BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is gaining popularity. It is not evident whether the benefits of this procedure overcome the potential increased risk. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare SILC with conventional multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MILC). METHODS: Data from randomized, controlled trials published up to December 2011 and comparing SILC versus MILC were extracted. The primary end point was overall morbidity. A fixed-effect model was applied to summarize the study outcomes in the meta-analysis, and a random-effect model was used in the sensitivity analysis. The outcome measures were relative risk (RR) and mean difference (MD); a RR of <1.0 or a negative MD indicated a more favorable outcome after SILC. Publication bias was assessed by a funnel plot, and heterogeneity was tested by the I (2) measure and subgroup analyses. RESULTS: A total of 12 trials (996 patients) were included. Mortality was nil in both treatment groups; the overall RR for morbidity was 1.36 (p = 0.098). The mean operating time was 47.2 min for MILC and 58.1 min for SILC (MD 9.47 min; p < 0.001). The visual analog scale pain score at 24 h after surgery was 2.96 in MILC and 2.34 in SILC (MD -0.64; p = 0.058), but sensitivity analysis of the four studies deemed at low risk of bias for pain assessment, according to blinding and postoperative analgesic protocols, showed significance at -0.43 points (95 % confidence interval -0.87 to 0.00; p = 0.049). Cosmetic outcome scored better in the SILC group, with its standardized MD being equal to 1.16 (95 % confidence interval 0.57 to 1.75; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients, SILC has similar overall morbidity compared with MILC; further, it results in better cosmetic satisfaction and reduced postoperative pain despite longer operative time.
BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is gaining popularity. It is not evident whether the benefits of this procedure overcome the potential increased risk. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare SILC with conventional multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MILC). METHODS: Data from randomized, controlled trials published up to December 2011 and comparing SILC versus MILC were extracted. The primary end point was overall morbidity. A fixed-effect model was applied to summarize the study outcomes in the meta-analysis, and a random-effect model was used in the sensitivity analysis. The outcome measures were relative risk (RR) and mean difference (MD); a RR of <1.0 or a negative MD indicated a more favorable outcome after SILC. Publication bias was assessed by a funnel plot, and heterogeneity was tested by the I (2) measure and subgroup analyses. RESULTS: A total of 12 trials (996 patients) were included. Mortality was nil in both treatment groups; the overall RR for morbidity was 1.36 (p = 0.098). The mean operating time was 47.2 min for MILC and 58.1 min for SILC (MD 9.47 min; p < 0.001). The visual analog scale pain score at 24 h after surgery was 2.96 in MILC and 2.34 in SILC (MD -0.64; p = 0.058), but sensitivity analysis of the four studies deemed at low risk of bias for pain assessment, according to blinding and postoperative analgesic protocols, showed significance at -0.43 points (95 % confidence interval -0.87 to 0.00; p = 0.049). Cosmetic outcome scored better in the SILC group, with its standardized MD being equal to 1.16 (95 % confidence interval 0.57 to 1.75; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients, SILC has similar overall morbidity compared with MILC; further, it results in better cosmetic satisfaction and reduced postoperative pain despite longer operative time.
Authors: Jun Ma; Maria A Cassera; Georg O Spaun; Chet W Hammill; Paul D Hansen; Shaghayegh Aliabadi-Wahle Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Eduardo M Targarona; Carmen Balague; Carmen Martinez; Lluis Pallares; Laia Estalella; Manuel Trias Journal: Surg Innov Date: 2009-12-22 Impact factor: 2.058
Authors: Eric C H Lai; George P C Yang; Chung Ngai Tang; Patricia C L Yih; Oliver C Y Chan; Michael K W Li Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: M Asakuma; M Hayashi; K Komeda; T Shimizu; F Hirokawa; Y Miyamoto; J Okuda; N Tanigawa Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2011-04-27 Impact factor: 6.939