Literature DB >> 29523982

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is responsible for increased adverse events: results of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

A Arezzo1, R Passera2, E Forcignanò2, L Rapetti2, R Cirocchi3, M Morino2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Over the last decade, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) has gained popularity, although it is not evident if benefits of this procedure overcome the potential increased risk. Aim of the study is to compare the outcome of SLC with conventional multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) in a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials only.
METHODS: A systematic Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials literature search of articles on SLC and MLC for any indication was performed in June 2017. The main outcomes measured were overall adverse events, pain score (VAS), cosmetic results, quality of life, and incisional hernias. Linear regression was used to model the effect of each procedure on the different outcomes.
RESULTS: Forty-six trials were included and data from 5141 participants were analysed; 2444 underwent SLC and 2697 MLC, respectively. Mortality reported was nil in both treatment groups. Overall adverse events were higher in the SLC group (RR 1.41; p < 0.001) compared to MLC group, as well severe adverse events (RR 2.06; p < 0.001) and even mild adverse events (RR 1.23; p = 0.041). This was confirmed also when only trials including 4-port techniques (RR 1.37, p = 0.004) or 3-port techniques were considered (RR 1.89, p = 0.020). The pain score showed a standardized mean difference (SMD) of - 0.36 (p < 0.001) in favour of SLC. Cosmetic outcome by time point scored a SMD of 1.49 (p < 0.001) in favour of SLC. Incisional hernias occurred more frequently (RR 2.97, p = 0.005) in the SLC group.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite SLC offers a better cosmetic outcome and reduction of pain, the consistent higher rate of adverse events, both severe and mild, together with the higher rate of incisional hernias, should suggest to reconsider the application of single incision techniques when performing cholecystectomy with the existing technology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adverse events; Cholecystectomy; Meta-analysis; Randomized controlled trials; Single-incision

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29523982     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6143-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  57 in total

1.  Randomized clinical trial of single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: short-term operative outcomes.

Authors:  Zhan Guo Cao; Wang Cai; Ming Fang Qin; Hong Zhi Zhao; Ping Yue; Yang Li
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 1.719

Review 2.  Critical appraisal of single port access cholecystectomy.

Authors:  P Allemann; M Schafer; N Demartines
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 6.939

3.  Randomized controlled trial comparing single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Jun Ma; Maria A Cassera; Georg O Spaun; Chet W Hammill; Paul D Hansen; Shaghayegh Aliabadi-Wahle
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs. conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Pankaj Garg; Jai Deep Thakur; Mahak Garg; Geetha R Menon
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2012-05-12       Impact factor: 3.452

5.  Prospective randomized comparative study of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Eric C H Lai; George P C Yang; Chung Ngai Tang; Patricia C L Yih; Oliver C Y Chan; Michael K W Li
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 2.565

6.  Randomized clinical study for assessment of incision characteristics and pain associated with LESS versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Fernando Athayde Veloso Madureira; José Eduardo Ferreira Manso; Delta Madureira Fo; Antonio Carlos Garrido Iglesias
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-10-06       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Laparo-endoscopic single site cholecystectomy versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a pilot randomized trial.

Authors:  Marco Maria Lirici; Andrea Domenico Califano; Pierluigi Angelini; Francesco Corcione
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2011-05-19       Impact factor: 2.565

Review 8.  Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) vs. conventional multiport cholecystectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  S R Markar; A Karthikesalingam; S Thrumurthy; L Muirhead; J Kinross; P Paraskeva
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-12-16       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Randomized clinical trial of single- versus multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  L N Jørgensen; J Rosenberg; H Al-Tayar; S Assaadzadeh; F Helgstrand; T Bisgaard
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 6.939

10.  Cosmesis and Body Image in Patients Undergoing Single-port Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Multicenter Double-blinded Randomized Controlled Trial (SPOCC-trial).

Authors:  Georg Lurje; Dimitri Aristotle Raptis; Daniel Christian Steinemann; Iakovos Amygdalos; Patryk Kambakamba; Henrik Petrowsky; Mickaël Lesurtel; Adrian Zehnder; Roland Wyss; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Stefan Breitenstein
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 12.969

View more
  9 in total

1.  Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Caiwen Han; Xinyi Shan; Liang Yao; Peijing Yan; Meixuan Li; Lidong Hu; Hongwei Tian; Wutang Jing; Binbin Du; Lixia Wang; Kehu Yang; Tiankang Guo
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-06-28       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Safety of single-incision robotic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease: a systematic review.

Authors:  Marco Migliore; Alberto Arezzo; Simone Arolfo; Roberto Passera; Mario Morino
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  [Clinical value of alternative technologies to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy - single port, reduced port, robotics, NOTES].

Authors:  M Berlet; A Jell; D Bulian; H Friess; D Wilhelm
Journal:  Chirurgie (Heidelb)       Date:  2022-02-28

4.  True single-port cholecystectomy with ICG cholangiography through a single 15-mm trocar using the new surgical platform "symphonX": first human case study with a commercially available device.

Authors:  Rabi R Datta; Georg Dieplinger; Roger Wahba; Robert Kleinert; Michael Thomas; Florian Gebauer; Lars Schiffmann; Dirk L Stippel; Christiane J Bruns; Hans F Fuchs
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-10-28       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Randomized controlled trial of single incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy with long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Denis Klein; Atakan Görkem Barutcu; Dino Kröll; Maik Kilian; Johann Pratschke; Roland Raakow; Jonas Raakow
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2020-06-29       Impact factor: 3.445

6.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy with two incisions: an improved, feasible and safe technique with superior cosmetic outcomes.

Authors:  Yongfu Xu; Aidong Wang; Qiqiang Dai; Zheping Fang; Zhenyu Li
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 1.671

7.  Comparison of outcomes of single incision robotic cholecystectomy and single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Sun Min Lee; Jin Hong Lim
Journal:  Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg       Date:  2021-02-28

8.  Robotic surgery enables safe and comfortable single-incision cholecystectomy: A comparison of robotic and laparoscopic approaches for single-incision surgery.

Authors:  Jaeim Lee; Kee-Hwan Kim; Tae Yoon Lee; Joseph Ahn; Say-June Kim
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2022 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 1.407

9.  Three-port versus four-port technique for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lawrence Nip; Kin-Seng Tong; Cynthia M Borg
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2022-03-08
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.