AIM: To assess the differences in clinical benefits and disadvantages of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA). METHODS: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database were electronically searched up through January 2013 to identify randomized controlled trails (RCTs) comparing SILA with CLA. Data was extracted from eligible studies to evaluate the pooled outcome effects for the total of 1068 patients. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.2.0. For dichotomous data and continuous data, the risk ratio (RR) and the mean difference (MD) were calculated, respectively, with 95%CI for both. For continuous outcomes with different measurement scales in different RCTs, the standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated with 95%CI. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed when necessary. RESULTS: Six RCTs were identified that compared SILA (n = 535) with CLA (n = 533). Five RCTs had a high risk of bias and one RCT had a low risk of bias. SILA was associated with longer operative time (MD = 5.68, 95%CI: 3.91-7.46, P < 0.00001), higher conversion rate (RR = 5.14, 95%CI: 1.25-21.10, P = 0.03) and better cosmetic satisfaction score (MD = 0.52, 95%CI: 0.30-0.73, P < 0.00001) compared with CLA. No significant differences were found for total complications (RR = 1.15, 95%CI: 0.76-1.75, P = 0.51), drain insertion (RR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.41-1.25, P = 0.24), or length of hospital stay (SMD = 0.04, 95%CI: -0.08-0.16, P = 0.57). Because there was not enough data among the analyzed RCTs, postoperative pain was not calculated. CONCLUSION: The benefit of SILA is cosmetic satisfaction, while the disadvantages of SILA are longer operative time and higher conversion rate.
AIM: To assess the differences in clinical benefits and disadvantages of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA). METHODS: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database were electronically searched up through January 2013 to identify randomized controlled trails (RCTs) comparing SILA with CLA. Data was extracted from eligible studies to evaluate the pooled outcome effects for the total of 1068 patients. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.2.0. For dichotomous data and continuous data, the risk ratio (RR) and the mean difference (MD) were calculated, respectively, with 95%CI for both. For continuous outcomes with different measurement scales in different RCTs, the standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated with 95%CI. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed when necessary. RESULTS: Six RCTs were identified that compared SILA (n = 535) with CLA (n = 533). Five RCTs had a high risk of bias and one RCT had a low risk of bias. SILA was associated with longer operative time (MD = 5.68, 95%CI: 3.91-7.46, P < 0.00001), higher conversion rate (RR = 5.14, 95%CI: 1.25-21.10, P = 0.03) and better cosmetic satisfaction score (MD = 0.52, 95%CI: 0.30-0.73, P < 0.00001) compared with CLA. No significant differences were found for total complications (RR = 1.15, 95%CI: 0.76-1.75, P = 0.51), drain insertion (RR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.41-1.25, P = 0.24), or length of hospital stay (SMD = 0.04, 95%CI: -0.08-0.16, P = 0.57). Because there was not enough data among the analyzed RCTs, postoperative pain was not calculated. CONCLUSION: The benefit of SILA is cosmetic satisfaction, while the disadvantages of SILA are longer operative time and higher conversion rate.
Entities:
Keywords:
Appendectomy; Laparoscopic; Meta-analysis; Single incision; Systematic review
Authors: Carissa L Garey; Carrie A Laituri; Daniel J Ostlie; Shawn D St Peter Journal: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 1.878
Authors: Richdeep S Gill; Xinzhe Shi; David P Al-Adra; Daniel W Birch; Shahzeer Karmali Journal: Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 1.719
Authors: Giovanni Dapri; Lorenzo Casali; Hélène Dumont; Laurens Van der Goot; Leila Herrandou; Els Pastijn; Maurice Sosnowski; Jacques Himpens; Guy-Bernard Cadière Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-08-31 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Christof Mittermair; Jan Schirnhofer; Eberhard Brunner; Katharina Pimpl; Christian Obrist; Michael Weiss; Helmut G Weiss Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: M A Bozkurt; M G Unsal; S Kapan; M Gonenc; M Dogan; M U Kalayci; H Alis Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2014-05-31 Impact factor: 3.693
Authors: Ramon R Gorter; Hasan H Eker; Marguerite A W Gorter-Stam; Gabor S A Abis; Amish Acharya; Marjolein Ankersmit; Stavros A Antoniou; Simone Arolfo; Benjamin Babic; Luigi Boni; Marlieke Bruntink; Dieuwertje A van Dam; Barbara Defoort; Charlotte L Deijen; F Borja DeLacy; Peter Mnyh Go; Annelieke M K Harmsen; Rick S van den Helder; Florin Iordache; Johannes C F Ket; Filip E Muysoms; M Mahir Ozmen; Michail Papoulas; Michael Rhodes; Jennifer Straatman; Mark Tenhagen; Victor Turrado; Andras Vereczkei; Ramon Vilallonga; Jort D Deelder; Jaap Bonjer Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 4.584