Systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing single‐incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. BJS 2013; 100: 191-208.
Published: 12th November 2012
Authors: S. Trastulli, R. Cirocchi, J. Desiderio, S. Guarino, A. Santoro, A. Parisi et al.
Single‐incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) may offer advantages over conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).
MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized clinical trials on SILC versus LC until May 2012. Odds ratio (OR) and weight mean difference (WMD) were calculated with 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i.) based on intention‐to‐treat analysis.
Thirteen randomized clinical trials included a total of 923 procedures. SILC had a higher procedure failure rate than LC (OR 8·16, 95 per cent c.i. 3·42 to 19·45; P < 0·001), required a longer operating time (WMD 16·55, 95 per cent c.i. 9·95 to 23·15 min; P < 0·001) and was associated with greater intraoperative blood loss (WMD 1·58, 95% of c.i. 0·44 to 2·71 ml; P = 0·007). There were no differences between the two approaches in rate of conversion to open surgery, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, adverse events, wound infections or port‐site hernias. Better cosmetic outcomes were demonstrated in favour of SILC as measured by Body Image Scale questionnaire (WMD − 0·97, 95% of c.i. − 1·51 to − 0·43; P < 0·001) and Cosmesis score (WMD − 2·46, 95% of c.i. − 2·95 to − 1·97; P < 0·001), but this was based on comparison with procedures in which multiple and often large ports (10 mm) were used.
SILC has a higher procedure failure rate with more blood loss and takes longer than LC. No trial was adequately powered to assess safety. Copyright © 2012 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Full text
You may also be interested in
Authors: L. Scholten, T. F. Stoop, M. Del Chiaro, O. R. Busch, C. van Eijck, I. Q. Molenaar et al.
Authors: M. Tanaka, A. L. Mihaljevic, P. Probst, M. Heckler, U. Klaiber, U. Heger et al.
Multicentre observational cohort study of implementation and outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.
Authors: S. Lof, A. L. Moekotte, B. Al‐Sarireh, B. Ammori, S. Aroori, D. Durkin et al.
Multicentre analysis of the learning curve for laparoscopic liver resection of the posterosuperior segments. BJS 2019; 106: 1512-1522.
Authors: G. Berardi, D. Aghayan, Å. A. Fretland, H. Elberm, F. Cipriani, A. Spagnoli et al.
Validation of a nomogram to predict the risk of cancer in patients with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm and main duct dilatation of 10 mm or less.
Authors: W. Jung, T. Park, Y. Kim, H. Park, Y. Han, J. He et al.
Secondary technical resectability of colorectal cancer liver metastases after chemotherapy with or without selective internal radiotherapy in the randomized SIRFLOX trial.
Authors: B. Garlipp, P. Gibbs, G. A. Van Hazel, R. Jeyarajah, R. C. G. Martin, C. J. Bruns et al.
Benign hilar bile duct strictures resected as perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. BJS 2019; 106: 1504-1511.
Authors: S. Otsuka, T. Ebata, Y. Yokoyama, T. Igami, T. Mizuno, J. Yamaguchi et al.
Meta‐analysis of the association between primary tumour location and prognosis after surgical resection of colorectal liver metastases.
Authors: X.‐Y. Wang, R. Zhang, Z. Wang, Y. Geng, J. Lin, K. Ma et al.
Authors: N. Filmann, D. Walter, E. Schadde, C. Bruns, T. Keck, H. Lang et al.
Quality of life from a randomized trial of laparoscopic or open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases. BJS 2019; 106: 1372-1380.
Authors: Å. A. Fretland, V. J. Dagenborg, G. M. Waaler Bjørnelv, D. L. Aghayan, A. M. Kazaryan, L. Barkhatov et al.
Safety and efficacy of transarterial embolization of hepatocellular adenomas. BJS 2019; 106: 1362-1371.
Authors: B. V. van Rosmalen, A. J. Klompenhouwer, J. Jaap de Graeff, M. P. D. Haring, V. E. de Meijer, L. Rifai et al.
Authors: A. Pulvirenti, A. Pea, N. Rezaee, C. Gasparini, G. Malleo, M. J. Weiss et al.