Dataset Information

Single incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Previous meta-analyses that compared the outcome of SILC and CLC have not presented consistent conclusions. This meta-analysis was performed after adding many recent RCTs, to clarify this issue.

Methods

Relevant articles published in English were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register from January 1997 to February 2013. Reference lists of the retrieved articles were reviewed to identify additional articles. Primary outcomes (postoperative pain scores, cosmetic score, and length of incision) and secondary outcomes (operating time, blood loss, conversion rates, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, time to initial oral intake, and time to resume work) were pooled. Quantitative variables were calculated using the weighted mean difference (WMD), and qualitative variables were pooled using odds ratios (OR).

Results

25 appropriate RCTs were identified from 2128 published articles. 1841 patients were treated, 944 with SILC and 897 with CLC. SILC was superior to CLC in cosmetic score (WMD = 1.155, P<0.001), shorter length of incision (WMD = -3.285, P = 0.029), and postoperative pain within 12 h (VAS in 3-4 h, WMD = -0.704, P = 0.026; VAS in 6-8 h, WMD = -0.613, P = 0.010). CLC was superior to SILC in operating time (OT) (WMD = 13.613, P<0.001) and need of additional instruments (OR = 7.448, P<0.001). Other secondary outcomes were similar.

Conclusions

SILC offered a better cosmetic result and less postoperative pain for patients with uncomplicated cholelithiasis or polypoid lesions of the gallbladder. However, SILC was associated with a longer OT and required additional instruments.

SUBMITTER: Geng L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3788730 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Single incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Geng Liangyuan L Sun Changhua C Bai Jianfeng J

PloS one 20131002 10

<h4>Background</h4>Previous meta-analyses that compared the outcome of SILC and CLC have not presented consistent conclusions. This meta-analysis was performed after adding many recent RCTs, to clarify this issue.<h4>Methods</h4>Relevant articles published in English were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register from January 1997 to February 2013. Reference lists of the retrieved articles were reviewed to identify additional articles. P ...[more]

PMID: 24098522

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough laparoscopic surgery has been available for a long time and laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been performed universally, it is still not clear whether open appendectomy (OA) or laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is the most appropriate surgical approach to acute appendicitis. The purpose of this work is to compare the therapeutic effects and safety of laparoscopic and conventional "open" appendectomy by means of a meta-analysis.MethodsA meta-analysis was performed of all randomized controlled trials published in English that compared LA and OA in adults and children between 1990 and 2009. Calculations were made of the effect sizes of: operating time, postoperative length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, return to normal activity, resumption of diet, complications rates, and conversion to open surgery. The effect sizes were then pooled by a fixed or random-effects model.ResultsForty-four randomized controlled trials with 5292 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Operating time was 12.35 min longer for LA (95% CI: 7.99 to 16.72, p < 0.00001). Hospital stay after LA was 0.60 days shorter (95% CI: -0.85 to -0.36, p < 0.00001). Patients returned to their normal activity 4.52 days earlier after LA (95% CI: -5.95 to -3.10, p < 0.00001), and resumed their diet 0.34 days earlier(95% CI: -0.46 to -0.21, p < 0.00001). Pain after LA on the first postoperative day was significantly less (p = 0.008). The overall conversion rate from LA to OA was 9.51%. With regard to the rate of complications, wound infection after LA was definitely reduced (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.59, p < 0.00001), while postoperative ileus was not significantly reduced(OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.47, p = 0.71). However, intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), intraoperative bleeding and urinary tract infection (UIT) after LA, occurred slightly more frequently(OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.43, p = 0.05; OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.54 to 4.48, p = 0.41; OR = 1.76, 95% CI: 0.58 to 5.29, p = 0.32).ConclusionLA provides considerable benefits over OA, including a shorter length of hospital stay, less postoperative pain, earlier postoperative recovery, and a lower complication rate. Furthermore, over the study period it was obvious that there had been a trend toward fewer differences in operating time for the two procedures. Although LA was associated with a slight increase in the incidence of IAA, intraoperative bleeding and UIT, it is a safe procedure. It may be that the widespread use of LA is due to its better therapeutic effect.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (SILS) has long used in surgery for a long time. However, there is barely a systemic review related to the comparison between the SILS and the conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (CLS) for the right colon cancer in the long term follow-up. Herein, we used the most recent articles to compare these two techniques by meta-analysis. METHODS:We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Wanfang databases to compare SILS with CLS for right colon cancer up to May 2019. The operative, postoperative, pathological and mid-term follow-up outcomes of nine studies were extracted and compared. RESULTS:A total of 1356 patients participated in 9 studies, while 653 patients were assigned to the SILS group and 703 patients were assigned to the CLS group. The patients' baselines in the SILS group were consistent with those in the CLS group. Compared to the CLS group, the SILS group had a shorter operation duration (SMD - 23.49, 95%CI - 36.71 to - 10.27, P < 0.001, chi-square = 24.11), shorter hospital stay (SMD - 0.76, 95% `CI - 1.07 to - 0.45, P < 0.001, chi-square = 9.85), less blood loss (SMD - 8.46, 95% CI - 14.59 to - 2.34; P < 0.05; chi-square = 2.26), smaller incision length (SMD - 1.60, 95% CI - 2.66 to - 0.55, P < 0.001; chi-square = 280.44), more lymph node harvested (SMD - 0.98, 95% CI - 1.79 to - 0.16, P < 0.05; chi-square = 4.61), and a longer proximal surgical edge (SMD - 0.51, 95% CI - 0.93 to - 0.09, P < 0.05; chi-square = 2.42). No significant difference was found in other indexes. After we removed a single large study, we performed another meta-analysis again. The operation duration in the SILS group was still better than that in the CLS group. CONCLUSION:SILS could be a faster and more reliable approach than CLS for the right colon cancer and could accelerate patient recovery, especially for patients with a low BMI.

Dataset Information

Single incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Single incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure