BACKGROUND: Single incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) has been proposed as an alternative to conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of SILA when compared with CLA through a systematic review. METHODS: We performed an electronic search of EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared SILA with CLA were included. RESULTS: Six RCTs met eligibility criteria, which included a total of 800 patients, 401 in the SILA group and 399 in the CLA group. There were no significant differences in terms of overall complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-1.47; p = 0.77). SILA had a higher technical failure rate (OR 3.30; 95% CI 1.26-8.65; p = 0.01) and required a longer operative time (mean difference [MD] 4.67; 95% CI 1.76-7.57; p = 0.002). SILA was associated with better cosmetic results (standardized MD -0.4; 95% CI -0.64 to -0.16; p = 0.001) and earlier return to normal activity (MD -0.64; 95% CI -1.09 to -0.20; p = 0.005), although these advantages should be taken with caution due to the small number of studies reporting these two items and the short follow-up in the evaluation of cosmetic results. There were no significant differences in terms of postoperative pain or length of hospital stay between groups. CONCLUSIONS: SILA is comparable to CLA in selected patients, although it is associated with a higher technical failure rate and longer operative time. Further randomized trials are needed to determine if SILA really offers benefits over CLA.
BACKGROUND: Single incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) has been proposed as an alternative to conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of SILA when compared with CLA through a systematic review. METHODS: We performed an electronic search of EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared SILA with CLA were included. RESULTS: Six RCTs met eligibility criteria, which included a total of 800 patients, 401 in the SILA group and 399 in the CLA group. There were no significant differences in terms of overall complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-1.47; p = 0.77). SILA had a higher technical failure rate (OR 3.30; 95% CI 1.26-8.65; p = 0.01) and required a longer operative time (mean difference [MD] 4.67; 95% CI 1.76-7.57; p = 0.002). SILA was associated with better cosmetic results (standardized MD -0.4; 95% CI -0.64 to -0.16; p = 0.001) and earlier return to normal activity (MD -0.64; 95% CI -1.09 to -0.20; p = 0.005), although these advantages should be taken with caution due to the small number of studies reporting these two items and the short follow-up in the evaluation of cosmetic results. There were no significant differences in terms of postoperative pain or length of hospital stay between groups. CONCLUSIONS:SILA is comparable to CLA in selected patients, although it is associated with a higher technical failure rate and longer operative time. Further randomized trials are needed to determine if SILA really offers benefits over CLA.
Authors: Oscar Vidal; Mauro Valentini; Cesar Ginestà; Josep Martí; Juan J Espert; Guerson Benarroch; Juan C García-Valdecasas Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-08-19 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Hyung Ook Kim; Chang Hak Yoo; Sung Ryol Lee; Byung Ho Son; Yong Lai Park; Jun Ho Shin; Hungdai Kim; Won Kon Han Journal: J Korean Surg Soc Date: 2012-02-27
Authors: Momin Malik; Kirsty McCormack; Zygmunt H Krukowski; Alison McDonald; Gladys McPherson; Jonathan A Cook; Irfan Ahmed Journal: Trials Date: 2012-10-30 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: P Leão; A Goulart; C Veiga; H Cristino; N Marcos; J Correia-Pinto; M Rodrigues; C Moreno-Sanz Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2015-07-21 Impact factor: 3.781
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