found between both groups regarding baseline characteristics. Operating time was significantly shorter in the total single-port group (42 min vs 62 min, P < 0.05); in procedures performed by surgeons the same trend was seen (45 min vs 59 min, P < 0.05). Peroperative complications between both groups were equal (3 in the single-port group vs 5 in the multiport group; P = 0.42). Although not significant less postoperative complications were seen in the single-port group compared with the multiport group (3 vs 9; P = 0.07). No statistically significant differences were found between both groups with regard to length of hospital stay, readmissions and mortality.

CONCLUSION: Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy has the potential to be a safe technique with a low complication rate, short in-hospital stay and comparable operating time. Single-port cholecystectomy provides the patient an almost non-visible scar while preserving optimal quality of surgery. Further prospective studies are needed to prove the safety of the single-port technique.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with curved versus linear instruments assessed by systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery poses significant ergonomic limitations. Curved instruments have been developed in order to address the issue of lack of triangulation. Direct comparison between single-incision laparoscopic surgeries with conventional linear and curved instruments has not been performed to date.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CENTRAL and OpenGrey were searched to identify relevant randomized trials. A network meta-analysis was applied to compare operative risks, conversion, duration of surgery and the need for placement of an adjunct trocar in single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with linear and curved instruments. The random-effects model was applied for two sets of comparisons, with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy as the reference treatment. Odds ratios, mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

Twenty-three randomized trials encompassing 1737 patients were included. The use of curved instruments was associated with increased operative time (mean difference 32.53 min, 95% CI 24.23-40.83) and higher odds for the use of an adjunct trocar (odds ratio 22.81, 95% CI 16.69-28.94) compared to the use of linear instruments. Perioperative risks could not be comparatively assessed due to the low number of events.

CONCLUSION

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with curved instruments may be associated with an increased level of operative difficulty, as reflected by the need for auxiliary measures for exposure and increased operative time as compared to the use of linear instruments. Current instrumentation requires further improvement, tailored to the features of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (CRD42015015721).

Single incision versus standard multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: up-dated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We aimed to compare single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) to the standard multiport technique (MLC) for clinically relevant outcomes in adults.

METHODS

Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of randomized trials.

RESULTS

We identified 30 trials (SILC N = 1209, MLC N = 1202) mostly of moderate to low quality. Operating time (30 trials): longer with SILC (WMD = 12.4 min, 95% CI 9.3, 15.5; p < 0.001), but difference reduced with experience - in 10 large trials (1321 patients) WMD = 5.9 (-1.3, 13.1; p = 0.105). Intra-operative blood loss (12 trials, 1201 patients): greater with SILC, but difference practically irrelevant (WMD = 1.29 mL, 0.24-2.35; p = 0.017). Procedure failure (27 trials, 2277 patients): more common with SILC (OR = 13.9, 4.34-44.7; p < 0.001), but overall infrequent (SILC pooled incidence 4.39%) and almost exclusively addition of a trocar. Post-operative pain (29 trials) and hospital stay (22 trials): no difference. Complications (30 trials): infrequent (SILC pooled incidence 5.35%) with no overall SILC vs. MLC difference. Incisional hernia (19 trials, 1676 patients): very rare (15 vs. 4 cases), but odds significantly higher with SILC (OR = 4.94, 1.26-19.4; p = 0.025). Cosmetic satisfaction (16 trials, 11 with data at 1-3 months): in 5 trials with non-blinded patients (N = 513) in favour of SILC (SMD = 1.83, 0.13, 3.52; p = 0.037), but in 6 trials with blinded patients (N = 719) difference small and insignificant (SMD = 0.42, -1.12, 1.96; p = 0.548).

DISCUSSION

SILC outcomes largely depend on surgeon's skill, but regardless of it, when compared to MLC, SILC requires somewhat longer operating time, risk of incisional hernia is higher (but overall very low) and early cosmetic benefit is modest.

CONCLUSION

From the (in)convenience and safety standpoint, SILC is an acceptable alternative to MLC with a modest cosmetic benefit.

Single-incision versus standard multiple-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of experimental and observational studies

OBJECTIVE

The advantages of single-incision surgery for the treatment of gallstone disease is debated. Previous meta-analyses comparing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and standard laparoscopic multiport cholecystectomy (SLMC) included few and underpowered trials. To overcome this limitation, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized studies.

METHODS

A MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library literature search of studies published in and comparing SILC with SLMC was performed. The primary outcome was safety of SILC as measured by the overall rate of postoperative complications and biliary spillage. Feasibility was another primary outcome as measured by the conversion and operative time. Postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, perioperative blood loss, time to return to normal activity, and cosmetic satisfaction were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 43 studies of which 30 were observational reports and 13 experimental trials, for a total of 7489 patients (2090 SILC and 5389 SLMC). The overall rate of complications was comparable between groups (relative risk [RR] = 1.08; 95% CI = 0.87-1.35; P = .46), as were the rates of biliary spillage (RR = 1.16; 95% CI = 0.73-1.84; P = .53) and conversion rate (RR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.53-1.46; P = .62). Operative time was in favor of SLMC (weighted mean difference = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.67-0.79; P < .0001). Secondary outcomes favored SILC, but with marginal advantages.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC is a feasible technique but without any significant advantage over SLMC for relevant end points. Although secondary outcomes favored SILC, the small magnitude of the advantage and the low quality of assessment methods question the clinical significance of these benefits.

Single-site robotic cholecystectomy in a broadly inclusive patient population: a prospective study

OBJECTIVES

To describe our initial experience with single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) and its applicability to a broad segment of patients.

BACKGROUND

At the initiation of our study, there were only 3 published reports on SSRC. These initial studies had limited inclusion criteria. We present our experience with the technical aspects and patient outcomes of SSRC in a broadly inclusive patient population.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study from January 2012 to January 2013, in which 95 patients underwent SSRC. Procedural times, postoperative complications, delayed hospital discharges, and re-admissions were evaluated.

RESULTS

Patients were predominantly female (71.6%) had mean age of 45.2 ± 6.1 years and mean body mass index (BMI) of 30.1 ± 7.1 kg/m. Overall, mean total operative time (TOT) for all patients (n = 95) was 88.63 ± 32.0 (range: 49-220) minutes. SSRC was not completed in 8 (8.42%) patients: 6 conversions to laparoscopy, 1 conversion to open, and 1 aborted case. The group of patients who were able to complete SSRC (n = 87) had a mean TOT of 83.5 ± 24.5 minutes and mean operative robotic time (RT) of 39.6 ± 15.2 minutes. RT was longer in patients with intra-abdominal adhesions (P = 0.0139) and higher BMI (P = 0.03). A minority of patients required hospital admission (11.6%), readmission (6.3%), or reoperation (1.1%). No bile duct injury or death occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

SSRC is safe and has a manageable learning curve. Patient factors, such as obesity, did not significantly affect conversion rates or TOTs. SSRC is a promising new technique, which can be offered to a wide array of patients.

Single-port versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies

BACKGROUND

Although current guidelines recommend performing cholecystectomy via laparoscopy, consensus on the application of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for cholecystectomy is still lacking. The aim of the current study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized comparative studies (NRCSs), comparing single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) and conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CMLC) for benign gallbladder diseases.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies published between January 1997 and December 2012 comparing SPLC and CMLC. Operative outcomes, postoperative parameters, complications, cosmetic results, and quality of life were evaluated.

RESULTS

Forty studies were included in the analyses (16 RCTs, 24 NRCSs) that included 3711 patients (1865 SPLCs, 1846 CMLCs). SPLC had higher conversion rates (odds ratio [OR], 4.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.71-6.56; P<.001), longer operating time (mean difference [MD], 16.1; 95% CI, 9.93-22.26 minutes; P<.001), and shorter hospital stay (MD, 0.16; 95% CI, -0.28 to -0.04 day; P=.01) than CMLC. There were no significant differences between the two procedures for early (MD, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.44 to 0.24; P=.57) or late (MD, -0.13; 95% CI, -0.45 to 0.19; P=.42) visual analog scale pain scores and overall complications (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.92-1.61; P=.18). Cosmetic outcomes favored SILC at 2 weeks (MD, -1.39; 95% CI, -2.66 to -0.12; P=.03) and 1 month (MD, -0.13, 95% CI, -2.05 to 0.55; P=.0007) after surgery (index score, 0-10).

CONCLUSIONS

SPLC can be performed safely and effectively with better cosmetic results than with the CMLC technique for benign gallbladder diseases.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review of methodology and outcomes

PURPOSE

(1) To survey the dissemination of SILC; (2) to determine which SILC method has become mainstream; (3) to determine whether the characteristic complications vary according to the type of procedure.

METHODS

An electronic search of PubMed, Databases@Ovid, and SciVerse Scopus between 2003/01/01 and 2012/12/31 was performed.

RESULTS

The peak number of annually published articles was 70 in 2011. The most common procedures were single skin incision, the use of a SILS Port(®), suture suspension and a 5-mm oblique scope. The intraoperative complications rate was 1.69 %. Postoperative complications occurred in 213/5283 cases. According to the surgical procedure, five factors (approach; P = 0.0017, gallbladder anchorage; P < 0.001, size; P = 0.049 and type; P < 0.001 of the scope, and size of the clip applier; P = 0.074) significantly affected the incidence of wound infection. The incidence of wound seroma/bleeding was significantly influenced by gallbladder anchorage (P = 0.009), the use of curved/articulated instruments (P = 0.048), and the diameter of the clip applier (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

To determine the best operative procedure for SILC, an analysis of uniform operative procedures is needed.

Feasibility of single-port laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid colon and rectal cancers and preoperative assessment of operative difficulty

PURPOSE

Single-port laparoscopic surgery is more difficult for sigmoid colon and rectal cancers than for right-sided colon cancer. We sought to analyze the feasibility of this procedure for sigmoid colon and rectal cancers and to estimate its difficulty.

METHODS

We analyzed prospectively collected data from 63 consecutive patients with sigmoid colon or rectal cancers who underwent single-port laparoscopic surgery at our institution from June 2009 to December 2011. Patient and tumor characteristics, including patients' pelvic anatomy which was assessed on CT scan imaging, were evaluated to elucidate what factors would affect the difficulty of the procedure and the necessity of using an additional trocar.

RESULTS

Overall, the median operative duration was 190 min and blood loss was 20 ml, with no postoperative complications. The median number of lymph nodes harvested was 17 and the distal margin was 58 mm. The tumor was located significantly closer to the anus in cases in which an additional trocar was required in the right lower quadrant (9.5 vs 18 cm, p < 0.0001). Procedural difficulty was significantly increased in cases in which the sacral promontory protruded ventrally (odds ratio 0.779 [95% confidence interval 0.613 to 0.945], p = 0.0236).

CONCLUSIONS

Depending on tumor location and sacral promontory shape, the introduction of an additional trocar might render single-port laparoscopic surgery feasible for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer resection.

Randomized clinical trial of single- versus multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

There are no randomized studies that compare outcomes after single-incision (SLC) and conventional multi-incision (MLC) laparoscopic cholecystectomy under an optimized perioperative analgesic regimen.

METHODS

This patient- and assessor-blinded randomized three-centre clinical trial compared SLC and MLC in women admitted electively with cholecystolithiasis. Outcomes were registered on the day of operation (day 0), on postoperative days 1, 2, 3 and 30, and 12 months after surgery. Blinding of the patients was maintained until day 3. The primary endpoint was pain on movement measured on a visual analogue scale, reported repeatedly by the patient until day 3.

RESULTS

The intention-to-treat population comprised 59 patients in the SLC and 58 in the MLC group. There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to any of the pain-related outcomes, on-demand administration of opioids or general discomfort. Median duration of surgery was 32·5 min longer in the SLC group (P < 0·001). SLC was associated with a reduced incidence of vomiting on day 0 (7 versus 22 per cent; P = 0·019). The incidences of wound-related problems were comparable. One patient in the SLC group experienced a biliary leak requiring endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The rates of incisional hernia at 12-month follow-up were 2 per cent in both groups. Cosmetic rating was significantly improved after SLC at 1 and 12 months (P < 0·001).

CONCLUSION

SLC did not significantly diminish early pain in a setting with optimized perioperative analgesic patient care. SLC may reduce postoperative vomiting.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01268748 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

The efficacy and safety of different kinds of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a network meta analysis of 43 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

We conducted a network meta analysis (NMA) to compare different kinds of laparoscopic cholecystectomy [LC] (single port [SPLC], two ports [2PLC], three ports [3PLC], and four ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy [4PLC], and four ports mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy [mini-4PLC]).

METHODS

PubMed, the Cochrane library, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Knowledge were searched to find randomized controlled trials [RCTs]. Direct pair-wise meta analysis (DMA), indirect treatment comparison meta analysis (ITC) and NMA were conducted to compare different kinds of LC.

RESULTS

We included 43 RCTs. The risk of bias of included studies was high. DMA showed that SPLC was associated with more postoperative complications, longer operative time, and higher cosmetic score than 4PLC, longer operative time and higher cosmetic score than 3PLC, more postoperative complications than mini-4PLC. Mini-4PLC was associated with longer operative time than 4PLC. ITC showed that 3PLC was associated with shorter operative time than mini-4PLC, and lower postoperative pain level than 2PLC. 2PLC was associated with fewer postoperative complications and longer hospital stay than SPLC. NMA showed that SPLC was associated with more postoperative complications than mini-4PLC, and longer operative time than 4PLC.

CONCLUSION

The rank probability plot suggested 4PLC might be the worst due to the highest level of postoperative pain, longest hospital stay, and lowest level of cosmetic score. The best one might be mini-4PLC because of highest level of cosmetic score, and fewest postoperative complications, or SPLC because of lowest level of postoperative pain and shortest hospital stay. But more studies are needed to determine which will be better between mini-4PLC and SPLC.

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.

Single-port cholecystectomy versus multi-port cholecystectomy: a prospective cohort study with 222 patients

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare single-port access cholecystectomy (SPA) with the standard laparoscopic technique (LC) regarding the duration of the operation, complications, learning curve, late postoperative quality of life (QoL) and the incidence of incisional hernias.

METHODS

Between June 2009 and December 2011, a total of 122 SPA cholecystectomies were performed in our hospital. Simultaneously, 310 patients were operated on with the LC technique. In the LC group, 100 patients met the same criteria defined for SPA surgery. The two groups (SPA and LC) were compared by multivariable regression analysis. Endpoints of this study were quality of life (QoL) after 6 months by the EQ-5D questionnaire 5L and the incidence of incisional hernia 1 year after surgery. Operating time, hospital stay, and perioperative complications were also measured and compared. The median follow-up was 9.2 months (3-25 months).

RESULTS

The patients in the SPA group were younger and more often female. The mean operating time for group SPA was 73 min (35-136 min)-significantly longer than that for group LC with 60 min (33-190 min) (p < 0.001). Additional trocars were used in 8 of 122 (6.5 %) SPA patients. A conversion to open cholecystectomy was not necessary in SPA patients. The conversion rate in the LC group to open cholecystectomy was 2 % (2/100). The perioperative and postoperative complications and incisional hernia (5.5 %) were the same in both groups. QoL was significantly better in the SPA group in terms of mobility (p = 0,002), usual activity (p = 0.036), and overall anxiety (p = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

SPA cholecystectomy is safe, although the operation is significantly longer. No differences in terms of major complications or the incidence of incisional hernia were seen after 1 year. QoL was significantly better in patients operated on with the SPA technique.

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

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses that compared the outcome of SILC and CLC have not presented consistent conclusions. This meta-analysis was performed after adding many recent RCTs, to clarify this issue.

METHODS

Relevant articles published in English were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register from January 1997 to February 2013. Reference lists of the retrieved articles were reviewed to identify additional articles. Primary outcomes (postoperative pain scores, cosmetic score, and length of incision) and secondary outcomes (operating time, blood loss, conversion rates, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, time to initial oral intake, and time to resume work) were pooled. Quantitative variables were calculated using the weighted mean difference (WMD), and qualitative variables were pooled using odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

25 appropriate RCTs were identified from 2128 published articles. 1841 patients were treated, 944 with SILC and 897 with CLC. SILC was superior to CLC in cosmetic score (WMD = 1.155, P<0.001), shorter length of incision (WMD = -3.285, P = 0.029), and postoperative pain within 12 h (VAS in 3-4 h, WMD = -0.704, P = 0.026; VAS in 6-8 h, WMD = -0.613, P = 0.010). CLC was superior to SILC in operating time (OT) (WMD = 13.613, P<0.001) and need of additional instruments (OR = 7.448, P<0.001). Other secondary outcomes were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC offered a better cosmetic result and less postoperative pain for patients with uncomplicated cholelithiasis or polypoid lesions of the gallbladder. However, SILC was associated with a longer OT and required additional instruments.

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

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses that compared the outcome of SILC and CLC have not presented consistent conclusions. This meta-analysis was performed after adding many recent RCTs, to clarify this issue.

METHODS

Relevant articles published in English were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register from January 1997 to February 2013. Reference lists of the retrieved articles were reviewed to identify additional articles. Primary outcomes (postoperative pain scores, cosmetic score, and length of incision) and secondary outcomes (operating time, blood loss, conversion rates, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, time to initial oral intake, and time to resume work) were pooled. Quantitative variables were calculated using the weighted mean difference (WMD), and qualitative variables were pooled using odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

25 appropriate RCTs were identified from 2128 published articles. 1841 patients were treated, 944 with SILC and 897 with CLC. SILC was superior to CLC in cosmetic score (WMD = 1.155, P<0.001), shorter length of incision (WMD = -3.285, P = 0.029), and postoperative pain within 12 h (VAS in 3-4 h, WMD = -0.704, P = 0.026; VAS in 6-8 h, WMD = -0.613, P = 0.010). CLC was superior to SILC in operating time (OT) (WMD = 13.613, P<0.001) and need of additional instruments (OR = 7.448, P<0.001). Other secondary outcomes were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC offered a better cosmetic result and less postoperative pain for patients with uncomplicated cholelithiasis or polypoid lesions of the gallbladder. However, SILC was associated with a longer OT and required additional instruments.

Effect of laparoscopic cholecystectomy techniques on postoperative pain: a prospective randomized study

PURPOSE

Minimally invasive surgical technics have benefits such as decreased pain, reduced surgical trauma, and increased potential to perform as day case surgery, and cost benefit. The primary aim of this prospective, randomized, controlled study was to compare the effects of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) procedures regarding postoperative pain.

METHODS

Ninety adult patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included in the study. Patients were randomized to either SILC or CLC. Patient characteristics, postoperative abdominal and shoulder pain scores, rescue analgesic use, and intraoperative and early postoperative complications were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 83 patients completed the study. Patient characteristics, postoperative abdominal and shoulder pain scores and rescue analgesic requirement were similar between each group except with the lower abdominal pain score in CLC group at 30th minute (P = 0.04). Wound infection was seen in 1 patient in each group. Nausea occurred in 13 of 43 patients (30%) in the SILC group and 8 of 40 patients (20%) in the CLC group (P > 0.05). Despite ondansetron treatment, 6 patients in SILC group and 7 patients in CLC group vomited (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, SILC or CLC techniques does not influence the postoperative pain and analgesic medication requirements. Our results also suggest that all laparoscopy patients suffer moderate and/or severe abdominal pain and nearly half of these patients also suffer from some form of shoulder pain.

Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: for what benefit?

BACKGROUND

A single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) was developed to improve outcomes as compared with the four-port classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). Any potential benefits associated with a SILC have been suggested by previous studies reporting few patients with different surgical techniques. The aim of this study was to describe the experience with a standardized SILC as compared with CLC.

METHODS

From June 2010 to January 2012, 40 patients underwent a SILC [median age: 47.5 years (25-92)] and operative and peri-operative data were prospectively collected. Over the same period, 37 patients underwent a CLC. A 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) was used for qualitative data. The costs of SILC and CLC were also compared.

RESULTS

For those patients undergoing a SILC the median operating time was 70 min (24-110). There were no conversions. An additional trocar was necessary in 16 patients. Four patients developed post-operative complications. The median immediate post-operative pain score was 5 (0-10). The median quality of life and cosmetic satisfaction at the initial post-operative visit were 10 (6-10) and 10 (5-10), respectively (VAS). Although the surgical results of both groups were similar, post-operative complications were exclusively reported in the SILC group (two incisional hernias).

CONCLUSION

Standardization of SILC is possible but associated with an important rate of additional trocar placement and a disturbing rate of incisional hernias.

Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with uncomplicated gallbladder disease: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the gold standard treatment for cholecystectomy. Recently, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has been suggested as an alternative technique.

METHODS

Six databases were searched and reference lists of retrieved articles were checked to identify eligible studies. Data from randomized clinical trials related to the safety and effectiveness of SILC versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. Odds ratio and mean differences were calculated with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat analyses whenever possible.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies with 1113 patients met the eligibility criteria. Methodologic quality was unclear in most trails. Operating time was significantly longer in the single-incision laparoscopic surgery group compared with the CLC group (P<0.00001). Cosmesis was improved in single-incision laparoscopic patients at 1 month (P<0.00001). The pooled mean difference in pain scores at 24 hours was -0.75 in favor of the SILC technique (P=0.04). There was no significant difference in the conversion rates, adverse events, analgesia requirements, or the length of hospital stay between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence shows that patients with uncomplicated cholelithiasis or polypoid lesions of the gallbladder who prefer a better cosmetic outcome, SILC offers a safe alternative to CLC. Further high-powered randomized trials are need to determine whether SILC truly offer any advantages, especially be focused on failure of technique, adverse events, cosmesis, and quality of life.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) may offer advantages over conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized clinical trials on SILC versus LC until May 2012. Odds ratio (OR) and weight mean difference (WMD) were calculated with 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i.) based on intention-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomized clinical trials included a total of 923 procedures. SILC had a higher procedure failure rate than LC (OR 8·16, 95 per cent c.i. 3·42 to 19·45; P < 0·001), required a longer operating time (WMD 16·55, 95 per cent c.i. 9·95 to 23·15 min; P < 0·001) and was associated with greater intraoperative blood loss (WMD 1·58, 95% of c.i. 0·44 to 2·71 ml; P = 0·007). There were no differences between the two approaches in rate of conversion to open surgery, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, adverse events, wound infections or port-site hernias. Better cosmetic outcomes were demonstrated in favour of SILC as measured by Body Image Scale questionnaire (WMD -0·97, 95% of c.i. -1·51 to -0·43; P < 0·001) and Cosmesis score (WMD -2·46, 95% of c.i. -2·95 to -1·97; P < 0·001), but this was based on comparison with procedures in which multiple and often large ports (10 mm) were used.

CONCLUSION

SILC has a higher procedure failure rate with more blood loss and takes longer than LC. No trial was adequately powered to assess safety.

Evidence-based current surgical practice: calculous gallbladder disease

BACKGROUND

Gallbladder disease is common and, if managed incorrectly, can lead to high rates of morbidity, mortality, and extraneous costs. The most common complications of gallstones include biliary colic, acute cholecystitis, common bile duct stones, and gallstone pancreatitis. Ultrasound is the initial imaging modality of choice. Additional diagnostic and therapeutic studies including computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasound, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography are not routinely required but may play a role in specific situations.

DISCUSSION

Biliary colic and acute cholecystitis are best treated with early laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients with common bile duct stones should be managed with cholecystectomy, either after or concurrent with endoscopic or surgical relief of obstruction and clearance of stones from the bile duct. Mild gallstone pancreatitis should be treated with cholecystectomy during the initial hospitalization to prevent recurrence. Emerging techniques for cholecystectomy include single-incision laparoscopic surgery and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. Early results in highly selected patients demonstrate the safety of these techniques. The management of complications of the gallbladder should be timely and evidence-based, and choice of procedures, particularly for common bile duct stones, is largely influenced by facility and surgeon factors.

Meta-analysis of prospective randomized studies comparing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CMLC)

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has gained acceptance among surgeons as there is a trend to minimize the invasiveness of laparoscopy. The aim of this meta-analysis has been to assess the feasibility and safety of SILC when compared to conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CMLC).

METHODS

A literature search for trials comparing SILC and CMLC was performed. Studies were reviewed for the outcomes of interest: patient characteristics; operative time and conversion rate; postoperative pain; length of hospital stay; postoperative complications; and patient satisfactory score (0-10). Standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated for continuous variables and odds ratio for qualitative variables.

RESULTS

Twelve prospective randomized trials comparing SILC and CMLC were analyzed. Overall, 892 patients were randomized to either SILC (465) or CMLC (427). Operative time was significantly longer in SILC (63.0 vs. 45.8 min, SMD = 1.004, 95% CI = 0.434-1.573). Patient satisfactory score significantly favored SILC (8.2 vs. 7.2, SMD = -0.759, 95% CI = -1.064 to -0.455). No other difference was found.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC is a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of uncomplicated benign gallbladder disease with a significant patient satisfaction. New multicenter randomized trials are expected to evaluate SILC in more complex circumstances such as acute cholecystitis, previous abdominal surgery, and severe obesity.

Single-incision surgery has higher cost with equivalent pain and quality-of-life scores compared with multiple-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized blinded comparison

BACKGROUND

Since the development of single-incision surgery, several retrospective studies have demonstrated its feasibility; however, randomized prospective trials are still lacking. We report a prospective randomized single-blinded trial with a cost analysis of single-incision (SI) to multi-incision (MI) laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

After obtaining IRB approval, patients with chronic cholecystitis, acute cholecystitis, or biliary dyskinesia were offered participation in this multihospital, multisurgeon trial. Consenting patients were computer randomized into either a transumbilical SI or standard MI group; patient data were then entered into a prospective database.

RESULTS

We report 79 patients that were prospectively enrolled and analyzed. Total hospital charges were found to be significantly different between SI and MI groups (MI $15,717 ± $14,231 vs SI $17,817 ± $5,358; p < 0.0001). Broken down further, the following subcharges were found to also be significant: operating room charges (MI $4,445 ± $1,078 vs SI $5,358 ± 893; p < 0.0001); medical/surgical supplies (MI $3,312 ± $6,526 vs SI $5,102 ± $1,529; p < 0.0001); and anesthesia costs (MI $579 ± $7,616 vs SI $820 ± $23,957; p < 0.0001). A validated survey (ie, Surgical Outcomes Measurement System) was used to evaluate various patient quality-of-life parameters at set visits after surgery; scores were statistically equivalent for fatigue, physical function, and satisfaction with results. No difference was found between visual analogue scale scores or inpatient and outpatient pain-medication use.

CONCLUSIONS

We show SI surgery to have higher costs than MI surgery with equivalent quality-of-life scores, pain analogue scores, and pain-medication use.