Premium
Laparoendoscopic single‐site cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials
Author(s) -
Wang Dong,
Wang Yan,
Ji ZhenLing
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
anz journal of surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.426
H-Index - 70
eISSN - 1445-2197
pISSN - 1445-1433
DOI - 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2012.06044.x
Subject(s) - medicine , seroma , randomized controlled trial , cholecystectomy , incisional hernia , surgery , meta analysis , general surgery , laparoscopic cholecystectomy , gallstones , hernia , complication
Background: Laparoendoscopic single‐site surgery is a revolution in minimally invasive surgery in recent years, and cholecystectomy is the most common intervention. However, laparoendoscopic single‐site cholecystectomy (LESSC) is a controversial procedure. Its safety, cosmetic results, complications, post‐operative pain and post‐operative stay are not confirmed by multi‐centre randomized controlled studies. Objectives: This review examined the impact of LESSC versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). The primary outcomes were conversional rate and intraoperative and post‐operative complications, and other outcomes were cosmetic results, operative time, post‐operative pain and post‐operative stay. Data sources: Pubmed, EMbase, Web of Science, Ovid, clinical trials of the US National Institutes of Health and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Controlled Trials Register were searched to identify all possible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: Two reviewers completed article search, and eligible data were entered into a computerized spreadsheet for analysis. Results: Nine studies were obtained using the search strategy. Patients accepting LESSC had a higher conversion rate than those having CLC (7.17 (3.00, 17.11) ( P < 0.01)). There was no significant difference for total complications between the two groups (1.17 (0.76, 1.80) ( P = 0.46)), but incidence of incisional hernia and haemorrhage (seroma) in the LESSC group was obviously higher than that in the CLC group. Operative time was much longer in the LESSC group (mean difference: 10.69 (3.14, 18.24) ( P = 0.006)). Cosmetic results favoured LESSC; however, post‐operative abdominal pain and post‐operative stay were not significantly different between the two groups in most of the nine studies. Conclusions: LESSC can be safely performed with better cosmetic results; however, it carries a higher conversion rate and a longer operative time, and offers no benefit in terms of post‐operative abdominal pain and post‐operative stay. Further RCTs, according to the CONSORT statement, are advocated to validate its objective benefits.