Literature DB >> 33587285

Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of three-port vs four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (level 1 evidence).

Shahab Hajibandeh1,2, David A Finch3, Ali Yasen Y Mohamedahmed4, Amir Iskandar5, Gowtham Venkatesan6, Shahin Hajibandeh7, Thomas Satyadas8.   

Abstract

To compare the outcomes of three-port and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In compliance with PRISMA statement standards, electronic databases were searched to identify all comparative studies investigating outcomes of three-port vs four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Two techniques were compared using direct comparison meta-analysis model. The risks of type 1 or type 2 error in the meta-analysis model were assessed using trial sequential analysis model. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE system. Random effects modelling was applied to calculate pooled outcome data. Analysis of 2524 patients from 17 studies showed that both techniques were comparable in terms of operative time (MD:- 0.13, P = 0.88), conversion to open operation (OR:0.80, P = 0.43), gallbladder perforation (OR: 1.43, P = 0.13), bleeding from gallbladder bed (OR:0.81, P = 0.34), bile duct injury (RD: 0.00, P = 0.97), iatrogenic visceral injury (RD: - 0.00, P = 0.81), bile or stone spillage (OR:1.67, P = 0.08), port site infection (OR: 0.90, P = 0.76), port site hernia (RD: 0.00, P = 0.89), port site haematoma (RD: - 0.01, P = 0.23), port site seroma (RD: 0.00, P = 1.00), and need for reoperation (RD: - 0.00, P = 0.94). However, the three-port technique was associated with lower VAS pain score at 12 h (MD: - 0.66, P < 0.00001) and 24 h (MD: - 0.54, P < 0.00001) postoperatively, shorter length of hospital stay (MD:-0.09, P = 0.41), and shorter time to return to normal activities (MD: - 0.79, P = 0.02). Trial sequential analysis confirmed that the meta-analysis was conclusive with no significant risks of type 1 or type 2 error. Robust evidence (level 1 with high certainty) suggests that in an elective setting with uncomplicated cholelithiasis as indication for cholecystectomy, three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy is comparable with the four-port technique in terms of procedural and morbidity outcomes and may be associated with less postoperative pain, shorter length of hospital stay and shorter time to return to normal activities.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cholecystectomy; Gallstone; Laparoscopic cholecystectomy; Minimally invasive surgical; Procedures

Year:  2021        PMID: 33587285     DOI: 10.1007/s13304-021-00982-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Updates Surg        ISSN: 2038-131X


  3 in total

1.  Safety and effectiveness of three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Burhan Mayir; Ugur Dogan; Umit Koc; Arif Aslaner; Tuna Bılecık; Cemal Ozben Ensarı; Tugrul Cakir; Mehmet Tahir Oruc
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2014-08-15

2.  Profiles in laparoscopy: Mouret, Dubois, and Perissat: the laparoscopic breakthrough in Europe (1987-1988).

Authors:  G S Litynski
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  1999 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.172

3.  Three-port versus standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled clinical trial in a community-based teaching hospital in eastern Nepal.

Authors:  Manoj Kumar; Chandra Shekhar Agrawal; Rakesh Kumar Gupta
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2007 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.172

  3 in total
  2 in total

Review 1.  [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

2.  Evidence-based surgery for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Andrea T Fisher; Kovi E Bessoff; Rida I Khan; Gavin C Touponse; Maggie M K Yu; Advait A Patil; Jeff Choi; Christopher D Stave; Joseph D Forrester
Journal:  Surg Open Sci       Date:  2022-08-18
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.