The comparison of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and three port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective randomized study

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).

Risk Factors for Difficult Three-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Background Standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is a four-port technique in which a camera port and three additional ports are used. The advantages of minimally invasive surgery with reduced-port surgery have been reported. However, evidence on the indications for minimally invasive surgery in patients with severe acute cholecystitis or previous upper abdominal surgery in whom laparoscopic surgery is considered challenging is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the factors that complicate reduced-port LC. Methods Data from 47 consecutive patients who underwent three-port LC using two 5 mm ports and 12 mm umbilical ports for symptomatic cholecystolithiasis, chronic cholecystitis, and acute cholecystitis between November 2021 and November 2023 by a single surgeon were retrospectively collected. Noncomplete LC was defined as a change of 5 mm to 12 mm port, the addition of ports, a change to subtotal cholecystectomy, or open conversion cholecystectomy. The patients were divided into two groups according to complete or noncomplete LC, and the risk factors that might have contributed to noncomplete LC were explored. Results Among the 47 patients, the median (range) age was 74 (25-97) years, 21 were men and 26 were women, 30 (63.8%) had acute cholecystitis, and 21 (44.7%) underwent emergency LC. No conversion to open cholecystectomy was performed. Six of the 47 patients had noncomplete LC, three of whom were converted to subtotal cholecystectomy, one had the midepigastric port changed from 5 mm to 12 mm to use an automatic anastomosis device, and two were converted to subtotal cholecystectomy with a 12 mm midepigastric port. In the univariate analysis, the noncomplete LC group had significantly more cases of preoperative gallbladder drainage and a smaller body mass index than the complete group. No significant differences were found in previous epigastric surgeries or in the presence of acute cholecystitis. Postoperative outcomes showed a significantly longer operative time, more intraoperative blood loss, longer postoperative hospital stay, and higher Estimation of Physiologic Ability and Surgical Stress and surgical stress score in the noncomplete LC group than in the complete group. Conclusions Three-port LC may be difficult to perform in patients with preoperative gallbladder drainage and severe scarring of the gallbladder neck. For patients with risk factors for three-port LC, adequate manpower and early conversion to subtotal or open cholecystectomy are necessary to avoid intraoperative complications. Further studies are required to determine significant risk factors for noncomplete LC.

Is single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) dependent on the location of the tumor?

BACKGROUND

We compared the surgical outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST).

METHODS

We performed single-incision gastric wedge resection on prospectively-enrolled 15 consecutive patients with gastric GIST between November 2020 and April 2022 in a single tertiary center. The early perioperative outcomes of these patients were compared to those of patients who underwent CLS. The indications did not differ from those for conventional laparoscopic procedures for gastric GIST.

RESULTS

In total, 30 patients were assigned to the SILS (n = 15) and CLS (n = 15) groups. There were no significant differences in the estimated blood loss and intraoperative blood transfusion between the SILS and CLS groups. There were no intraoperative complications or conversions to multiple-port or open surgery in the SILS group. Proximally located tumors were more commonly treated with CLS than with SILS (P = 0.045). GISTs located in the greater curvature were more commonly treated with SILS than with CLS, although the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.08). The mean incision length in the SILS group was 4.1 cm shorter than that in the CLS group (3.2 ± 0.7 and 7.3 ± 5.2 cm, respectively, P = 0.01). The postoperative analgesic dose was significantly lower in the SILS than in the CLS group (0.4 ± 1.4 and 2.1 ± 2.3, respectively P = 0.01). Also, the duration of postoperative use of analgesic was shorter in SILS than in CLS (0.4 ± 0.7 and 2.0 ± 1.8, respectively, P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in the early postoperative complications between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SILS is as safe, feasible, and effective for the treatment of gastric GIST as CLS with comparable postoperative complications, pain, and cosmesis. Moreover, SILS can be considered without being affected by the type or location of the tumor.

Evidence-based surgery for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is frequently performed for acute cholecystitis and symptomatic cholelithiasis. Considerable variation in the execution of key steps of the operation remains. We conducted a systematic review of evidence regarding best practices for critical intraoperative steps for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods

We identified 5 main intraoperative decision points in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: (1) number and position of laparoscopic ports; (2) identification of cystic artery and duct; (3) division of cystic artery and duct; (4) indications for subtotal cholecystectomy; and (5) retrieval of the gallbladder. PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were queried for relevant studies. Randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews were included for analysis, and evidence quality was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework.

Results

Fifty-two articles were included. Although all port configurations were comparable from a safety standpoint, fewer ports sometimes resulted in improved cosmesis or decreased pain but longer operative times. The critical view of safety should be obtained for identification of the cystic duct and artery but may be obtained through fundus-first dissection and augmented with cholangiography or ultrasound. Insufficient evidence exists to compare harmonic-shear, clipless ligation against clip ligation of the cystic duct and artery. Stump closure during subtotal cholecystectomy may reduce rates of bile leak and reoperation. Use of retrieval bag for gallbladder extraction results in minimal benefit. Most studies were underpowered to detect differences in incidence of rare complications.

Conclusion

Key operative steps of laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be informed by both compiled data and surgeon preference/patient considerations.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Randomized controlled trial of single incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy with long-term follow-up

Background

Within the last years, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) emerged as an alternative to multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC). SLC has advantages in cosmetic results, and postoperative pain seems lower. Overall complications are comparable between SLC and MLC. However, long-term results of randomized trials are lacking, notably to answer questions about incisional hernia rates, long-term cosmetic impact and chronic pain.

Methods

A randomized trial of SLC versus MLC with a total of 193 patients between December 2009 and June 2011 was performed. The primary endpoint was postoperative pain on the first day after surgery. Secondary endpoints were conversion rate, operative time, intraoperative and postoperative morbidity, technical feasibility and hospital stay. A long-term follow-up after surgery was added.

Results

Ninety-eight patients (50.8%) underwent SLC, and 95 patients (49.2%) had MLC. Pain on the first postoperative day showed no difference between the operative procedures (SLC vs. MLC, 3.4 ± 1.8 vs. 3.7 ± 1.9, respectively; p = 0.317). No significant differences were observed in operating time or the overall rate of postoperative complications (4.1% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.731). SLC exhibited better cosmetic results in the short term. In the long term, after a mean of 70.4 months, there were no differences in incisional hernia rate, cosmetic results or pain at the incision between the two groups.

Conclusions

Taking into account a follow-up rate of 68%, the early postoperative advantages of SLC in relation to cosmetic appearance and pain did not persist in the long term. In the present trial, there was no difference in incisional hernia rates between SLC and MLC, but the sample size is too small for a final conclusion regarding hernia rates.

Trial registration

German Registry of Clinical Trials DRKS00012447

A Comparative Study of Needlescopic Grasper Assisted Single Incision versus Three-Port versus Pure Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Purpose

Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is a surgical method to treat gallbladder disease designed to reduce postoperative pain and improve cosmetic results. However, pure SILC (pSILC) has several inherent limitations. In this study, we report the surgical outcomes of SILC with needlescopic grasper (nSILC) compared with those of pSILC and conventional three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TPLC).

Methods

This retrospective study enrolled 103 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease in our hospital between January 2013 and January 2015. Among them, 33 patients underwent pSILC, 35 underwent nSILC, and 35 underwent TPLC. We collected demographic characteristics and operative data to analyze outcomes between groups.

Results

All procedures were done by laparoscopy and the gallbladder of each patient was completely removed. Women and younger patients were more to undergo SILC than TPLC. Analysis showed that the operation time of the nSILC group was longer than that of the TPLC group, but shorter than that of the pSILC group (skin to skin operation time [pSILC: 65.2±19.1 min, nSILC: 49.7±12.9 min, and TPLC: 43.4±14.7 min, p<0.001], and major procedure time [pSILC: 42.2±18.7 min, nSILC: 25.9±8.9 min, and TPLC: 23.4±12.7 min, p<0.001]). There were no significant differences between the groups for patient visual analogue scale score, length of hospital stay, or intraoperative blood loss.

Conclusion

nSILC is feasible surgical method in patients with benign gallbladder disease compared to TPLC, and that is an effective procedure to overcome the disadvantage of pSILC.

Dual-Incision Laparoscopic Spleen-Preserving Distal Pancreatectomy: Merits Compared to the Conventional Method

BACKGROUND

Herein, we assess the safety and feasibility of dual-incision laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (DILSPDP) through lateral approach with reduced trocars for benign and low-grade malignancy in pancreas tail. We compare DILSPDP with surgical outcomes of conventional laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP).

METHODS

Patients with benign pancreas tail mass that had been scheduled for LSPDP were selected to undergo DILSPDP. These patients had spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with the dissection in lateral-to-medial fashion using a multichannel trocar in the right lateral decubitus position of patient. We compared the demographics and operative outcomes of DILSPDP with those of conventional LSPDP which was performed with dissection in medial-to-lateral fashion using four or five trocars in supine position.

RESULTS

Twenty two cases of DILSPDP and 26 cases of conventional LSPDP were reviewed. There was no difference in terms of demographic features including diagnosis or tumor size, although the location of the tumor was fundamentally different between the two groups. Significantly shorter operative times and reduced blood loss were observed in DILSPDP group (p = 0.004 and 0.011, respectively) and the preservation of splenic vessels was more successful with DILSPDP than conventional surgery (95.5% vs. 65.4%, p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

DILSPDP appears to be a feasible method of spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy for benign or low-malignancy of pancreas tail and is accompanied by advantages in terms of splenic vessel preservation and reduced parietal trauma.

Evaluation of the result of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for gastrointestinal stromal tumors in the stomach

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has recently been used for the management of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). Here, the feasibility and effectiveness of SILS for GIST and indications for SILS according to tumor location were investigated.

CASE PRESENTATION

From July 2009 to May to 2013, a total of 14 patients underwent SILS for GIST. In 14 patients, 5 patients had tumor near the esophagogastric junction, 4 patients on the lesser curvature, 2 patients on the anterior wall, 2 patients on the posterior wall, and 1 patient on the greater curvature. The surgery of one patient with lesser curvature tumor was converted to conventional laparoscopic surgery because of technical difficulties. Another patient required re-operation because of a posterior wall tumor causing gastric obstruction. There was no complication in patients with tumors on the anterior wall and greater curvature.

CONCLUSIONS

Because SILS for GISTs located mainly on the anterior wall was feasible, SILS may be considered the most appropriate type of laparoscopic surgery for GISTs in this location. However, for GISTs on the posterior wall or with lesser curvature, which require more complex management, SILS is challenging and should be carefully adapted.

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.

Quality of life after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized, clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Controversy continues as to whether single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, with the somewhat larger incision at the umbilicus, may lead to a worse postoperative quality of life and more pain compared with the more classic 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The aim of this study was to compare single-incision and 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy from the perspective of quality of life.

METHODS

This study was a multicenter, parallel-group, open-label, randomized clinical trial. A total of 120 patients who were scheduled to undergo elective cholecystectomy were randomly assigned 1:1 into the single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy or the 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy group and then assessed continuously for 2 weeks during the postoperative period. The primary outcome was quality of life, defined as the time to resume normal daily activities. Postoperative pain was also assessed. To explore the heterogeneity of treatment effects, we assessed the interactions of sex, age, and working status on recovery time.

RESULTS

A total of 58 patients in the single-incision group and 53 in the 4-port group (n = 111, 47 male, mean age 57 years) were analyzed. The mean time to resume daily activities was 10.2 days and 8.8 days, respectively, for single-incision and 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (95% confidence interval -0.4 to 3.2, P = .12). Similarly, the time to relief from postoperative pain did not differ significantly between the groups. Statistically insignificant but qualitative interactions were noted; in the subgroups of women, full-time workers, and patients younger than 60 years, recovery tended to be slower after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative quality of life did not differ substantially between single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients younger than 60 years, women, and full-time workers tended to have a somewhat slower recovery after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Single access laparoscopic cholecystectomy: technique without the need for special materials and with better ergonomics

The authors describe a surgical technique which allows, without increasing costs, to perform laparoscopic cholecystectomy with a single incision, without using specific materials and with better surgical ergonomics. The technique consists of a longitudinal umbilical incision, navel detachment, use of a permanent 10mm trocar and two clamps directly and bilaterally through the aponeurosis without the use of 5mm trocars, transcutaneous gallbladder repair with straight needle cotton suture, ligation with unabsorbable suture and umbilical incision for the specimen extraction. The presented technique enables the procedure with conventional and permanent materials, improving surgical ergonomics, with safety and aesthetic advantages.

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.

The use of expanding ports in laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery may cause more pain: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses on the clinical outcome after laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) have not revealed any major differences in postoperative pain between the two procedures. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the difference in postoperative pain between the two procedures, focusing on whether LESS was conducted with a non-expanding port (LESSnonex) or a port expanding (LESSex) within the incision.

METHOD

EMBASE, Medline, PubMed, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on LESS versus CLS for general abdominal procedures. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 29 RCTs with 2999 procedures were included. Pain (VAS 0-10) 6 h after surgery was significantly lower in the group where LESS was conducted with LESSnonex compared to CLS, WMD=-0.72 (- 1.10 to - 0.33). Pain 18-24 h was significantly higher in the group where LESS was conducted with LESSex compared to CLS, WMD = 0.38 (0.01-0.75). Wound-related complications were significantly more frequent in LESSex procedures compared to CLS, OR = 1.94 (1.03-3.63).

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis indirectly indicates that the type of access device that is used for an abdominal LESS procedure may contribute to the development of early postoperative pain as the use of a non-expanding model was associated with a more advantageous outcome. Direct randomized comparison of LESSnonex and LESSex is warranted to confirm if the use of expanding access devices generates more pain and wound complications.

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.

Laparoscopic entry techniques

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is a common procedure in many surgical specialities. Complications arising from laparoscopy are often related to initial entry into the abdomen. Life-threatening complications include injury to viscera e.g. the bowel or bladder, or to vasculature e.g. major abdominal and anterior abdominal wall vessels. Minor complications can also occur, such as postoperative wound infection, subcutaneous emphysema, and extraperitoneal insufflation. There is no clear consensus 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

This updated review has drawn on the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group. In addition, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PsycINFO were searched through to September 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which one laparoscopic entry technique was compared with another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two 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 46 RCTs including three multi-arm trials (7389 participants) and evaluated 13 laparoscopic entry techniques. Overall there was no evidence of advantage using any single technique for preventing major vascular or visceral complications. The evidence was generally of very low quality; the main limitations were imprecision and poor reporting of study methods. Open-entry versus closed-entry There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for vascular (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82, three RCTs, n = 795, I(2) = n/a; very low quality evidence) or visceral injury (Peto OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.08, three RCTs, n = 795, I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence). There was a lower risk of failed entry in the open-entry group (Peto OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.63, n = 665, two RCTs, I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence). This suggests that for every 1000 patients operated on, 31 patients in the closed-entry group will have failed entry compared to between 1 to 20 patients in the open-entry group. No events were reported in any of the studies for mortality, gas embolism or solid organ injury. Direct trocar versus Veress needle entry There was a lower risk of vascular injury in the direct trocar group (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.66, five RCTs, n = 1522, I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence) and failed entry (Peto OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.30, seven RCTs, n = 3104; I ²= 0%; moderate quality evidence). This suggests that for every 1000 patients operated on, 8 patients in the Veress needle group will experience vascular injury compared to between 0 to 5 patients in the direct trocar group; and that 64 patients in the Veress needle group will experience failed entry compared to between 10 to 20 patients in the direct trocar group. The vascular injury significance is sensitive to choice of statistical analysis and may be unreliable. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for visceral (Peto OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.06 to 16.24, four RCTs, n = 1438, I(2) = 49%; very low quality evidence) or solid organ injury (Peto OR 0.16, 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.53, two RCTs, n = 998, I(2) = n/a; very low quality evidence). No events were recorded for mortality or gas embolism. Direct vision entry versus Veress needle entry There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the rates of visceral injury (Peto OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.34, one RCT, n = 194; very low quality evidence). Other primary outcomes were not reported. Direct vision entry versus open-entry There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the rates of visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.50, two RCTs, n = 392; low quality evidence), solid organ injury (Peto OR 6.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 316.67, one RCT, n = 60, I(2) = n/a; very low quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.09, one RCT, n = 60; low quality evidence). Vascular injury was reported, however no events occurred. Our other primary outcomes were not reported. Radially expanding (STEP) trocars versus non-expanding trocars There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for vascular injury (Peto OR 0.24, 95% Cl 0.05 to 1.21, two RCTs, n = 331, I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.37, two RCTs, n = 331, I(2) = n/a; low quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.91, one RCT, n = 244; very low quality evidence). Other primary outcomes were not reported. Comparisons of other laparoscopic entry techniquesThere was a higher risk of failed entry in the group in which the abdominal wall was lifted before Veress needle insertion than in the not-lifted group (Peto OR 4.44, 95% CI 2.16 to 9.13, one RCT, n = 150; very low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of visceral injury or extraperitoneal insufflation. The studies had small numbers and excluded many patients with previous abdominal surgery, and women with a raised body mass index. These patients may have unusually high complication rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is insufficient evidence to recommend one laparoscopic entry technique over another.An open-entry technique is associated with a reduction in failed entry when compared to a closed-entry technique, with no evidence of a difference in the incidence of visceral or vascular injury.An advantage of direct trocar entry over Veress needle entry was noted for failed entry and vascular injury. The evidence was generally of very low quality with small numbers of participants in most studies; our findings should be interpreted with caution.

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).

Abdominal, multi-port and single-port total laparoscopic hysterectomy: eleven-year trends comparison of surgical outcomes complications of 936 cases

PURPOSE

To compare surgical outcomes and complications of 284 patients who had total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH), 366 patients who had multi-port access total laparoscopic hysterectomy (MPA-TLH), and 286 patients who had single-port access total laparoscopic hysterectomy (SPA-TLH) using a transumbilical single-port system.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on a cohort of women who underwent TAH, MPA-TLH, or SPA-TLH for benign gynecologic diseases at DaeJeon St. Mary's Hospital, between January 2003 and December 2013. Surgical outcomes and complications were compared between the three groups.

RESULTS

The total operative time (min) was longest in the SPA-TLH group (188.3 ± 51.3), followed by the TAH (176.4 ± 47.9) and MPA-TLH (149.3 ± 59.5) groups (p < 0.05). The estimated blood loss (mL) did not differ between MPA-TLH and SPA-TLH (163.8 ± 168.9 vs. 176.9 ± 197.8 mL), but it was the greatest in TAH (427.1 ± 250.6, p < 0.05). The weight of the uterus (gm) was highest in TAH (375.8 ± 380.1, p < 0.05) and similar in MPA-TLH and SPA-TLH (10.1 ± 2.6 vs. 9.7 ± 2.6 cm). The hospital stay (days) was longest in the TAH (7.0 ± 2.1) and SPA-TLH (6.3 ± 2.0) groups, followed by the MPA-TLH (5.5 ± 2.0) group (p < 0.05). The major complication rate was 2.5 % (7 cases) in the TAH group, 5.5 % (20 cases) in the MPA-TLH group, and 0.7 % (2 cases) in the SPA-TLH group. In the MPA-TLH group, the complication rate of the first half of the cases was significantly higher than in the latter half of cases, especially with regards to vaginal cuff dehiscence (p < 0.05). In the SPA-TLH group, no statistically significant difference was found between the two sub-groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that MPA-TLH and SPA-TLH were feasible and safe when compared to TAH. Furthermore, after acquiring technical skills in laparoscopic surgery, conversion from MPA-TLH to SPA-TLH might be easier than the initial conversion from laparotomy to laparoscopy. The advantage of SPA-TLH over MPA-TLH is questionable, considering the longer learning curve; however SPA-TLH is an effective alternative for both the patient and surgeon.