Timothy X Yang1, Terence C Chua. 1. Hepatobiliary and Surgical Oncology Unit, UNSW Department of Surgery, St George Hospital, Kogarah, Sydney, NSW 2217, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) to conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MLC). BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a minimally invasive technique being recently applied to colorectal surgery. A number of studies comparing SILC to conventional MLC have recently been published. METHODS: A literature search of PubMed and MEDLINE databases for studies comparing SILC to conventional MLC was conducted. The primary outcome measures for meta-analysis were postoperative complications, length of stay, and operative time. Secondary outcome measures were incision length, estimated blood loss, and number of lymph nodes harvested. RESULTS: Fifteen studies comparing 467 patients undergoing SILC to 539 patients undergoing conventional MLC were reviewed and the data pooled for analysis. Patients undergoing SILC had a shorter length of stay (pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.68; 95 % CI = -1.20 to -0.16; p = 0.0099), shorter incision length (pooled WMD = -1.37; 95 % CI = -2.74 to 0.000199; p = 0.05), less estimated blood loss (pooled WMD = -20.25; 95 % CI = -39.25 to -1.24; p = 0.037), and more lymph nodes harvested (pooled WMD = 1.75; 95 % CI = 0.12 to 3.38; p = 0.035), while there was no significant difference in the number of postoperative complications (pooled odds ratio = 0.83; 95 % CI = 0.57 to 1.20; p = 0.33) or operative time (pooled WMD = 5.06; 95 % CI = -2.91 to 13.03; p = 0.21). CONCLUSION: SILC appears to have comparable results to conventional MLC in the hands of experienced surgeons. Prospective randomized trials are necessary to define the relative benefits of one procedure over the other.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) to conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MLC). BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a minimally invasive technique being recently applied to colorectal surgery. A number of studies comparing SILC to conventional MLC have recently been published. METHODS: A literature search of PubMed and MEDLINE databases for studies comparing SILC to conventional MLC was conducted. The primary outcome measures for meta-analysis were postoperative complications, length of stay, and operative time. Secondary outcome measures were incision length, estimated blood loss, and number of lymph nodes harvested. RESULTS: Fifteen studies comparing 467 patients undergoing SILC to 539 patients undergoing conventional MLC were reviewed and the data pooled for analysis. Patients undergoing SILC had a shorter length of stay (pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.68; 95 % CI = -1.20 to -0.16; p = 0.0099), shorter incision length (pooled WMD = -1.37; 95 % CI = -2.74 to 0.000199; p = 0.05), less estimated blood loss (pooled WMD = -20.25; 95 % CI = -39.25 to -1.24; p = 0.037), and more lymph nodes harvested (pooled WMD = 1.75; 95 % CI = 0.12 to 3.38; p = 0.035), while there was no significant difference in the number of postoperative complications (pooled odds ratio = 0.83; 95 % CI = 0.57 to 1.20; p = 0.33) or operative time (pooled WMD = 5.06; 95 % CI = -2.91 to 13.03; p = 0.21). CONCLUSION: SILC appears to have comparable results to conventional MLC in the hands of experienced surgeons. Prospective randomized trials are necessary to define the relative benefits of one procedure over the other.
Authors: Dhruvil P Gandhi; Madhu Ragupathi; Chirag B Patel; Diego I Ramos-Valadez; T Bartley Pickron; Eric M Haas Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2010-10-05 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Ian Shrier; Jean-François Boivin; Russell J Steele; Robert W Platt; Andrea Furlan; Ritsuko Kakuma; James Brophy; Michel Rossignol Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2007-08-21 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Jon D Vogel; Lei Lian; Matthew F Kalady; Luiz Felipe de Campos-Lobato; Patricia C Alves-Ferreira; Feza H Remzi Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2011-02-04 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: David Canes; Andre Berger; Monish Aron; Ricardo Brandina; David A Goldfarb; Daniel Shoskes; Mihir M Desai; Inderbir S Gill Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: E M Targarona; E Gracia; J Garriga; C Martínez-Bru; M Cortés; R Boluda; L Lerma; M Trías Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2001-10-13 Impact factor: 4.584