Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized clinical trial study

Emergency single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: A multi-center study

Single-incision laparoscopy is accepted as a safe alternative to multiple port laparoscopy for elective cholecystectomy; however, there are limited data on its use in patients with acute cholecystitis. The present multi-center study evaluated the outcomes of emergency single-incision surgeries for acute cholecystitis in hospitals in Belgium, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago over a 5-year period. Standardized definitions of uncomplicated and complicated acute cholecystitis were used and the data were compared using SPSS software. The results revealed that over the 5-year period, 108 patients with a mean age of 48±15 years and a mean body mass index of 27±4.2 kg/m² underwent emergency single-incision cholecystectomies. The surgeries were successful in 92.1% of cases without supplemental trocars being used. The overall morbidity rates (9.3%) were also comparable to the historic controls with multiple port cholecystectomy. As was expected, the complicated cholecystitis group required a significantly longer operating time (86.11±30.16 vs. 66.79±16.8; P<0.00194), as well as supplemental trocars (7.9%) vs. 0; P=0.0413). On the whole, the present study demonstrates that emergency single-incision cholecystectomy is a technically feasible and safe procedure for patients with acute cholecystitis. These findings advocate a low threshold to place additional ports to assist with dissection and exposure.

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.

Laparoscopic entry techniques

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is a common procedure in many surgical specialties. Complications arising from laparoscopy are often related to initial entry into the abdomen. Life-threatening complications include injury to viscera (e.g. bowel, bladder) or to vasculature (e.g. major abdominal and anterior abdominal wall vessels). No clear consensus has been reached as to the optimal method of laparoscopic entry into the peritoneal cavity.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and risks of different laparoscopic entry techniques in gynaecological and non-gynaecological surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and trials registers in January 2018. We also checked the references of articles retrieved.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared one laparoscopic entry technique versus another. Primary outcomes were major complications including mortality, vascular injury of major vessels and abdominal wall vessels, visceral injury of bladder or bowel, gas embolism, solid organ injury, and failed entry (inability to access the peritoneal cavity). Secondary outcomes were extraperitoneal insufflation, trocar site bleeding, trocar site infection, incisional hernia, omentum injury, and uterine bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We expressed findings as Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 57 RCTs including four multi-arm trials, with a total of 9865 participants, and evaluated 25 different laparoscopic entry techniques. Most studies selected low-risk patients, and many studies excluded patients with high body mass index (BMI) and previous abdominal surgery. Researchers did not find evidence of differences in major vascular or visceral complications, as would be anticipated given that event rates were very low and sample sizes were far too small to identify plausible differences in rare but serious adverse events.Open-entry versus closed-entryTen RCTs investigating Veress needle entry reported vascular injury as an outcome. There was a total of 1086 participants and 10 events of vascular injury were reported. Four RCTs looking at open entry technique reported vascular injury as an outcome. There was a total of 376 participants and 0 events of vascular injury were reported. This was not a direct comparison. In the direct comparison of Veress needle and Open-entry technique, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82; 4 RCTs; n = 915; I² = N/A, very low-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups for visceral injury (Peto OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.08; 4 RCTs; n = 915: I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42; 3 RCTs; n = 865; I² = 63%; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported mortality with no events in either group. No studies reported gas embolism or solid organ injury.Direct trocar versus Veress needle entryTrial results show a reduction in failed entry into the abdomen with the use of a direct trocar in comparison with Veress needle entry (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.34; 8 RCTs; N = 3185; I² = 45%; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.96; 6 RCTs; n = 1603; I² = 75%; very low-quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 2.02, 95% CI 0.21 to 19.42; 5 RCTs; n = 1519; I² = 25%; very low-quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 0.58, 95% Cl 0.06 to 5.65; 3 RCTs; n = 1079; I² = 61%; very low-quality evidence). Four studies reported mortality with no events in either group. Two studies reported gas embolism, with no events in either group.Direct vision entry versus Veress needle entryEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.85; 1 RCT; n = 186; very low-quality evidence) or visceral injury (Peto OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.34; 2 RCTs; n = 380; I² = N/A; very low-quality evidence). Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Direct vision entry versus open entryEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.50; 2 RCTs; n = 392; I² = N/A; very low-quality evidence), solid organ injury (Peto OR 6.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 316.67; 1 RCT; n = 60; very low-quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.09; 1 RCT; n = 60; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported vascular injury with no events in either arm. Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Radially expanding (STEP) trocars versus non-expanding trocarsEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.24, 95% Cl 0.05 to 1.21; 2 RCTs; n = 331; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.37; 2 RCTs; n = 331; very low-quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.91; 1 RCT; n = 244; very low-quality evidence). Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Other studies compared a wide variety of other laparoscopic entry techniques, but all evidence was of very low quality and evidence was insufficient to support the use of one technique over another.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, evidence was insufficient to support the use of one laparoscopic entry technique over another. Researchers noted an advantage of direct trocar entry over Veress needle entry for failed entry. Most evidence was of very low quality; the main limitations were imprecision (due to small sample sizes and very low event rates) and risk of bias associated with poor reporting of study methods.

Low-impact laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with decreased postoperative morbidity in patients with sickle cell disease

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is one of the most frequent surgeries performed in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD). LC in SCD patients is associated with a particularly high postoperative morbidity. The aim of the present study is to assess the safety and feasibility of cholecystectomy performed by mini-laparoscopy with low- and stable-pressure pneumoperitoneum (MLC + LSPP) and to compare the rate of postoperative SCD-related morbidity with standard LC.

METHODS

Thirty-five consecutive SCD patients admitted between November 2015 and March 2017 for cholelithiasis requiring surgery were compared with an historical cohort of 126 SCD patients who underwent LC for the same indication. Operative variables, postoperative outcomes, patient and surgeon satisfaction, and costs were evaluated.

RESULTS

MLC + LSPP exhibited a mean operative time comparable to LC (p = 0.169). Operative blood loss was significantly reduced in the MLC + LSPP group, and the suction device was rarely used (p = 0.036). SCD-related morbidity (including acute chest syndrome) was significantly higher in the LC group compared with the MLC + LSPP group (18.3 vs. 2.9%; p = 0.029). The mean times to resume ambulation (p = 0.018) and regular diet (p = 0.045) were significantly reduced in the MLC + LSPP group. The mean incision length (all trocars combined) was 28.22 mm for MLC + LSPP and 49.64 mm for LC patients (p < 0.0001). Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that the only significant predictor of postoperative SCD-related morbidity was the surgical approach (odds ratio: 9.24). Patient and surgeon satisfaction were very high for MLC + LSPP. The mean total cost per patient (surgery and hospitalization) was not different between groups (p = 0.084).

CONCLUSION

MLC + LSPP in SCD patients appears to be safe and feasible. Compared with LC, MLC + LSPP in SCD patients is associated with a significantly reduced incidence of postoperative SCD-related morbidity and more rapid ambulation and return to regular diet without increasing the total costs per patient.

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.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy with two mini cosmetic incisions

Minimally invasive surgery gained popularity between general surgeons especially laparoscopic four-port cholecystectomy. By introducing different methods such as NOTES and SILS, the costs elevated with its cosmetics. We aim to study a new technique of laparoscopic cholecystectomy by two incisions with best cosmetics, and same quality and lower cost as conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and make a comparison between them. In a double-blind clinical trial from December 2012 to September 2014, patients with cholelithiasis who presented to general surgery clinic and candidate for laparoscopic cholecystectomy were studied. Half of patients underwent double-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and other half underwent conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The mean age and BMI were higher in double-incision and four-port group, respectively, but not statistically different. Also male to female ratio was 6:1 in double-incision group and 9:1 in four-port group, and they were not statistically different. The mean operation time was about 2 min more in double-incision group, but it is trivial to consider a significant difference at level of 5%. The mean pain score (0-10) was significantly lower in double incision group in comparison with four-port group (p < 0.0001). Patients in double incision group reported higher satisfaction and were sooner in return to work than in four-port group (p < 0.0001). It seems that DILS for uncomplicated cholelithiasis is safe. By reducing port number, we succeed in reducing the pain and need for analgesics, reducing hospital staying and sooner return to work. By taking into account using conventional CLS instrument and lowering the hospital charges, it could be a good alternative to SILS.

Minilaparoscopic versus single incision cholecystectomy for the treatment of cholecystolithiasis: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Background

Over the past decade, mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) and single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) have been the two main successful mini-invasive surgical interventions for the treatment of cholecystolithiasis since the advent of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the two treatment alternatives.

Methods

We searched PubMed, CNKI and the Cochrane library for trials that compared MLC and SILC. Risk difference (RD) and mean difference (MD) were calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 2 non-randomized comparative studies (nRCSs) involving 2764 patients were identified. A longer operating time (MD -10.49; 95% CI -18.10, −2.88; P = 0.007) and a shorter wound length (MD 3.65; 95% CI 0.51, 6.78; P = 0.02) were found to be associated with SILC compared with MLC. No significant differences were revealed in conversion, hospital stay, pain relief and cosmetic results. Although a lower incidence of complications was observed with MLC (8.2%) compared with SILC (15.9%), but the difference was not statistically significant (RD -0.06; 95% CI -0.12, 0.00; P = 0.07).

Conclusions

MLC has an advantage over SILC in terms of operating time rather than hospital stay, pain relief, cosmetic results. Though conversion and complication rates were higher with SILC, there existed no statistically differences in the two measures between the two procedures. Whether MLC confers any benefits in terms of conversion or complications still warrants further studies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12893-017-0287-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.