Literature DB >> 18810546

Is smaller necessarily better? A systematic review comparing the effects of minilaparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy on patient outcomes.

Rory McCloy1, Delia Randall, Stephan A Schug, Henrik Kehlet, Christian Simanski, Francis Bonnet, Frederic Camu, Barrie Fischer, Girish Joshi, Narinder Rawal, Edmund A M Neugebauer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In recent years, minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC; total size of trocar incision < 25 mm) has been increasingly advocated for the removal of the gallbladder, due to potentially better surgical outcomes (e.g., better cosmetic result, reduced pain, shorter hospital stay, quicker return to activity), but an evidence-based approach has been lacking. The current systematic review was undertaken to evaluate the importance of total size of trocar incision in improving surgical outcomes in adult laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).
METHODS: The literature was systematically reviewed using MEDLINE and EmBASE. Only randomized controlled trials in English, investigating minilaparoscopic versus conventional LC (total size of trocar incision > or = 25 mm) and reporting pain scores were included. Quantitative analyses (meta-analyses) were performed on postoperative pain scores and other patient outcomes from more than one study where feasible and appropriate. Qualitative analyses consisted of assessing the number of studies showing a significant difference between the techniques.
RESULTS: Thirteen trials met the inclusion criteria. There was a trend towards reduced pain with MLC compared with conventional LC, without reduction in opioid use. Patients in the MLC group had slightly reduced length of hospital stay, but there were no significant differences for return to activity. The two interventions were also similar in terms of operating times and adverse events, but MLC was associated with better cosmetic result (largely patient rated). There was a significantly greater likelihood of conversion to conventional LC or to open cholecystectomy in the MLC group than there was of conversion to open cholecystectomy in the conventional LC group [OR 4.71 (95% confidence interval 2.67-8.31), p < 0.00001].
CONCLUSIONS: The data included in this review suggest that reducing the size of trocar incision results in some limited improvements in surgical outcomes after LC. However, it carries a higher risk of conversion to conventional LC or open cholecystectomy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18810546     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-008-0055-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  29 in total

1.  Elective transumbilical compared with standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  F Bresadola; A Pasqualucci; A Donini; P Chiarandini; G Anania; G Terrosu; M A Sistu; A Pasetto
Journal:  Eur J Surg       Date:  1999-01

2.  The CONSORT Statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials 2001.

Authors:  David Moher; Kenneth F Schulz; Douglas Altman
Journal:  Explore (NY)       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 1.775

Review 3.  PROSPECT: evidence-based, procedure-specific postoperative pain management.

Authors:  Henrik Kehlet; Roseanne C Wilkinson; H Barrie J Fischer; Frederic Camu
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol       Date:  2007-03

4.  Prospective randomized blinded trial of pulmonary function, pain, and cosmetic results after laparoscopic vs. microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  W Schwenk; J Neudecker; J Mall; B Böhm; J M Müller
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Microlaparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind trial.

Authors:  T Bisgaard; B Klarskov; R Trap; H Kehlet; J Rosenberg
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2001-11-16       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Needlescopic or minisite cholecystectomy.

Authors:  S S Ngoi; P Goh; K Kok; C K Kum; W K Cheah
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed with mini-instruments.

Authors:  L Sarli; D Iusco; S Gobbi; C Porrini; M Ferro; L Roncoroni
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 6.939

8.  Two-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  C M Poon; K W Chan; D W H Lee; K C Chan; C W Ko; H Y Cheung; K W Lee
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-07-21       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Minilaparoscopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Aman Gupta; U K Shrivastava; Praveen Kumar; Deepa Burman
Journal:  Trop Gastroenterol       Date:  2005 Jul-Sep

10.  Umbilical port hernia following laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  P Singh; R Kaushik; R Sharma
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.407

View more
  19 in total

1.  Is there still any role for minilaparoscopic-cholecystectomy? A general surgeons' last five years experience over 932 cases.

Authors:  Ferdinando Agresta; Natalino Bedin
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2011-11-11

Review 2.  New minimally invasive approaches for cholecystectomy: Review of literature.

Authors:  Martin Gaillard; Hadrien Tranchart; Panagiotis Lainas; Ibrahim Dagher
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2015-10-27

3.  [Minilaparoscopic surgery : alternative or supplement to single-port surgery?].

Authors:  L Brinkmann; D Lorenz
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 0.955

4.  Assessment of cosmetic outcome after laparoscopic cholecystectomy among women 4 years after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: is there a problem?

Authors:  Mark Bignell; Andrew Hindmarsh; Haritharan Nageswaran; Bhavani Mothe; Andrew Jenkinson; David Mahon; Michael Rhodes
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-03-18       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  A prospective, randomized, single-blind trial of 5-mm versus 3-mm ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: is smaller better?

Authors:  M Bignell; M P N Lewis; E C K Cheong; M Rhodes
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) vs. conventional laparoscopic fundoplication for GERD: is there a difference?

Authors:  Sharona Ross; Andy Roddenbery; Kenneth Luberice; Harold Paul; Thomas Farrior; Michelle Vice; Krishen Patel; Alexander Rosemurgy
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-07-18       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Transvaginal hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy--results of a randomized clinical trial after 6 months.

Authors:  Dirk Rolf Bulian; Jurgen Knuth; Nicola Cerasani; Jonas Lange; Michael Alfred Ströhlein; Axel Sauerwald; Markus Maria Heiss
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2014-06-22       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 8.  A review of single site minimally invasive surgery in infants and children.

Authors:  Carissa L Garey; Carrie A Laituri; Daniel J Ostlie; Shawn D St Peter
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2010-02-21       Impact factor: 1.827

9.  Postoperative pain after transvaginal cholecystectomy: single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Dietmar H Borchert; Matthias Federlein; Frauke Fritze-Büttner; Jens Burghardt; Britta Liersch-Löhn; Yüksel Atas; Verena Müller; Oskar Rückbeil; Stefan Wagenpfeil; Stefan Gräber; Klaus Gellert
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-01-24       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a preliminary experience.

Authors:  Elie Chouillard; Arnaud Dache; Adriana Torcivia; Nada Helmy; Ivan Ruseykin; Andrew Gumbs
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-01-28       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.