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

被引:39
|
作者
Arezzo, A. [1 ]
Passera, R. [1 ]
Forcignano, E. [1 ]
Rapetti, L. [1 ]
Cirocchi, R. [2 ]
Morino, M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Torino, Dept Surg Sci, Corso Dogliotti 14, I-10126 Turin, Italy
[2] Univ Perugia, Dept Surg Sci, Terni, Italy
来源
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES | 2018年 / 32卷 / 09期
基金
英国惠康基金; 美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Single-incision; Cholecystectomy; Meta-analysis; Randomized controlled trials; Adverse events; CLINICAL-TRIAL; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN; PORT CHOLECYSTECTOMY; BODY-IMAGE; MULTIPORT; MULTICENTER; 4-PORT; 3-PORT; COSMESIS; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1007/s00464-018-6143-y
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
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. 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. 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. 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.
引用
收藏
页码:3739 / 3753
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Comparison of clinical efficacy of single-incision and traditional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies
    Li, Fang-han
    Zeng, De-xin
    Chen, Li
    Xu, Cheng-fei
    Tan, Ling
    Zhang, Pan
    Xiao, Jiang-wei
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2022, 12
  • [42] Adverse Events of Sacubitril/Valsartan: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
    Huang, Yun
    Zhang, YuYu
    Ma, Lili
    Zhou, Hua
    Fang, Chongbo
    Chen, Chaolin
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR PHARMACOLOGY, 2021, 78 (02) : 202 - 210
  • [43] Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Laura Evers
    Nicole Bouvy
    Dion Branje
    Andrea Peeters
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2017, 31 : 3437 - 3448
  • [44] A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Versus Conventional Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
    Pereira, Chirag
    Gururaj, Shankar
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2022, 14 (12)
  • [45] Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Evers, Laura
    Bouvy, Nicole
    Branje, Dion
    Peeters, Andrea
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2017, 31 (09): : 3437 - 3448
  • [46] Intermediate results of a prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy
    Melissa S. Phillips
    Jeffrey M. Marks
    Kurt Roberts
    Roberto Tacchino
    Raymond Onders
    George DeNoto
    Homero Rivas
    Arsalla Islam
    Nathaniel Soper
    Gary Gecelter
    Eugene Rubach
    Paraskevas Paraskeva
    Sajani Shah
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2012, 26 : 1296 - 1303
  • [47] Single-incision laparoscopic surgery through the umbilicus is associated with a higher incidence of trocar-site hernia than conventional laparoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Antoniou, S. A.
    Morales-Conde, S.
    Antoniou, G. A.
    Granderath, F. A.
    Berrevoet, F.
    Muysoms, F. E.
    HERNIA, 2016, 20 (01) : 1 - 10
  • [48] Intermediate results of a prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy
    Phillips, Melissa S.
    Marks, Jeffrey M.
    Roberts, Kurt
    Tacchino, Roberto
    Onders, Raymond
    DeNoto, George
    Rivas, Homero
    Islam, Arsalla
    Soper, Nathaniel
    Gecelter, Gary
    Rubach, Eugene
    Paraskeva, Paraskevas
    Shah, Sajani
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2012, 26 (05): : 1296 - 1303
  • [49] Robot-assisted single-site compared with laparoscopic single-incision cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease: protocol for a randomized controlled trial
    Grochola, Lukasz Filip
    Soll, Christopher
    Zehnder, Adrian
    Wyss, Roland
    Herzog, Pascal
    Breitenstein, Stefan
    BMC SURGERY, 2017, 17
  • [50] Comparative outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic, mini-laparoscopic, four-port laparoscopic, three-port laparoscopic, and single-incision robotic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
    Lin, Haomin
    Zhang, Jinchang
    Li, Xujia
    Li, Yuanquan
    Su, Song
    UPDATES IN SURGERY, 2023, 75 (01) : 41 - 51