Cargando…

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

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

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Evers, Laura, Bouvy, Nicole, Branje, Dion, Peeters, Andrea
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5579203/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28039641
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5381-0
_version_ 1783260663923081216
author Evers, Laura
Bouvy, Nicole
Branje, Dion
Peeters, Andrea
author_facet Evers, Laura
Bouvy, Nicole
Branje, Dion
Peeters, Andrea
author_sort Evers, Laura
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) might maximize the advantages of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) by reducing postoperative pain and improving cosmesis. However, the safety and feasibility of SILC has not yet been established. This study assesses safety, patient reported outcome measures and feasibility of SILC versus conventional LC. METHODS: Literature search for RCT’s comparing SILC with conventional LC in gallstone-related disease was performed in PubMed and Embase. The conventional LC was defined as two 10-mm and two 5-mm ports. Study selection was done according to predefined criteria. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias. Pooled outcomes were calculated for adverse events, pain, cosmesis, quality of life and feasibility using fixed-effect and random-effects models. RESULTS: Nine RCT’s were included with total of 860 patients. No mortality was observed. More mild adverse events (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.99–2.42) and significantly more serious adverse events (RR 3.00; 95% CI 1.05–8.58) occurred in the SILC group. Postoperative pain (MD -0.46; 95% CI -0.74 to -0.18) and cosmesis (SMD 2.38; 95% CI 1.50–3.26) showed significantly better results for the SILC group, but no differences were observed in quality of life. Operating time (MD 23.12; 95% CI 11.59–34.65) and the need for additional ports (RR 11.43; 95% CI 3.48–37.50) were significantly higher in the SILC group. No difference was observed in conversion to open cholecystectomy or hospital stay longer than 24 h. CONCLUSIONS: SILC does not provide any clear advantages over conventional LC except for less postoperative pain and improved cosmesis. It is questionable whether these advantages outweigh the higher occurrence of adverse events and shortcomings in feasibility. Considering considerable heterogeneity and low methodological quality of the studies it is advisable to perform well-designed RCT’s in the future to address the safety and clinical benefits of SILC.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5579203
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55792032017-09-18 Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis Evers, Laura Bouvy, Nicole Branje, Dion Peeters, Andrea Surg Endosc Review BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) might maximize the advantages of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) by reducing postoperative pain and improving cosmesis. However, the safety and feasibility of SILC has not yet been established. This study assesses safety, patient reported outcome measures and feasibility of SILC versus conventional LC. METHODS: Literature search for RCT’s comparing SILC with conventional LC in gallstone-related disease was performed in PubMed and Embase. The conventional LC was defined as two 10-mm and two 5-mm ports. Study selection was done according to predefined criteria. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias. Pooled outcomes were calculated for adverse events, pain, cosmesis, quality of life and feasibility using fixed-effect and random-effects models. RESULTS: Nine RCT’s were included with total of 860 patients. No mortality was observed. More mild adverse events (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.99–2.42) and significantly more serious adverse events (RR 3.00; 95% CI 1.05–8.58) occurred in the SILC group. Postoperative pain (MD -0.46; 95% CI -0.74 to -0.18) and cosmesis (SMD 2.38; 95% CI 1.50–3.26) showed significantly better results for the SILC group, but no differences were observed in quality of life. Operating time (MD 23.12; 95% CI 11.59–34.65) and the need for additional ports (RR 11.43; 95% CI 3.48–37.50) were significantly higher in the SILC group. No difference was observed in conversion to open cholecystectomy or hospital stay longer than 24 h. CONCLUSIONS: SILC does not provide any clear advantages over conventional LC except for less postoperative pain and improved cosmesis. It is questionable whether these advantages outweigh the higher occurrence of adverse events and shortcomings in feasibility. Considering considerable heterogeneity and low methodological quality of the studies it is advisable to perform well-designed RCT’s in the future to address the safety and clinical benefits of SILC. Springer US 2016-12-30 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5579203/ /pubmed/28039641 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5381-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Review
Evers, Laura
Bouvy, Nicole
Branje, Dion
Peeters, Andrea
Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5579203/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28039641
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5381-0
work_keys_str_mv AT everslaura singleincisionlaparoscopiccholecystectomyversusconventionalfourportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT bouvynicole singleincisionlaparoscopiccholecystectomyversusconventionalfourportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT branjedion singleincisionlaparoscopiccholecystectomyversusconventionalfourportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT peetersandrea singleincisionlaparoscopiccholecystectomyversusconventionalfourportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis