Lihui Deng1, Junjie Xiong2, Qing Xia1. 1. Department of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. 2. Department of Pancreatic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conventional three-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (CTLA) is considered the new golden standard for the treatment of acute appendicitis. However, single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) can further reduce the number of abdominal incisions and visible scars. METHODS: Major databases were researched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing SILA and CTLA for acute appendicitis from January 1983 and to March 2015. The technical feasibility, effectiveness, and safety between SILA and CTLA were compared. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models. RESULTS: In total, 11 RCTs with 1489 patients were analyzed. The patients in the SILA group had a significantly shorter hospital duration (WMD: -0.63; 95% CI: -1.04, -0.21; P = 0.003) and return to activity (WMD: -2.91; 95% CI: -5.45, -0.37; P = 0.02) but experienced a longer operating time (WMD: 6.56; 95% CI: 3.55, 9.58; P < 0.0001) and higher rate of conversion (OR: 6.82; 95% CI: 3.14, 14.79; P < 0.00001). There were no differences between the two groups in visual analog pain scores, doses of analgesics, overall complication rates, wound infection, or cosmesis (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: SILA is a safer and more effective than CTLA in both pediatric and adult patients.
BACKGROUND: Conventional three-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (CTLA) is considered the new golden standard for the treatment of acute appendicitis. However, single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) can further reduce the number of abdominal incisions and visible scars. METHODS: Major databases were researched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing SILA and CTLA for acute appendicitis from January 1983 and to March 2015. The technical feasibility, effectiveness, and safety between SILA and CTLA were compared. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models. RESULTS: In total, 11 RCTs with 1489 patients were analyzed. The patients in the SILA group had a significantly shorter hospital duration (WMD: -0.63; 95% CI: -1.04, -0.21; P = 0.003) and return to activity (WMD: -2.91; 95% CI: -5.45, -0.37; P = 0.02) but experienced a longer operating time (WMD: 6.56; 95% CI: 3.55, 9.58; P < 0.0001) and higher rate of conversion (OR: 6.82; 95% CI: 3.14, 14.79; P < 0.00001). There were no differences between the two groups in visual analog pain scores, doses of analgesics, overall complication rates, wound infection, or cosmesis (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: SILA is a safer and more effective than CTLA in both pediatric and adult patients.
Authors: Andreas Meinzer; Ibrahim Alkatout; Thomas Franz Krebs; Jonas Baastrup; Katja Reischig; Roberts Meiksans; Robert Bergholz Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-12-10 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Won Jong Kim; Ji Yeon Mun; Hee Ju Kim; Sung-Hoon Yoon; Seung-Rim Han; Jung Hoon Bae; In Kyu Lee; Yoon Suk Lee; Do Sang Lee; Chul Seung Lee Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Thomas Zheng Jie Teng; Xuan Rong Thong; Kai Yuan Lau; Sunder Balasubramaniam; Vishal G Shelat Journal: World J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2021-11-27