PURPOSE: The published data on the evaluation of feasibility and safety of single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery (SILC) compared with traditional multiport laparoscopic colorectal surgery (MLC) remained controversial. The present cumulative meta-analysis and systematic review were performed to provide a more objective and precise estimate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and also, manual searches were employed to identify potentially eligible studies which were published before June 7, 2012. The association was assessed by odds ratio (OR) and means with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: A total of 20 comparative studies were included, with 670 patients underwent SILC and 838 patients underwent MLC. For overall pooled estimates, no evidence of between trial differences was found in overall conversion rate (OR, 1.7; 95 % CI, 0.97 to 3.01), overall complication rate (OR, 0.82; 95 % CI, 0.63 to 1.08), and operative time (mean, -3.59; 95 % CI, -10.95 to 3.77); significantly between trial differences were found in estimated blood loss (mean, -18.61; 95 % CI, -31.33 to -5.90) and post-operative hospital stay (mean, -0.54; 95 % CI, -0.95 to -0.12). The cumulative meta-analysis identified a potentially increased conversion rate of SILC compared with MLC with the increased percentage of malignancies, but no significant differences could be identified in overall complication rate. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggested the feasibility and safety of SILC performed by experienced hands, though potentially higher overall conversion rate occurred in malignancies. SILC will benefit the patients much more with its superiority over MLC.
PURPOSE: The published data on the evaluation of feasibility and safety of single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery (SILC) compared with traditional multiport laparoscopic colorectal surgery (MLC) remained controversial. The present cumulative meta-analysis and systematic review were performed to provide a more objective and precise estimate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and also, manual searches were employed to identify potentially eligible studies which were published before June 7, 2012. The association was assessed by odds ratio (OR) and means with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: A total of 20 comparative studies were included, with 670 patients underwent SILC and 838 patients underwent MLC. For overall pooled estimates, no evidence of between trial differences was found in overall conversion rate (OR, 1.7; 95 % CI, 0.97 to 3.01), overall complication rate (OR, 0.82; 95 % CI, 0.63 to 1.08), and operative time (mean, -3.59; 95 % CI, -10.95 to 3.77); significantly between trial differences were found in estimated blood loss (mean, -18.61; 95 % CI, -31.33 to -5.90) and post-operative hospital stay (mean, -0.54; 95 % CI, -0.95 to -0.12). The cumulative meta-analysis identified a potentially increased conversion rate of SILC compared with MLC with the increased percentage of malignancies, but no significant differences could be identified in overall complication rate. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggested the feasibility and safety of SILC performed by experienced hands, though potentially higher overall conversion rate occurred in malignancies. SILC will benefit the patients much more with its superiority over MLC.
Authors: Guillaume Martel; Alyson Crawford; Jeffrey S Barkun; Robin P Boushey; Craig R Ramsay; Dean A Fergusson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-04-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Peter Tschann; Daniel Lechner; Paolo N C Girotti; Stephanie Adler; Stephanie Rauch; Jaroslav Presl; Tarkan Jäger; Philipp Schredl; Christof Mittermair; Philipp Szeverinski; Patrick Clemens; Helmut G Weiss; Klaus Emmanuel; Ingmar Königsrainer Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2022-01-23 Impact factor: 3.445