BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery has been proposed as a minimally invasive technique with the advantages of fewer scars and reduced pain. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized clinical trials of single-access laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SALC) versus classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). METHODS: All randomized controlled trials were identified through electronic searches (MEDLINE, PubMed, SAGES, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) up to October 2011. Methodologically appropriate clinical trials identified in the search process were included in a meta-analysis to provide a pooled estimate of effect. RESULTS: Nine true randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis and reported a total of 695 patients, divided into the SALC group of 362 patients and the CLC group of 333 patients. Median operating time was longer with 57 minutes in SALC versus 45 minutes in CLC (P=0.00001). There was no significant difference in length of stay (SALC 1.36 d vs. CLC 1.15 d, P=0.18). Conversion to laparotomy in either group was similar; however, in 18 of 66 SALC patients an additional instrument was used, compared with 1 of 67 CLC patients (P=0.0003). Complications were not significant different [16% in SALC vs. 12% in the CLC group (P=0.74)]. Median postoperative pain with the visual analog scale score was 3.8 points in SALC versus 3.15 points in the CLC group (P=0.48). Cosmetic satisfaction was significantly more satisfying with 9 points favoring SALC versus 0 points favoring CLC (P=0.0005) in contrast to the quality-of-life questionnaire where there was no significant difference in patient overall satisfaction between SALC and CLC groups (P=0.0515). CONCLUSIONS: SALC required longer operative times than CLC without significant benefits in patient overall satisfaction, postoperative pain, and hospital stay. Only satisfaction with the cosmetic result showed a significantly higher preference towards SALC.
BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery has been proposed as a minimally invasive technique with the advantages of fewer scars and reduced pain. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized clinical trials of single-access laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SALC) versus classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). METHODS: All randomized controlled trials were identified through electronic searches (MEDLINE, PubMed, SAGES, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) up to October 2011. Methodologically appropriate clinical trials identified in the search process were included in a meta-analysis to provide a pooled estimate of effect. RESULTS: Nine true randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis and reported a total of 695 patients, divided into the SALC group of 362 patients and the CLC group of 333 patients. Median operating time was longer with 57 minutes in SALC versus 45 minutes in CLC (P=0.00001). There was no significant difference in length of stay (SALC 1.36 d vs. CLC 1.15 d, P=0.18). Conversion to laparotomy in either group was similar; however, in 18 of 66 SALCpatients an additional instrument was used, compared with 1 of 67 CLC patients (P=0.0003). Complications were not significant different [16% in SALC vs. 12% in the CLC group (P=0.74)]. Median postoperative pain with the visual analog scale score was 3.8 points in SALC versus 3.15 points in the CLC group (P=0.48). Cosmetic satisfaction was significantly more satisfying with 9 points favoring SALC versus 0 points favoring CLC (P=0.0005) in contrast to the quality-of-life questionnaire where there was no significant difference in patient overall satisfaction between SALC and CLC groups (P=0.0515). CONCLUSIONS:SALC required longer operative times than CLC without significant benefits in patient overall satisfaction, postoperative pain, and hospital stay. Only satisfaction with the cosmetic result showed a significantly higher preference towards SALC.
Authors: Mette W Christoffersen; Erik Brandt; Jacob Oehlenschläger; Jacob Rosenberg; Frederik Helgstrand; Lars N Jørgensen; Linda Bardram; Thue Bisgaard Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-01-23 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: K Cremer; F W H Kloppenberg; J W Vanhommerig; L M Dijksman; N Bode; S C Donkervoort Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-01-09 Impact factor: 3.453
Authors: Jose E Escobar-Dominguez; Pedro Garcia-Quintero; Christian Hernandez-Murcia; Juan-Carlos Verdeja Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-03-01 Impact factor: 4.584