Single-port transumbilical laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A prospective randomised comparison of clinical results of 140 cases

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.

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.

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 laparoscopic abdominal surgeries: case series of 155 various procedures, an observational cohort study

Objectives

Over the last decade, surgeons have started to think of the ways in which to further reduce the trauma of surgery and improve cosmesis. Consequently, many surgeons have yielded to single incision laparoscopic surgeries (SILS) in order to maximize operative and postoperative outcomes. This study aimed to highlight the feasibility and challenges of different procedures by presenting our data about different fields of abdominal SILS practices with long term follow-up.

Material and Methods

We retrospectively analysed an observational cohort of 155 patients who underwent surgery for different indications using the SILS technique.

Results

Of the 155 SILS procedures: 75 (48.4%) were cholecystectomies; 22 (14.2%) were splenectomies; 17 (11%) were hernia repairs; 11 (7.1%) were appendectomies; 8 (5.2%) were partial colon resections; 8 (5.2%) were adrenalectomies; 6 (3.8%) were distal pancreatectomy & splenectomies; 3 (1.9%) were subtotal gastrectomies; 3 (1.9%) were partial liver resections; and 2 (1.3%) were Nissen fundoplications. Ten (6.5%) early and 3 (1.9%) late postoperative complications were detected. No mortality or late morbidity (> 30 days) was detected due to SILS procedures.

Conclusion

SILS is a feasible technique in experienced hands for specific procedures. Meticulous patient selection is also important for good cosmetic results and outcomes.

Single-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Assisted with Neodymium Magnets: Initial Prospective Experience with 60 Cases

Introduction: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard performed by the majority of surgeons worldwide, and the use of single-port cholecystectomy remains a matter of debate. Single-port magnetic-assisted cholecystectomy (SPMAC) was described as an alternative because of its ability for proper triangulation and the advantage of reducing port surgery. The objective of this study is to describe the initial experience of SPMAC and evaluate the surgical learning curve. Materials and Methods: A prospective cohort was conducted between February 2017 and August 2018; 60 patients completed the inclusion criteria. Variables analyzed were gender, age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) classification, operative time, hospital stay, intraoperative bleeding, and conversion rate. Postoperative pain was measured with a visual analogue scale (VAS). Aesthetic perception was measured by the cosmetic visual analogue scale (CVAS). The postoperative complications were graded according to Clavien-Dindo classification, and the cumulative sum (CUSUM) model was used for evaluating the learning curve. Results: The mean operatory time was 56.1 minutes. With regard to the postoperative pain variable, the VAS value was 2 out of 10 in 78.33% of patients. With regard to aesthetic satisfaction, CVAS was reported to be 10 out of 10 in 96.67% of patients. Conversion rate was 0%. The learning curve of operative time was reached at the 22nd patient, according to the CUSUM chart. Conclusions: SPMAC is feasible and effective; in our consideration, an acceptable learning curve considering benign gallbladder pathology is one of the most prevalent in general surgery. Further comparative studies with conventional LC and SPMAC need to be performed to conduct a proper comparison.

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.

Analysis of post-operative complication in single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A retrospective analysis in 817 cases from a surgeon

BACKGROUND

Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) is a new advanced technique in laparoscopic surgery which has many benefits according to previous reports. The purpose of this study was to present personal experiences with SPLC in >800 cases performed by a surgeon to evaluate the safety and feasibility of this procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of 817 cases of SPLC was conducted. All patients had received elective SPLC by a surgeon in our centre during March 2009-August 2015. Our review suggests patients' character, peri-operative data and post-operative outcome.

RESULTS

Three hundred and ninety-eight men (48.7%) and 419 women (51.3%) with an average age of 48.3 years had received SPLC. Their mean body mass index (BMI) was 23.75 kg/m2. The mean operating time took 46.9 min (19-130). Seventy-nine cases (9.7%) needed additional port during operation. BMI, age and previous abdominal surgical history did not affect conversion to multiport surgery. Bile spillage during operation occurred in 73 cases (8.9%). There were 4 cases of open conversion because of bleeding (2 cases, 0.2%) and common bile duct (CBD) injury (2 cases, 0.2%). Mean duration of hospital stay was 2.36 days. We have experienced 38 cases (4.7%) of post-operative complication: 8 cases (1.0%) of major one and 30 cases (3.7%) of minor one. Major complication occurred in 3 cases (0.4%) of retained CBD stone, 3 cases (0.4%) of cystic duct leakage needed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and 2 cases (0.2%) of CBD injury needed reoperation. Most minor complications were wound infections that have healed after conservative treatment. There were no post-operative mortalities.

CONCLUSION

SPLC is a safe and practicable technique. With surgical experience, criteria and area of SPLC can be broadened. SPLC is occupying a greater domain of a laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

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.

Is There a Cosmetic Advantage to Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgical Techniques Over Standard Laparoscopic Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery represents an evolution of minimally invasive techniques, but has been a controversial development. A cosmetic advantage is stated by many authors, but has not been found to be universally present or even of considerable importance by patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that there is a cosmetic advantage of the technique regardless of the operation type. The treatment effect in terms of cosmetic improvement is of the order of 0.63.

Experience of single-incision laparoscopy in children

CONTEXT

Laparoscopic surgery is commonly used for the treatment of many pediatric surgical diseases at our department. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is well-known for its cosmetic benefit. We, hereby, present our experience of SILS and evaluate its efficacy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From July 2012 to June 2014, 78 patients aged less than 18 years who underwent SILS were retrospectively evaluated. There were 44 males and 34 females, with a mean age of 10.3 years. The procedures included appendectomy (n = 64), reduction of intussusception (n = 8), removal of an intestinal foreign body (n = 3), and Meckel's diverticulectomy (n = 3). We compared the patients who underwent SILS with those who underwent conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS), regarding these procedures. The parameters for analysis included the patient's demographic data, surgical indication, complications, operative time, and length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

SILS is comparable to CLS regarding two major procedures, namely, appendectomy and reduction of intussusception. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding the patients' demographic data, complications, and length of hospital stay. According to our experience of SILS, it could be a feasible and safe procedure for the treatment of various pediatric surgical diseases. However, large prospective randomized studies are needed to identify the differences between SIL and CLS.

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

BACKGROUND

Surgical technique using small-diameter instruments and single-incision laparoscopy are two new options for less invasive laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). In this study, we have compared mini-LC (MLC) with single-incision LC (SILC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study is a randomized clinical trial conducted on the patients diagnosed with symptomatic cholelithiasis who underwent LC. Forty patients were randomized to two equal groups of MLC and SILC. They were compared in terms of demographic data, operation time, and surgical complications.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar in two groups. Operation time in MLC was significantly shorter than that in SILC (45.1 ± 69 min vs 63.75 ± 7.57 min, P-value < 0.001). Also, the total length of the wound in SILC group was shorter than that in MLC group (P-value < 0.003). Postoperative pain scores were similar in two groups. Hospital stay was shorter in MLC (1.2 ± 0.6 days vs 1.6 ± 0.8 days, P < 0.021). There was no difference in postoperative complications in two groups.

CONCLUSION

MLC because of less operation time is preferred than SILC. Also, by subjective measures, it was a more comfortable method compared to SILC.

One, two, or three ports in laparoscopic cholecystectomy? Int Surg. 2014;99:739-744. [PMID: 25437581 DOI: 10.9738/intsurg-d-13-00234.1]

Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has been compared with 3- or 4-port LC. To our knowledge, there are no studies comparing the 3-, 2-, and 1-port techniques. Patients were randomized into 3 groups: LC 1-port using SILS, LC 2-port using a laparoscope with a working channel, and LC 3-port using the standard ports. Pain was evaluated at recovery, 4 hours, 24 hours, day 5, and day 8, using an analog visual scale. Homogenous groups in their demographic characteristics; all confirmed gallbladder lithiasis. At recovery, there was less pain in group 1 (P = 0.002); at 4 hours pain was similar in all groups (P = 0.899); at 24 hours there was less pain in groups 2 and 3 (P = 0.031); and at days 5 and 8 there was marginal (P = 0.053) and significant (P = 0.003) relevance. In terms of pain perception, LC performed through 1 port does not offer advantages when compared with 2 or 3 ports. More clinical trials are needed to confirm these data.

Single-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Gall Bladder Polyps

Background and Objectives:

Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) was introduced to improve patients' postoperative quality of life and cosmesis over the conventional approach (CLC). The purpose of this case–control study was to compare the outcome of SPLC with that of CLC in a specific disease: gall bladder (GB) polyps.

Methods:

Eligible for the study were all patients with GB polyps who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy between June 1, 2009, and June 30, 2011. The 112 patients studied (56 each for SPLC and CLC) were matched by using a propensity score that included gender, age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, history of previous abdominal operation, and pathology outcome. To avoid selection bias caused by the surgeon's choice (often dependent on the degree of inflammation) and to investigate the efficacy of SPLC for a single disease, GB polyps, we excluded patients with acute or chronic cholecystitis.

Results:

Characteristics of the patients matched by a propensity score between SPLC and CLC showed no significant difference. Incidentally detected malignancy was in postoperative pathology in cases in both groups. Although operative time was shorter for SPLC, there was no significant difference in time between the 2 groups. There were 3 open conversions in the CLC group, and an additional port was used in the SPLC group. There was no difference between the groups in hospital stay and postoperative complications.

Conclusion:

In the management of GB polyps, the operative results of SPLC are comparable to those of CLC. We conclude that SPLC is as safe as CLC and has the potential for greater cosmetic satisfaction for patients than CLC. Further trials for objective appraisal of cosmetic outcomes are needed.

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

•

SILC in the third world.

•

The addition of LigaSure to enhance procedure.

•

Look at feasibility.

•

Look at cost different.

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Transumbilical endoscopic cholecystectomy in a porcine model

PURPOSE

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is a new technique. This study describes our initial experience of NOTES and investigates the feasibility of transumbilical endoscopic cholecystectomy (TUEC).

METHODS

Eight domestic pigs were submitted to TUEC. After establishment of pneumoperitoneum, a bi-channel endoscope was placed through an infra-umbilical trocar. The gallbladder fundus was lifted by a grasper. The cystic duct and artery was dissected with a flexible hook and clipped by a clip fixing device. The specimen was extracted through the infra-umbilical trocar.

RESULTS

The mean operation time was 114 minutes, ranging from 75 to 155 minutes. All the gallbladders were removed successfully. There was one case of subtotal resection, two cases of bleeding and three cases of bile leakage.

CONCLUSION

Transumbilical endoscopic cholecystectomy is feasible although it needs more support of experiments and techniques before being applied on human subjects.

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.

Comparison of Cosmetic Outcome Between Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy and Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Rural Indian Population: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Persistent efforts are being made to reduce operative trauma and morbidity and to improve cosmesis following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The trend is to reduce the number of incisions, and thus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and natural orifice endoscopic surgery (NOTES) are becoming popular. There is a paucity of studies pertaining to cosmetic outcome after SILC and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in rural Indian population. In the present study, the cosmetic outcome of SILC versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) in rural Indian population was evaluated. Sixty patients with gallstone disease were randomly assigned to two groups. In group A (n = 30), CLC was performed, while group B (n = 30) was subjected to SILC. The cosmetic outcome was evaluated using a body image questionnaire on the 7th and 30th postoperative days. On the 7th postoperative day, the body image score for SILC was 6.23 ± 0.89 and for CLC, 8.26 ± 1.08 (p < 0.0001), while the cosmetic score for SILC was 19.56 ± 1.07 and for CLC, 15 ± 1.20 (p < 0.0001). On the 30th postoperative day, the body image score for SILC was 5.50 ± 0.68 and for CLC, 8 ± 1.31 (p < 0.0001), while the cosmetic score for SILC was 21.13 ± 0.57 and for CLC, 15.63 ± 1.06 (p < 0.0001), which favored SILC over CLC. The patient perception and acceptance of SILC was better than that of CLC in terms of cosmetic outcome.

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 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.

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

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic techniques have allowed surgeons to perform complicated intra-abdominal surgery with minimal trauma. Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) was developed with the aim of reducing the invasiveness of conventional laparoscopy. In this study we aimed to compare results of SILS cholecystectomy and three port conventional laparoscopic (TPCL) cholecystectomy prospectively.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 100 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallbladder disease were randomly allocated to SILS cholecystectomy (group 1) or TPCL cholecystectomy (group 2). Demographics, pathologic diagnosis, operating time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, complications, pain score, conversion rate, and satisfaction of cosmetic outcome were recorded.

RESULTS

Forty-four SILS cholesystectomies (88%) and 42 TPCL cholecystectomies (84%) were completed successfully. Conversion to open surgery was required for 4 cases in group 1 and 6 cases in group 2. Operating time was significantly longer in group 1 compared with group 2 (73 minutes vs. 48 minutes; P < 0.05). Higher pain scores were observed in group 1 versus group 2 in postoperative day 1 (P < 0.05). There was higher cosmetic satisfaction in group 1 (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

SILS cholecystectomy performed by experienced surgeons is at least as successful, feasible, effective and safe as a TPCL cholecystectomy. Surgeons performing SILS should have a firm foundation of advanced minimal access surgical skills and a cautious, gradated approach to attempt the various procedures. Prospective randomized studies comparing single access versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy, with large volumes and long-term follow-up, are needed to confirm our initial experience. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01772745.).

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.