Literature DB >> 20238350

Miniport versus standard ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy1, Kumarakrishnan Samraj, Rajarajan Ramamoorthy, Marwan Farouk, Giuseppe Fusai, Brian R Davidson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In conventional (standard) laparoscopic cholecystectomy, four abdominal ports (two of 10 mm diameter and two of 5 mm diameter) are used. Recently, use of smaller ports have been reported.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of miniport (defined as ports smaller than conventional ports) laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until September 2009 for identifying the randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing miniport versus standard ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy were considered for the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN
RESULTS: We included thirteen trials with 803 patients randomised to miniport (n = 416) versus standard ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 387). In twelve trials, four ports were used. In one trial, three ports were used. The bias risk of all trials was high. Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy could be completed successfully in 87% of patients. The remaining patients were mostly converted to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy but some were also converted to open cholecystectomy. Further information about these patients who underwent conversion to open cholecystectomy was not available in most trials. In the patients on whom information was available, there was no mortality reported; and there was no significant difference in the surgery-related morbidity or conversion to open cholecystectomy. Most trials excluded the patients who were converted to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In patients who underwent successful miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the pain was significantly lower in the miniport group than in the standard port at various time points. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be completed successfully in more than 85% of patients. Patients, in whom elective miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy was completed successfully, had lower pain than those who underwent standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, because of the lack of information on its safety, miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy cannot be recommended outside well-designed, randomised clinical trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20238350     DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006804.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  9 in total

1.  Intraoperative cholangiography in the laparoscopic cholecystectomy era: why are we still debating?

Authors:  F Ausania; L R Holmes; F Ausania; S Iype; P Ricci; S A White
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-03-22       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Systematic analysis of the safety and benefits of transvaginal hybrid-NOTES cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Dirk R Bulian; Jurgen Knuth; Kai S Lehmann; Axel Sauerwald; Markus M Heiss
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-10-14       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Cholecystectomy: from Langenbuch to natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Nathaniel J Soper
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 4.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: consensus conference-based guidelines.

Authors:  Ferdinando Agresta; Fabio Cesare Campanile; Nereo Vettoretto; Gianfranco Silecchia; Carlo Bergamini; Pietro Maida; Pietro Lombari; Piero Narilli; Domenico Marchi; Alessandro Carrara; Maria Grazia Esposito; Stefania Fiume; Giuseppe Miranda; Simona Barlera; Marina Davoli
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 3.445

5.  Prevention and treatment of bile duct injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES).

Authors:  M Eikermann; R Siegel; I Broeders; C Dziri; A Fingerhut; C Gutt; T Jaschinski; A Nassar; A M Paganini; D Pieper; E Targarona; M Schrewe; A Shamiyeh; M Strik; E A M Neugebauer
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-10-06       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Is the fourth port routinely required for laparoscopic cholecystectomy? Our three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy experience.

Authors:  A Ciftci; M B Yazicioglu; C Tiryaki; H T Turgut; O Subasi; M Ilgoz; O Civil; S Y Yildiz
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2016-08-31       Impact factor: 1.568

7.  Retropubic, laparoscopic and mini-laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of patient scar satisfaction.

Authors:  Carmelo Quattrone; Antonio Cicione; Carlos Oliveira; Riccardo Autorino; Francesco Cantiello; Vincenzo Mirone; Marco De Sio; Luca Carrubbo; Rocco Damiano; Carlo Pavone; Estevão Lima
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-10-26       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 8.  Interventions to optimize recovery after laparoscopic appendectomy: a scoping review.

Authors:  James K Hamill; Jamie-Lee Rahiri; Gamage Gunaratna; Andrew G Hill
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Transvaginal/transumbilical hybrid--NOTES--versus 3-trocar needlescopic cholecystectomy: short-term results of a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Dirk Rolf Bulian; Jürgen Knuth; Nicola Cerasani; Axel Sauerwald; Rolf Lefering; Markus Maria Heiss
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 12.969

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.