AIMS: To use meta-analytic techniques to compare peri-operative and short term post-operative outcomes for patients undergoing cholecystectomy via the laparoscopic or mini-open approach. METHODS: Randomised control trials published between 1992 and 2005, cited in the literature of elective laparoscopic (LC) versus mini-open cholecystectomy (MoC) for symptomatic gallstone disease were included. End points evaluated were adverse events, operative and functional outcomes. A random effects meta-analytical model was used and between-study heterogeneity assessed. Subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate the difference in results for study size and quality and data reported from 2000. RESULTS: Nine randomised studies of 2032 patients were included in the analysis. There was considerable variation in the size and type of incision used for MoC in the studies. There was a significantly longer operating time for the LC group, by 14.14 minutes (95% CI 2.08, 26.19; p < 0.0001). Length of stay was reduced in the LC group by 0.37 days (95% CI -0.53, -0.21; p < 0.0001), with no significant heterogeneity for either outcome. For all other operative and post-operative outcomes, there was no significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSION: MoC appeared to have similar outcomes compared to LC, however LC did reduce the length of hospital stay. MoC is a viable and safe option for healthcare providers without the financial resources for laparoscopic equipment and appropriately trained surgical teams.
AIMS: To use meta-analytic techniques to compare peri-operative and short term post-operative outcomes for patients undergoing cholecystectomy via the laparoscopic or mini-open approach. METHODS: Randomised control trials published between 1992 and 2005, cited in the literature of elective laparoscopic (LC) versus mini-open cholecystectomy (MoC) for symptomatic gallstone disease were included. End points evaluated were adverse events, operative and functional outcomes. A random effects meta-analytical model was used and between-study heterogeneity assessed. Subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate the difference in results for study size and quality and data reported from 2000. RESULTS: Nine randomised studies of 2032 patients were included in the analysis. There was considerable variation in the size and type of incision used for MoC in the studies. There was a significantly longer operating time for the LC group, by 14.14 minutes (95% CI 2.08, 26.19; p < 0.0001). Length of stay was reduced in the LC group by 0.37 days (95% CI -0.53, -0.21; p < 0.0001), with no significant heterogeneity for either outcome. For all other operative and post-operative outcomes, there was no significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSION: MoC appeared to have similar outcomes compared to LC, however LC did reduce the length of hospital stay. MoC is a viable and safe option for healthcare providers without the financial resources for laparoscopic equipment and appropriately trained surgical teams.
Authors: Kamran Ahmed; Tim T Wang; Vanash M Patel; Kamal Nagpal; James Clark; Mariam Ali; Samer Deeba; Hutan Ashrafian; Ara Darzi; Thanos Athanasiou; Paraskevas Paraskeva Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-07-10 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Samuli Aspinen; Jukka Harju; Petri Juvonen; Kalevi Karjalainen; Hannu Kokki; Hannu Paajanen; Matti Eskelinen Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Monika E Hagen; Oliver J Wagner; Kari Thompson; Garth Jacobsen; Adam Spivack; Brian Wong; Mark Talamini; Santiago Horgan Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2009-11-12 Impact factor: 3.452