Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis

Quality assurance of multiport image-guided minimally invasive surgery at the lateral skull base

For multiport image-guided minimally invasive surgery at the lateral skull base a quality management is necessary to avoid the damage of closely spaced critical neurovascular structures. So far there is no standardized method applicable independently from the surgery. Therefore, we adapt a quality management method, the quality gates (QG), which is well established in, for example, the automotive industry and apply it to multiport image-guided minimally invasive surgery. QG divide a process into different sections. Passing between sections can only be achieved if previously defined requirements are fulfilled which secures the process chain. An interdisciplinary team of otosurgeons, computer scientists, and engineers has worked together to define the quality gates and the corresponding criteria that need to be fulfilled before passing each quality gate. In order to evaluate the defined QG and their criteria, the new surgery method was applied with a first prototype at a human skull cadaver model. We show that the QG method can ensure a safe multiport minimally invasive surgical process at the lateral skull base. Therewith, we present an approach towards the standardization of quality assurance of surgical processes.

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery confers lower mortality in the elderly: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 66,483 patients

BACKGROUND

Increasing life expectancy requires specific attention on geriatric patients. Data support a potential reduction of surgical morbidity for patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery as compared to conventional surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate the comparative effect of laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery on geriatric patients.

METHODS

A systematic review of electronic information sources was undertaken. Studies that provided outcome data on patients aged 65 years or older, subjected to laparoscopic or open colorectal surgery, were considered. Mortality, morbidity, cardiac and pulmonary complications were the outcome measures of treatment effect. The methodological quality of selected studies was independently appraised by two reviewers. Random effects model was applied to synthesize outcome data.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven articles providing data for 66,592 patients were included in the analysis. Patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery had a decreased risk for mortality (2.2 vs. 5.4 %; OR 0.55, 95 % CI 0.44-0.67), overall morbidity (19.3 vs. 26.7 %; OR 0.54, 95 % CI 0.46-0.63), cardiac (4.7 vs. 7.7 %; OR 0.60, 95 % CI 0.39-0.92) and respiratory complications (3.9 vs. 6.3 %; OR 0.67, 95 % CI 0.47-0.95). Sensitivity analysis including reports with similar age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score and/or similar prevalence of cardiopulmonary morbidity between the laparoscopic and the open treatment arm validated the outcome estimates of the primary analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis supports a substantial benefit for elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic in comparison with open colorectal surgery. The comparative effect of either approach on geriatric patients with pulmonary and cardiac comorbidities is a subject of further investigation.

Minimally invasive multiport surgery of the lateral skull base

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive procedures minimize iatrogenic tissue damage and lead to a lower complication rate and high patient satisfaction. To date only experimental minimally invasive single-port approaches to the lateral skull base have been attempted. The aim of this study was to verify the feasibility of a minimally invasive multiport approach for advanced manipulation capability and visual control and develop a software tool for preoperative planning.

METHODS

Anatomical 3D models were extracted from twenty regular temporal bone CT scans. Collision-free trajectories, targeting the internal auditory canal, round window, and petrous apex, were simulated with a specially designed planning software tool. A set of three collision-free trajectories was selected by skull base surgeons concerning the maximization of the distance to critical structures and the angles between the trajectories.

RESULTS

A set of three collision-free trajectories could be successfully simulated to the three targets in each temporal bone model without violating critical anatomical structures.

CONCLUSION

A minimally invasive multiport approach to the lateral skull base is feasible. The developed software is the first step for preoperative planning. Further studies will focus on cadaveric and clinical translation.

Calot's Triangle: Proposal to Rename it as Calot's Region and the Concept of 'Ducto-Arterial Plane'

The anatomical description of the area requiring dissection during cholecystectomy is incomplete and incorrect. We carefully observed the anatomy of this region for over 20 years in various biliary pathologies and present our view. Describing this area in the form of triangles is incorrect. There exists a definite plane between the two folds of peritoneum in this region, wherein the cystic duct and the cystic artery traverse. The description of the "triangles" that require dissection during cholecystectomy are not strictly geometrical triangles; hence, the area bounded by these so-called triangles should be renamed as "Calot's region." The surgeons should take advantage of the existence of a definite "ducto-arterial plane" in the Calot's region and dissect it sharply to avoid ductal and vascular injuries.

Value and risk of laparoscopic surgery in hemophiliacs-experiences from a tertiary referral center for hemorrhagic diatheses

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic surgery (LS) is gaining popularity worldwide because of benefits like faster recovery, earlier hospital discharge, and better cosmetic results. In hemophiliacs, surgery in general harbors an increased risk for severe complications. Whether LS or conventional surgery (CS) should be recommended in these patients is controversial and therefore the issue of our present study.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective matched-pair analysis including laparoscopically operated non-hemophiliacs (LONH), laparoscopically operated hemophiliacs (LOH), and conventionally operated hemophiliacs (COH) concerning duration of surgery, drainages, hospital stay, complications, factor use (VIII, IX, and X), and blood values. Mann-Whitney U test was used (significance level P = 0.05).

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in duration of surgery and drains in laparoscopically or conventionally operated hemophiliacs versus matched pairs. Complication rate did not differ among the different groups. Concerning the total duration of hospital stay (t-DHOS) and the postoperative duration of hospital stay (p-DHOS), there was no statistical difference between LOH versus matched LONH. However, in COH versus matched LOH, a longer time was required for preparation and recovery (t-DHOS, P = 0.04; p-DHOS, P < 0.001). Also, the median factor supply perioperatively including the day of surgery did not differ between laparoscopically versus conventionally operated hemophiliacs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study underscores the safety and benefits of laparoscopic procedures in hemophiliacs by showing a significantly shorter hospital stay for these patients resulting in reduced therapeutic costs and a faster mobilization. Still, the surgical and perioperative management of hemophiliacs continues to be a challenge requiring an experienced interdisciplinary team.

Single-incision videolaparoscopic appendectomy with conventional videolaparoscopy equipment

Background

Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency in daily practice, and is approached laparoscopically in many centers. Efforts have been undertaken for the development of minimally invasive techniques that reduce tissue trauma and offer improved cosmetic results, one of such being the single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS).

Aim

To present a minimally invasive technique for appendectomy (SILS) undertaken with conventional instruments.

Method

Eleven patients were treated in the emergency care center presenting abdominal pain in the right iliac fossa that was suggestive of appendicitis. Diagnostic investigation was subsequently conducted, including physical examination, laboratory and imaging exams (CT scan with intravenous contrast or total abdominal ultrasound), and the results were consistent with acute appendicitis. Thus, after consent, these patients underwent SILS appendectomy under general anesthesia with three trocars (two 10 mm and one 5 mm), using conventional and optical laparoscopic tweezers (10 mm, 30º). The base and pedicle of the appendix were ligated with titanium LT 400 clips. The procedure occurred uneventfully. Inclusion criteria were absence of diffuse peritonitis, BMI (body mass index) less than 35 and absence of serious comorbidities or sepsis.

Results

Seven men and four women were operated with average age of 25.7 years and underwent appendectomy through this technique. Mean procedure duration was of 37.2 min. Regarding surgical findings, three had appendicitis in stage 1, four in stage 2 and four in stage 3. All patients improved well, without surgical complications, and did not require conversion to open surgery or conventional laparoscopy technique.

Conclusion

Appendectomy conducted through Single Incision Laparoscopic Surgery is a feasible and promising technique that can be performed with conventional laparoscopic instruments.

Laparoscopic incisional hernia repair in an ambulatory surgery-extended recovery centre: a review of 259 consecutive cases

PURPOSE

The high prevalence of incisional hernias and an average stay of 3-10 days for open procedures have made this pathology both a health problem and an economic issue. A protocol was developed for performing this procedure in an Ambulatory Surgery Center (ASC) with extended recovery.

METHODS

From January 2000 to December 2011, data about all laparoscopic incisional hernia repairs were gathered prospectively. The patients' clinical features, hernia type, intraoperative and postoperative complications and reasons for hospital admission are studied.

RESULTS

A total of 259 patients have been operated for incisional hernia (185) or recurrent hernioplasty (74) in our ASC. Laparoscopic repair was successful in 254 patients (98.07 %). Conversion to open surgery was necessary in five patients (1.93 %). A total of 50 patients (19.69 %) in whom surgery was completed laparoscopically were discharged the same day of surgery, 179 (70.47 %) at 24 h and 25 (9.84 %) required a stay of over 24 h. Postoperative pain was severe in 10 % of patients, moderate in 40 %, and mild in 50 %. Complications, mostly minor and self-limiting, were observed in 25 patients (9.84 %) during hospital stay. Five major complications that occured were: bile peritonitis, an acute peritonitis, due to an inadvertent intestinal perforation, and one intestinal obstruction by partial detachment of the mesh, an intra-abdominal hematoma and a colo-cutaneous fistula. There were no deaths in the series. The mean follow-up of patients was 29.35 months (range 12-129 months). The recurrence rate was 7.03 % (n = 18). Four trocar-site hernias were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

It is essential to create a protocol with selection criteria that take into account the patient, his entourage, the anesthetic-surgical procedure, and a team dedicated to surgical laparoscopic surgery in an ASC with extended recovery to achieve good results in terms of morbidity and patient safety.

Laparoscopic surgical box model training for surgical trainees with limited prior laparoscopic experience

BACKGROUND

Surgical training has traditionally been one of apprenticeship, where the surgical trainee learns to perform surgery under the supervision of a trained surgeon. This is time consuming, costly, and of variable effectiveness. Training using a box model physical simulator is an option to supplement standard training. However, the value of this modality on trainees with limited prior laparoscopic experience is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of box model training for surgical trainees with limited prior laparoscopic experience versus standard surgical training or supplementary animal model training.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to May 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include all randomised clinical trials comparing box model trainers versus other forms of training including standard laparoscopic training and supplementary animal model training in surgical trainees with limited prior laparoscopic experience. We also planned to include trials comparing different methods of box model training.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently identified trials and collected data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using Review Manager 5. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight trials that met the inclusion criteria. One trial including 17 surgical trainees did not contribute to the meta-analysis. We included seven trials (249 surgical trainees belonging to various postgraduate years ranging from year one to four) in which the participants were randomised to supplementary box model training (122 trainees) versus standard training (127 trainees). Only one trial (50 trainees) was at low risk of bias. The box trainers used in all the seven trials were video trainers. Six trials were conducted in USA and one trial in Canada. The surgeries in which the final assessments were made included laparoscopic total extraperitoneal hernia repairs, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, laparoscopic tubal ligation, laparoscopic partial salpingectomy, and laparoscopic bilateral mid-segment salpingectomy. The final assessments were made on a single operative procedure.There were no deaths in three trials (0/82 (0%) supplementary box model training versus 0/86 (0%) standard training; RR not estimable; very low quality evidence). The other trials did not report mortality. The estimated effect on serious adverse events was compatible with benefit and harm (three trials; 168 patients; 0/82 (0%) supplementary box model training versus 1/86 (1.1%) standard training; RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.02 to 8.43; very low quality evidence). None of the trials reported patient quality of life. The operating time was significantly shorter in the supplementary box model training group versus the standard training group (1 trial; 50 patients; MD -6.50 minutes; 95% CI -10.85 to -2.15). The proportion of patients who were discharged as day-surgery was significantly higher in the supplementary box model training group versus the standard training group (1 trial; 50 patients; 24/24 (100%) supplementary box model training versus 15/26 (57.7%) standard training; RR 1.71; 95% CI 1.23 to 2.37). None of the trials reported trainee satisfaction. The operating performance was significantly better in the supplementary box model training group versus the standard training group (seven trials; 249 trainees; SMD 0.84; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10).None of the trials compared box model training versus animal model training or versus different methods of box model training.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether laparoscopic box model training reduces mortality or morbidity. There is very low quality evidence that it improves technical skills compared with standard surgical training in trainees with limited previous laparoscopic experience. It may also decrease operating time and increase the proportion of patients who were discharged as day-surgery in the first total extraperitoneal hernia repair after box model training. However, the duration of the benefit of box model training is unknown. Further well-designed trials of low risk of bias and random errors are necessary. Such trials should assess the long-term impact of box model training on clinical outcomes and compare box training with other forms of training.

Fewer-than-four ports versus four ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, laparoscopic cholecystectomy is performed using two 10-mm ports and two 5-mm ports. Recently, a reduction in the number of ports has been suggested as a modification of the standard technique with a view to decreasing pain and improving cosmesis. The safety and effectiveness of using fewer-than-four ports has not yet been established.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits (such as improvement in cosmesis and earlier return to activity) and harms (such as increased complications) of using fewer-than-four ports (fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy) versus four ports in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for any reason (symptomatic gallstones, acalculous cholecystitis, gallbladder polyp, or any other condition).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 8, 2013), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal to September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing fewer-than-four ports versus four ports, that is, with standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy that is performed with two ports of at least 10-mm incision and two ports of at least 5-mm incision.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials and extracted the data. We analysed the data using both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis, whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We found nine trials with 855 participants that randomised participants to fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 427) versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 428). Most trials included low anaesthetic risk participants undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Seven of the nine trials used a single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the remaining two trials used three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy as the experimental intervention. Only one trial including 70 participants had low risk of bias. Fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy could be completed successfully in more than 90% of participants in most trials. The remaining participants were mostly converted to four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy but some participants had to undergo open cholecystectomy.There was no mortality in either group in the seven trials that reported mortality (318 participants in fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy group and 316 participants in four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy group). The proportion of participants with serious adverse events was low in both treatment groups and the estimated RR was compatible with a reduction and substantial increased risk with the fewer-than-four-ports group (6/318 (1.9%)) and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy group (0/316 (0%)) (RR 3.93; 95% CI 0.86 to 18.04; 7 trials; 634 participants; very low quality evidence). The estimated difference in the quality of life (measured between 10 and 30 days) was imprecise (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.18; 95% CI -0.05 to 0.42; 4 trials; 510 participants; very low quality evidence), as was the proportion of participants in whom the laparoscopic cholecystectomy had to be converted to open cholecystectomy between the groups (fewer-than-four ports 3/289 (adjusted proportion 1.2%) versus four port: 5/292 (1.7%); RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.35; 5 trials; 581 participants; very low quality evidence). The fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy took 14 minutes longer to complete (MD 14.44 minutes; 95% CI 5.95 to 22.93; 9 trials; 855 participants; very low quality evidence). There was no clear difference in hospital stay between the groups (MD -0.01 days; 95% CI -0.28 to 0.26; 6 trials; 731 participants) or in the proportion of participants discharged as day surgery (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.22; 1 trial; 50 participants; very low quality evidence) between the two groups. The times taken to return to normal activity and work were shorter by two days in the fewer-than-four-ports group compared with four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (return to normal activity: MD -1.20 days; 95% CI -1.58 to -0.81; 2 trials; 325 participants; very low quality evidence; return to work: MD -2.00 days; 95% CI -3.31 to -0.69; 1 trial; 150 participants; very low quality evidence). There was no significant difference in cosmesis scores at 6 to 12 months between the two groups (SMD 0.37; 95% CI -0.10 to 0.84; 2 trials; 317 participants; very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low quality evidence that is insufficient to determine whether there is any significant clinical benefit in using fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared with four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety profile of using fewer-than-four ports is yet to be established and fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be reserved for well-designed randomised clinical trials.

Laparoscopic surgical box model training for surgical trainees with no prior laparoscopic experience

BACKGROUND

Surgical training has traditionally been one of apprenticeship, where the surgical trainee learns to perform surgery under the supervision of a trained surgeon. This is time consuming, costly, and of variable effectiveness. Training using a box model physical simulator - either a video box or a mirrored box - is an option to supplement standard training. However, the impact of this modality on trainees with no prior laparoscopic experience is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of box model training versus no training, another box model, animal model, or cadaveric model training for surgical trainees with no prior laparoscopic experience.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to May 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing box model trainers versus no training in surgical trainees with no prior laparoscopic experience. We also included trials comparing different methods of box model training.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently identified trials and collected data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using Review Manager for analysis. For each outcome, we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five trials contributed data to the quantitative synthesis in this review. All but one trial were at high risk of bias. Overall, 16 trials (464 participants) provided data for meta-analysis of box training (248 participants) versus no supplementary training (216 participants). All the 16 trials in this comparison used video trainers. Overall, 14 trials (382 participants) provided data for quantitative comparison of different methods of box training. There were no trials comparing box model training versus animal model or cadaveric model training. Box model training versus no training: The meta-analysis showed that the time taken for task completion was significantly shorter in the box trainer group than the control group (8 trials; 249 participants; SMD -0.48 seconds; 95% CI -0.74 to -0.22). Compared with the control group, the box trainer group also had lower error score (3 trials; 69 participants; SMD -0.69; 95% CI -1.21 to -0.17), better accuracy score (3 trials; 73 participants; SMD 0.67; 95% CI 0.18 to 1.17), and better composite performance scores (SMD 0.65; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.88). Three trials reported movement distance but could not be meta-analysed as they were not in a format for meta-analysis. There was significantly lower movement distance in the box model training compared with no training in one trial, and there were no significant differences in the movement distance between the two groups in the other two trials. None of the remaining secondary outcomes such as mortality and morbidity were reported in the trials when animal models were used for assessment of training, error in movements, and trainee satisfaction. Different methods of box training: One trial (36 participants) found significantly shorter time taken to complete the task when box training was performed using a simple cardboard box trainer compared with the standard pelvic trainer (SMD -3.79 seconds; 95% CI -4.92 to -2.65). There was no significant difference in the time taken to complete the task in the remaining three comparisons (reverse alignment versus forward alignment box training; box trainer suturing versus box trainer drills; and single incision versus multiport box model training). There were no significant differences in the error score between the two groups in any of the comparisons (box trainer suturing versus box trainer drills; single incision versus multiport box model training; Z-maze box training versus U-maze box training). The only trial that reported accuracy score found significantly higher accuracy score with Z-maze box training than U-maze box training (1 trial; 16 participants; SMD 1.55; 95% CI 0.39 to 2.71). One trial (36 participants) found significantly higher composite score with simple cardboard box trainer compared with conventional pelvic trainer (SMD 0.87; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.56). Another trial (22 participants) found significantly higher composite score with reverse alignment compared with forward alignment box training (SMD 1.82; 95% CI 0.79 to 2.84). There were no significant differences in the composite score between the intervention and control groups in any of the remaining comparisons. None of the secondary outcomes were adequately reported in the trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review are threatened by both risks of systematic errors (bias) and risks of random errors (play of chance). Laparoscopic box model training appears to improve technical skills compared with no training in trainees with no previous laparoscopic experience. The impacts of this decreased time on patients and healthcare funders in terms of improved outcomes or decreased costs are unknown. There appears to be no significant differences in the improvement of technical skills between different methods of box model training. Further well-designed trials of low risk of bias and random errors are necessary. Such trials should assess the impacts of box model training on surgical skills in both the short and long term, as well as clinical outcomes when the trainee becomes competent to operate on patients.

Laparoscopic surgery of liver tumors

INTRODUCTION

Despite initial concerns regarding safety and oncological adequacy, the use of laparoscopic liver resections for benign and malignant diseases has spread worldwide. As in open liver surgery, anatomical orientation and the ability to control intraoperative challenges as bleeding have to be combined with expertise in advanced laparoscopic techniques.

METHODS

In this review, we provide an overview regarding the literature on laparoscopic liver resection for benign and malignant liver tumors with the aim to discuss the current standards and define remaining challenges. Although numerous case series and meta-analyses have addressed the evolving field of laparoscopic liver surgery recently, data from randomized controlled trials are still not available.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic liver resection is feasible and safe in selected patients and experienced hands. Even major liver resections can be performed laparoscopically. The minimal invasive approach offers benefits in perioperative short-term outcome without compromising oncological outcomes compared to open liver resections. Further randomized trials are needed to formally prove these statements and to define the optimal indication and techniques for the individual patient.

Abdominal lift for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (key-hole removal of the gallbladder) is now the most often used method for treatment of symptomatic gallstones. Several cardiopulmonary changes (decreased cardiac output, pulmonary compliance, and increased peak airway pressure) occur during pneumoperitoneum, which is now introduced to allow laparoscopic cholecystectomy. These cardiopulmonary changes may not be tolerated in individuals with poor cardiopulmonary reserve.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of abdominal wall lift compared to pneumoperitoneum in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing abdominal wall lift (with or without pneumoperitoneum) versus pneumoperitoneum.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We calculated the risk ratio (RR), rate ratio (RaR), or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using the Review Manager (RevMan) software.

MAIN RESULTS

For abdominal wall lift with pneumoperitoneum versus pneumoperitoneum, a total of 130 participants (all with low anaesthetic risk) scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised in five trials to abdominal wall lift with pneumoperitoneum (n = 53) versus pneumoperitoneum only (n = 52). One trial which included 25 people did not state the number of participants in each group. All five trials had a high risk of bias. There was no mortality or conversion to open cholecystectomy in any of the participants in the trials that reported these outcomes. There was no significant difference in the rate of serious adverse events between the two groups (two trials; 2/29 events (0.069 events per person) versus 2/29 events (0.069 events per person); rate ratio 1.00; 95% CI 0.17 to 5.77). None of the trials reported quality of life, the proportion of people discharged as day-patient laparoscopic cholecystectomies, or pain between four and eight hours after the operation. There was no significant difference in the operating time between the two groups (four trials; 53 participants versus 54 participants; 13.39 minutes longer (95% CI 2.73 less to 29.51 minutes longer) in the abdominal wall lift with pneumoperitoneum group and 100 minutes in the pneumoperitoneum group).For abdominal wall lift versus pneumoperitoneum, a total of 774 participants (the majority with low anaesthetic risk) scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised in 18 trials to abdominal wall lift without pneumoperitoneum (n = 332) versus pneumoperitoneum (n = 358). One trial which included 84 people did not state the number in each group. All the trials had a high risk of bias. There was no mortality in any of the trials that reported this outcome. There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (six trials; 5/172 (weighted proportion 2.4%) versus 2/171 (1.2%); RR 2.01; 95% CI 0.52 to 7.80). There was no significant difference in the rate of serious adverse events between the two groups (three trials; 5/99 events (weighted number of events per person = 0.346 events) versus 2/99 events (0.020 events per person); rate ratio 1.73; 95% CI 0.35 to 8.61). None of the trials reported quality of life or pain between four and eight hours after the operation. There was no significant difference in the proportion of people who underwent conversion to open cholecystectomy (11 trials; 5/225 (weighted proportion 2.3%) versus 7/235 (3.0%); RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.26 to 2.21). The operating time was significantly longer in the abdominal wall lift group than in the pneumoperitoneum group (16 trials; 6.87 minutes longer (95% CI 4.74 minutes to 9.00 minutes longer) in the abdominal wall lift group versus 75 minutes in the pneumoperitoneum group). There was no significant difference in the proportion of people discharged as laparoscopic cholecystectomy day-patients (two trials; 15/31 (weighted proportion 48.5%) versus 9/31 (29%); RR 1.67; 95% CI 0.85 to 3.26).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Abdominal wall lift with or without pneumoperitoneum does not seem to offer an advantage over pneumoperitoneum in any of the patient-oriented outcomes for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in people with low anaesthetic risk. Hence it cannot be recommended routinely. The safety of abdominal wall lift is yet to be established. More research on the topic is needed because of the risk of bias in the included trials and because of the risk of type I and type II random errors due to the few participants included in the trials. Future trials should include people at higher anaesthetic risk. Furthermore, such trials should include blinded assessment of outcomes.

Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Standard surgical training has traditionally been one of apprenticeship, where the surgical trainee learns to perform surgery under the supervision of a trained surgeon. This is time-consuming, costly, and of variable effectiveness. Training using a virtual reality simulator is an option to supplement standard training. Virtual reality training improves the technical skills of surgical trainees such as decreased time for suturing and improved accuracy. The clinical impact of virtual reality training is not known.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits (increased surgical proficiency and improved patient outcomes) and harms (potentially worse patient outcomes) of supplementary virtual reality training of surgical trainees with limited laparoscopic experience.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded until July 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing virtual reality training versus other forms of training including box-trainer training, no training, or standard laparoscopic training in surgical trainees with little laparoscopic experience. We also planned to include trials comparing different methods of virtual reality training. We included only trials that assessed the outcomes in people undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently identified trials and collected data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using Review Manager 5 analysis. For each outcome we calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight trials covering 109 surgical trainees with limited laparoscopic experience. Of the eight trials, six compared virtual reality versus no supplementary training. One trial compared virtual reality training versus box-trainer training and versus no supplementary training, and one trial compared virtual reality training versus box-trainer training. There were no trials that compared different forms of virtual reality training. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Operating time and operative performance were the only outcomes reported in the trials. The remaining outcomes such as mortality, morbidity, quality of life (the primary outcomes of this review) and hospital stay (a secondary outcome) were not reported. Virtual reality training versus no supplementary training: The operating time was significantly shorter in the virtual reality group than in the no supplementary training group (3 trials; 49 participants; MD -11.76 minutes; 95% CI -15.23 to -8.30). Two trials that could not be included in the meta-analysis also showed a reduction in operating time (statistically significant in one trial). The numerical values for operating time were not reported in these two trials. The operative performance was significantly better in the virtual reality group than the no supplementary training group using the fixed-effect model (2 trials; 33 participants; SMD 1.65; 95% CI 0.72 to 2.58). The results became non-significant when the random-effects model was used (2 trials; 33 participants; SMD 2.14; 95% CI -1.29 to 5.57). One trial could not be included in the meta-analysis as it did not report the numerical values. The authors stated that the operative performance of virtual reality group was significantly better than the control group. Virtual reality training versus box-trainer training: The only trial that reported operating time did not report the numerical values. In this trial, the operating time in the virtual reality group was significantly shorter than in the box-trainer group. Of the two trials that reported operative performance, only one trial reported the numerical values. The operative performance was significantly better in the virtual reality group than in the box-trainer group (1 trial; 19 participants; SMD 1.46; 95% CI 0.42 to 2.50). In the other trial that did not report the numerical values, the authors stated that the operative performance in the virtual reality group was significantly better than the box-trainer group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Virtual reality training appears to decrease the operating time and improve the operative performance of surgical trainees with limited laparoscopic experience when compared with no training or with box-trainer training. However, the impact of this decreased operating time and improvement in operative performance on patients and healthcare funders in terms of improved outcomes or decreased costs is not known. Further well-designed trials at low risk of bias and random errors are necessary. Such trials should assess the impact of virtual reality training on clinical outcomes.

Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Standard surgical training has traditionally been one of apprenticeship, where the surgical trainee learns to perform surgery under the supervision of a trained surgeon. This is time-consuming, costly, and of variable effectiveness. Training using a virtual reality simulator is an option to supplement standard training. Virtual reality training improves the technical skills of surgical trainees such as decreased time for suturing and improved accuracy. The clinical impact of virtual reality training is not known.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits (increased surgical proficiency and improved patient outcomes) and harms (potentially worse patient outcomes) of supplementary virtual reality training of surgical trainees with limited laparoscopic experience.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded until July 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing virtual reality training versus other forms of training including box-trainer training, no training, or standard laparoscopic training in surgical trainees with little laparoscopic experience. We also planned to include trials comparing different methods of virtual reality training. We included only trials that assessed the outcomes in people undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently identified trials and collected data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using Review Manager 5 analysis. For each outcome we calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight trials covering 109 surgical trainees with limited laparoscopic experience. Of the eight trials, six compared virtual reality versus no supplementary training. One trial compared virtual reality training versus box-trainer training and versus no supplementary training, and one trial compared virtual reality training versus box-trainer training. There were no trials that compared different forms of virtual reality training. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Operating time and operative performance were the only outcomes reported in the trials. The remaining outcomes such as mortality, morbidity, quality of life (the primary outcomes of this review) and hospital stay (a secondary outcome) were not reported. Virtual reality training versus no supplementary training: The operating time was significantly shorter in the virtual reality group than in the no supplementary training group (3 trials; 49 participants; MD -11.76 minutes; 95% CI -15.23 to -8.30). Two trials that could not be included in the meta-analysis also showed a reduction in operating time (statistically significant in one trial). The numerical values for operating time were not reported in these two trials. The operative performance was significantly better in the virtual reality group than the no supplementary training group using the fixed-effect model (2 trials; 33 participants; SMD 1.65; 95% CI 0.72 to 2.58). The results became non-significant when the random-effects model was used (2 trials; 33 participants; SMD 2.14; 95% CI -1.29 to 5.57). One trial could not be included in the meta-analysis as it did not report the numerical values. The authors stated that the operative performance of virtual reality group was significantly better than the control group. Virtual reality training versus box-trainer training: The only trial that reported operating time did not report the numerical values. In this trial, the operating time in the virtual reality group was significantly shorter than in the box-trainer group. Of the two trials that reported operative performance, only one trial reported the numerical values. The operative performance was significantly better in the virtual reality group than in the box-trainer group (1 trial; 19 participants; SMD 1.46; 95% CI 0.42 to 2.50). In the other trial that did not report the numerical values, the authors stated that the operative performance in the virtual reality group was significantly better than the box-trainer group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Virtual reality training appears to decrease the operating time and improve the operative performance of surgical trainees with limited laparoscopic experience when compared with no training or with box-trainer training. However, the impact of this decreased operating time and improvement in operative performance on patients and healthcare funders in terms of improved outcomes or decreased costs is not known. Further well-designed trials at low risk of bias and random errors are necessary. Such trials should assess the impact of virtual reality training on clinical outcomes.

Single-incision cholecystectomy: a comparative study of standard laparoscopic, robotic, and SPIDER platforms

BACKGROUND

Many series have shown the feasibility and safety of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC), but this technique still has limitations such as instrument collisions and lack of triangulation. Recently, two single-incision platforms, robotic and SPIDER, have attempted to ameliorate such problems. This study aimed to compare three different techniques of single-incision cholecystectomy: standard laparoscopic, robotic, and SPIDER approaches.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively collected data from their first 166 single-incision robotic cholecystectomies (SIRCs) and compared the findings with the data from their first 166 SILCs and the first 166 s-generation SPIDER procedures. All the SILCs were performed with three trocars placed in one umbilical incision and with gallbladder retraction using a Prolene stitch on the right upper quadrant. All the robotic cases were managed using the da Vinci Single-Site Surgical System, and all the SPIDER procedures were performed using the SPIDER Surgical System.

RESULTS

The SILC, SIRC, and SPIDER groups consisted respectively of 129 (76.3%), 131 (78.9%), and 136 (81.9%) women with the respective mean ages of 44.5 ± 14.3, 51.6 ± 15.9, and 46.4 ± 15.2 years. The mean body mass indexes (BMIs) were respectively 29.1 ± 5.6, 29.4 ± 6.2, and 27.5 ± 4.8 kg/m(2), and the mean surgical times were 37.1 ± 13.3, 63.0 ± 25.2, and 52.8 ± 18.7 min. The total hospital stays were respectively 1.3 ± 5.3, 1.2 ± 2.2, and 1.5 ± 2.6 days, and complications were seen respectively in three SILC cases (1.8%), three SIRC cases (1.8%), and two SPIDER cases (1.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study demonstrate similar results among the three platforms for most of the parameters measured. The SILC procedure appears to be superior to SIRC and SPIDER in terms of surgical time, but selection bias could be the cause. The SILS, SIRC, and SPIDER procedures all are similar in terms of complication profile. It can be concluded that SILC, SIRC, and SPIDER all are feasible and safe alternatives when used for single-incision cholecystectomy.

Percutaneous cholecystostomy for high-risk surgical patients with acute calculous cholecystitis

BACKGROUND

The management of people at high risk of perioperative death due to their general condition (high-risk surgical patients) with acute calculous cholecystitis is controversial, with no clear guidelines. In particular, the role of percutaneous cholecystostomy in these patients has not been defined.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits (temporary or permanent relief of symptoms) and harms (recurrence of symptoms, procedure-related morbidity) of percutaneous cholecystostomy in the management of high-risk individuals with symptomatic gallstones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to December 2012 to identify the randomised clinical trials. We also handsearched the references lists of identified trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) addressing this issue.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected data independently. For each outcome, we calculated the P values using Fisher's exact test or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included two trials with 156 participants for this review. The comparisons included in these two trials were percutaneous cholecystostomy followed by early laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (1 trial; 70 participants) and percutaneous cholecystostomy versus conservative treatment (1 trial; 86 participants). Both trials had high risk of bias. Percutaneous cholecystostomy with early laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy: There was no significant difference in mortality between the two intervention groups (0/37 versus 1/33; Fisher's exact test: P value = 0.47). There was no significant difference in overall morbidity between the two intervention groups (1/31 versus 2/30; Fisher's exact test: P value = 0.61). This trial did not report on quality of life. There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants requiring conversion to open cholecystectomy between the two intervention groups (2/31 percutaneous cholecystostomy followed by early laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus 4/30 delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy; Fisher's exact test: P value = 0.43). The mean total hospital stay was significantly lower in the percutaneous cholecystostomy followed by early laparoscopic cholecystectomy group compared with the delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy group (1 trial; 61 participants; MD -9.90 days; 95% CI -12.31 to -7.49). The mean total costs were significantly lower in the percutaneous cholecystostomy followed by early laparoscopic cholecystectomy group compared with the delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy group (1 trial; 61 participants; MD -1123.00 USD; 95% CI -1336.60 to -909.40). Percutaneous cholecystostomy versus conservative treatment: Nine of the 44 participants underwent delayed cholecystectomy in the percutaneous cholecystostomy group. Seven of the 42 participants underwent delayed cholecystectomy in the conservative treatment group. There was no significant difference in mortality between the two intervention groups (6/44 versus 7/42; Fisher's exact test: P value = 0.77). There was no significant difference in overall morbidity between the two intervention groups (6/44 versus 3/42; Fisher's exact test: P value = 0.49). The number of participants who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy was not reported in this trial. Therefore, we were unable to calculate the proportion of participants who underwent conversion to open cholecystectomy. The other outcomes, total hospital stay, quality of life, and total costs, were not reported in this trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current available evidence from randomised clinical trials, we are unable to determine the role of percutaneous cholecystostomy in the clinical management of high-risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis. There is a need for adequately powered randomised clinical trials of low risk of bias on this issue.

Miniports versus standard ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

In conventional (standard) port laparoscopic cholecystectomy, four abdominal ports (two of 10 mm diameter and two of 5 mm diameter) are used. Recently, use of smaller ports, miniports, have been reported.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of miniport (defined as ports smaller than the standard ports) laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2013 to identify randomised clinical trials of relevance to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing miniport versus standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy were considered for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects models using RevMan analysis. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 trials with 734 patients randomised to miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (380 patients) versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy (351 patients). Only one trial which included 70 patients was of low risk of bias. Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy could be completed successfully in more than 80% of patients in most trials. The remaining patients were mostly converted to standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy but some were also converted to open cholecystectomy. These patients were included for the outcome conversion to open cholecystectomy but excluded from other outcomes. Accordingly, the results of the other outcomes are on 343 patients in the miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy group and 351 patients in the standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy group, and therefore the results have to be interpreted with extreme caution.There was no mortality in the seven trials that reported mortality (0/194 patients in miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus 0/203 patients in standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy). There were no significant differences between miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy and standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the proportion of patients who developed serious adverse events (eight trials; 460 patients; RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.04 to 3.08) (miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: 1/226 (adjusted proportion 0.4%) versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: 3/234 (1.3%); quality of life at 10 days after surgery (one trial; 70 patients; SMD -0.20; 95% CI -0.68 to 0.27); or in whom the laparoscopic operation had to be converted to open cholecystectomy (11 trials; 670 patients; RR 1.23; 95% CI 0.44 to 3.45) (miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: 8/351 (adjusted proportion 2.3%) versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy 6/319 (1.9%)). Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy took five minutes longer to complete than standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy (12 trials; 695 patients; MD 4.91 minutes; 95% CI 2.38 to 7.44). There were no significant differences between miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy and standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the length of hospital stay (six trials; 351 patients; MD -0.00 days; 95% CI -0.12 to 0.11); the time taken to return to activity (one trial; 52 patients; MD 0.00 days; 95% CI -0.31 to 0.31); or in the time taken for the patient to return to work (two trials; 187 patients; MD 0.28 days; 95% CI -0.44 to 0.99) between the groups. There was no significant difference in the cosmesis scores at six months to 12 months after surgery between the two groups (two trials; 152 patients; SMD 0.13; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.46).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be completed successfully in more than 80% of patients. There appears to be no advantage of miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy in terms of decreasing mortality, morbidity, hospital stay, return to activity, return to work, or improving cosmesis. On the other hand, there is a modest increase in operating time after miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared with standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the safety of miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy is yet to be established. Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy cannot be recommended routinely outside well-designed randomised clinical trials. Further trials of low risks of bias and low risks of random errors are necessary.

Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for people with acute cholecystitis

BACKGROUND

Gallstones are present in about 10% to 15% of the adult western population. Between 1% and 4% of these adults become symptomatic in a year (the majority due to biliary colic but a significant proportion due to acute cholecystitis). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis is mainly performed after the acute cholecystitis episode settles because of the fear of higher morbidity and of need for conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. However, delaying surgery exposes the people to gallstone-related complications.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to compare early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (less than seven days of clinical presentation with acute cholecystitis) versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (more than six weeks after index admission with acute cholecystitis) with regards to benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform until July 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy in participants with acute cholecystitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven trials that met the inclusion criteria. Out of these, six trials provided data for the meta-analyses. A total of 488 participants with acute cholecystitis and fit to undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised to early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC) (244 people) and delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (DLC) (244 people) in the six trials. Blinding was not performed in any of the trials and so all the trials were at high risk of bias. Other than blinding, three of the six trials were at low risk of bias in the other domains such as sequence generation, allocation concealment, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting. The proportion of females ranged between 43.3% and 80% in the trials that provided this information. The average age of participants ranged between 40 years and 60 years. There was no mortality in any of the participants in five trials that reported mortality. There was no significant difference in the proportion of people who developed bile duct injury in the two groups (ELC 1/219 (adjusted proportion 0.4%) versus DLC 2/219 (0.9%); Peto OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.05 to 4.72 (5 trials)). There was no significant difference between the two groups (ELC 14/219 (adjusted proportion 6.5%) versus DLC 11/219 (5.0%); RR 1.29; 95% CI 0.61 to 2.72 (5 trials)) in terms of other serious complications. None of the trials reported quality of life from the time of randomisation. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the proportion of people who required conversion to open cholecystectomy (ELC 49/244 (adjusted proportion 19.7%) versus DLC 54/244 (22.1%); RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.25 (6 trials)). The total hospital stay was shorter in the early group than the delayed group by four days (MD -4.12 days; 95% CI -5.22 to -3.03 (4 trials; 373 people)). There was no significant difference in the operating time between the two groups (MD -1.22 minutes; 95% CI -3.07 to 0.64 (6 trials; 488 people)). Only one trial reported return to work. The people belonging to the ELC group returned to work earlier than the DLC group (MD -11.00 days; 95% CI -19.61 to -2.39 (1 trial; 36 people)). Four trials did not report any gallstone-related morbidity during the waiting period. One trial reported five gallstone-related morbidities (cholangitis: two; biliary colic not requiring urgent operation: one; acute cholecystitis not requiring urgent operation: two). There were no reports of pancreatitis during the waiting time. Gallstone-related morbidity was not reported in the remaining trials. Forty (18.3%) of the people belonging to the delayed group had either non-resolution of symptoms or recurrence of symptoms before their planned operation and had to undergo emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy in five trials. The proportion with conversion to open cholecystectomy was 45% (18/40) in this group of people.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no significant difference between early and late laparoscopic cholecystectomy on our primary outcomes. However, trials with high risk of bias indicate that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy during acute cholecystitis seems safe and may shorten the total hospital stay. The majority of the important outcomes occurred rarely, and hence the confidence intervals are wide. It is unlikely that future randomised clinical trials will be powered to measure differences in bile duct injury and other serious complications since this might involve performing a trial of more than 50,000 people, but several smaller randomised trials may answer the questions through meta-analyses.

Transvaginal specimen removal after laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection

PURPOSE

Transvaginal specimen removal has been introduced 20 years ago but then abandoned. With the advent of transvaginal interventions following the introduction of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, renewed interest was generated for hybrid procedures with minimal access for the intervention and use of transvaginal (TV) specimen removal. We present the first such series after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

In seven subsequent women (median age 48 years) with body and tail pancreatic tumors undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, the new method of TV specimen removal was applied. The patients' data and the technical successes as well as intra- and postprocedural complications were recorded prospectively. The patients were followed after discharge for gynecological examination.

RESULTS

Specimen removal consisting of the pancreas and spleen in five and the pancreas only in two cases was technically successful; no intraoperative complications were encountered. Postoperative complications consisted of one case of intra-abdominal hemorrhage and one case of pancreatic fistula, attributable to the resection and not to TV specimen removal. Gynecological follow-up was normal in all seven patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The technique of TV specimen removal is feasible and safe also after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. It may help to further diminish the access trauma of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to analyze systematically the randomized, controlled trials that compared single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC).

METHODS

The meta-analysis was conducted according to the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUORUM) standards. The included studies were analyzed systematically using the statistical software package RevMan. The summated outcomes were expressed as the risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous variables and standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous variables.

RESULTS

Eleven randomized trials encompassing 858 patients were retrieved from the electronic databases. In the random effects model, postoperative pain, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, cosmesis score, conversion rate, and time to return to normal activities were statistically comparable between the two cholecystectomy techniques. SILC was associated with a longer operating time [SMD 0.71; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.38, 1.05; z = 4.18; p < 0.0001) and an increased requirement for additional port insertion (RR 6.54; 95 % CI 2.19, 19.57; z = 3.36; p < 0008). However, there was significant heterogeneity among the trials.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC does not offer any advantage over CLC for treating benign gallbladder disorders. CLC may be used assiduously for this purpose.

Laparoscopic versus open peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis is an effective treatment for end-stage renal disease. Key to successful peritoneal dialysis is a well-functioning catheter. The different insertion techniques may be of great importance. Mostly, the standard operative approach is the open technique; however, laparoscopic insertion is increasingly popular. Catheter malfunction is reported up to 35% for the open technique and up to 13% for the laparoscopic technique. However, evidence is lacking to definitely conclude that the laparoscopic approach is to be preferred. This review and meta-analysis was carried out to investigate if one of the techniques is superior to the other.

METHODS

Comprehensive searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library 2012, issue 10). Reference lists were searched manually. The methodology was in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for interventional systematic reviews, and written based on the PRISMA-statement.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials and eight cohort studies were identified. Nine postoperative outcome measures were meta-analyzed; of these, seven were not different between operation techniques. Based on the meta-analysis, the proportion of migrating catheters was lower (odds ratio (OR) 0.21, confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.63; P = 0.006), and the one-year catheter survival was higher in the laparoscopic group (OR 3.93, CI 1.80 to 8.57; P = 0.0006).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these results there is some evidence in favour of the laparoscopic insertion technique for having a higher one-year catheter survival and less migration, which would be clinically relevant.

Intraperitoneal wound in abdominal surgery

The intraperitoneal wound is often forgotten after transperitoneal surgery. This review is a on the peritoneum and the implications of peritoneal injury after surgery. This review will focus on the intraperitoneal wound response after surgical injury.

Pancreatitis of biliary origin, optimal timing of cholecystectomy (PONCHO trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

After an initial attack of biliary pancreatitis, cholecystectomy minimizes the risk of recurrent biliary pancreatitis and other gallstone-related complications. Guidelines advocate performing cholecystectomy within 2 to 4 weeks after discharge for mild biliary pancreatitis. During this waiting period, the patient is at risk of recurrent biliary events. In current clinical practice, surgeons usually postpone cholecystectomy for 6 weeks due to a perceived risk of a more difficult dissection in the early days following pancreatitis and for logistical reasons. We hypothesize that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy minimizes the risk of recurrent biliary pancreatitis or other complications of gallstone disease in patients with mild biliary pancreatitis without increasing the difficulty of dissection and the surgical complication rate compared with interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods/Design

PONCHO is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, assessor-blinded, superiority multicenter trial. Patients are randomly allocated to undergo early laparoscopic cholecystectomy, within 72 hours after randomization, or interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 25 to 30 days after randomization. During a 30-month period, 266 patients will be enrolled from 18 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. The primary endpoint is a composite endpoint of mortality and acute re-admissions for biliary events (that is, recurrent biliary pancreatitis, acute cholecystitis, symptomatic/obstructive choledocholithiasis requiring endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography including cholangitis (with/without endoscopic sphincterotomy), and uncomplicated biliary colics) occurring within 6 months following randomization. Secondary endpoints include the individual endpoints of the composite endpoint, surgical and other complications, technical difficulty of cholecystectomy and costs.

Discussion

The PONCHO trial is designed to show that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (within 72 hours) reduces the combined endpoint of mortality and re-admissions for biliary events as compared with interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy (between 25 and 30 days) after recovery of a first episode of mild biliary pancreatitis.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN72764151

Laparoscopic conversion of failed gastric banding to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: short-term follow-up and technical considerations

BACKGROUND

The most common bariatric procedure in Australia is laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Although successful, there is a substantial long-term complication and failure rate. Band removal and conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) can be an effective treatment for complicated or failed bands. There is increasing evidence supporting good weight loss and resolution of band-related complications after conversion.

METHODS

A prospective database of all bariatric procedures is maintained. Patients having revision of LAGB to RYGB between December 2007 and April 2011 were included in this study. Indications for surgery, operative details, morbidity and mortality, weight loss data, and post-operative symptoms were recorded.

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients were included. Indications for surgery were inadequate weight loss (n = 42), adverse symptoms (reflux = 8, dysphagia = 2), and band complications (band erosion = 7, band sepsis = 1, band slip = 11, esophageal dilatation = 11). Seventy-eight percent of procedures were completed in a single stage and 96.3% laparoscopically. There was no 30-day mortality. Total morbidity was 46.3% (minor complications = 32.9%, major complications = 13.4%). Median BMI was 43 kg/m(2) pre-RYGB and 34 kg/m(2) after 12 months. All patients with adverse band-related symptoms had resolution.

CONCLUSIONS

LAGB has a considerable complication and failure rate. Conversion of these patients to RYGB results in further weight loss and resolution of adverse symptoms. This is a challenging procedure, but can usually be performed in a single stage with acceptable morbidity and mortality. These patients should be treated in high-volume, subspecialty bariatric units.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cholecystectomy during Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for morbid obesity

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists regarding the use of concurrent cholecystectomy during Roux-en-Y gastric bypass performed for morbid obesity.

METHODS

A decision model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of current strategies: routine concurrent cholecystectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass alone with or without postoperative ursodiol therapy, and selective cholecystectomy based on preoperative findings on ultrasonography. Probabilities were obtained from a comprehensive literature review. Costs and hospital days were obtained from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The least expensive strategy was to perform RYGB alone without preoperative ultrasonography, with an average cost (over RYGB costs) of $537 per patient. RYGB with concurrent cholecystectomy had a cost of $631. Selective cholecystectomy based on preoperative ultrasonography was dominated by the other 2 strategies. Our model was most sensitive to the probability of developing gallbladder-related symptoms after RYGB alone. When the incidence of gallbladder-related symptoms was <4.6%, the dominant strategy was to perform a RYGB alone without preoperative ultrasonography. For values >6.9%, performing concurrent cholecystectomy at the time of the RYGB was superior to other strategies. When ursodiol was used, the least expensive strategy was to perform a concurrent cholecystectomy during RYGB.

CONCLUSION

The main factor determining the most cost-effective strategy is the incidence of gallbladder-related symptoms after RYGB. The use of ursodiol was associated with an increase in cost that does not justify its use after RYGB. Finally, selective cholecystectomy based on preoperative ultrasonography was dominated by the other strategies in the scenarios evaluated.

Evidence-based current surgical practice: calculous gallbladder disease

BACKGROUND

Gallbladder disease is common and, if managed incorrectly, can lead to high rates of morbidity, mortality, and extraneous costs. The most common complications of gallstones include biliary colic, acute cholecystitis, common bile duct stones, and gallstone pancreatitis. Ultrasound is the initial imaging modality of choice. Additional diagnostic and therapeutic studies including computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasound, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography are not routinely required but may play a role in specific situations.

DISCUSSION

Biliary colic and acute cholecystitis are best treated with early laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients with common bile duct stones should be managed with cholecystectomy, either after or concurrent with endoscopic or surgical relief of obstruction and clearance of stones from the bile duct. Mild gallstone pancreatitis should be treated with cholecystectomy during the initial hospitalization to prevent recurrence. Emerging techniques for cholecystectomy include single-incision laparoscopic surgery and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. Early results in highly selected patients demonstrate the safety of these techniques. The management of complications of the gallbladder should be timely and evidence-based, and choice of procedures, particularly for common bile duct stones, is largely influenced by facility and surgeon factors.

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

INTRODUCTION

We analyzed different morbidity parameters between single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC).

METHODS

Pubmed, Ovid, Embase, SCI database, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched. The primary endpoints analyzed were cosmetic result and the postoperative pain (at 6 and 24 h) and the secondary endpoints were operating time, hospital stay, incidence of overall postoperative complications, wound-related complications, and port-site hernia.

RESULTS

Six hundred fifty-nine patients (SILC-349, CLC-310) were analyzed from nine randomized controlled trials. The objective postoperative pain scores at 6 and 24 h and the hospital stay were similar in both groups. The total postoperative complications, wound-related problems, and port-site hernia formation, though higher in SILC, were also comparable in both groups. SILC had significantly favorable cosmetic scoring compared to CLC [weighted mean difference = 1.0, p = 0.0001]. The operating time was significantly longer in SILC [weighted mean difference = 15.63, p = 0.0001].

CONCLUSIONS

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy does not confer any benefit in postoperative pain (6 and 24 h) and hospital stay as compared to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy while having significantly better cosmetic results at the same time. Postoperative complications, though higher in SILC, were statistically similar in both the groups.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: What is the price of conversion?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard procedure for gallbladder removal. Conversion to an open procedure is sometimes deemed necessary, especially in complex cases in which a prolonged laparoscopic operative time is anticipated. A prolonged LC case is thought to be associated with increased complications and cost and therefore generally discouraged. The purpose of this study was to test this assumption, and compare outcomes and cost of converted and prolonged LC cases.

METHODS

By using institutional National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and financial databases, we retrospectively reviewed and compared prolonged laparoscopic cases (Long-LC) with converted (CONV) procedures. Surgical times, length of stay (LOS), 30-day complications, operative room, and total hospital charges were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

A total of 101 Long-LC and 66 CONV cases met our inclusion criteria. Long-LC cases were 19 minutes longer than CONV cases (123 vs 104 min; P < .01). No differences in postoperative complications were found between the 2 groups (P > .05). When Poisson regression was used, we found that LOS was significantly shorter in the Long-LC compared with CONV group (1 day vs 4 days; P < .01). Long-LC cases had greater operative charges ($15,278 vs $13,128; P < .01). However, hospital charges for Long-LC cases were 26% less than for CONV cases ($23,946 vs $32,446; P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Conversion is associated with a 3-day increase in LOS. Long-LC cases have greater operative room charges, but overall hospital charges were 26% less than CONV cases. Our data suggest that decision making regarding conversion should focus on safety and not time considerations.

Robotic-assisted paraesophageal hernia repair--a case-control study

AIMS

The da Vinci® telemanipulation system offers a wide range of precise movements and 3D visualization with depth perception and magnification effect. Such a system could be useful for improving minimally invasive procedures-as in the case of large hiatal hernia with paraesophageal involvement (PEH) repair. Studies reporting on the robotic-assisted PEH repair are scarce, and a comparison to the standard operation techniques is lacking. Therefore, we decided to investigate the feasibility and safety of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) compared to conventional laparoscopic (CLS) and open surgery (OS) for the first time.

METHODS

We investigated 42 patients for the perioperative outcome after PEH repair. Twelve patients were operated on with RAS, 17 with CLS, and 13 with OS. Operating time, intraoperative blood loss, intra- and postoperative complications, mortality, and duration of hospital stay were analyzed in each method.

RESULTS

On average, operating time in the RAS group was 38 min longer, and the intraoperative blood was loss 217 ml lower compared to OS. Both results were similar to the CLS group. The intraoperative complication rate was similar in all groups. The postoperative complication rate in the RAS group was significantly lower than the OS group, though again similar to the CLS group. The hospital stay was 5 days shorter in the RAS group than the OS group and once again similar to the CLS group.

CONCLUSION

The results show that RAS is feasible and safe. It appears to be an alternative to OS due to lower intraoperative blood loss and potentially fewer postoperative complications, as well as shorter hospital stay. Though, RAS is not superior to CLS.

Cost utility of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis

BACKGROUND

Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis is safe and effective. However, the potential cost savings of this management strategy have not been well studied in a North American context. This study aimed to estimate the cost effectiveness of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Canada.

METHODS

A decision analytic model estimating and comparing costs from a Canadian providing institution after either early or delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy was used. The health care resources consumed were calculated using local hospital data, and outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained during 1 year. Uncertainty was investigated with one-way sensitivity analyses, varying the probabilities of the events and utilities.

RESULTS

Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy was estimated to cost approximately $2,000 (Canadian dollars) less than delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy per patient, with an incremental gain of approximately 0.03 QALYs. Sensitivity analysis showed that only extreme values of bile duct injury or bile leak altered the direction of incremental gain.

CONCLUSIONS

Adoption of a policy in favor of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy will result in better patient quality of life and substantial savings to the Canadian health care system.

Current status of robotic surgery

Surgery has increasingly become a technology-driven specialty. Robotic assistance is considered one innovation within abdominal surgery over the past decade that has the potential to compensate for the drawbacks of conventional laparoscopy. The dramatic evolution of robotic surgery over the past 10 years is likely to be eclipsed by even greater advances over the next decade. We review the current status of robotic technology in surgery. The Medline database was searched for the terms "robotic surgery, telesurgery, and laparoscopy." A total of 2,496 references were found. All references were considered for information on robotic surgery in advanced laparoscopy. Further references were obtained through cross-referencing the bibliography cited in each work. There is a paucity of control studies on a sufficient number of subjects in robot-assisted surgeries in all fields. Studies that meet more stringent clinical trials criteria show that robot-assisted surgery appears comparable to traditional surgery in terms of feasibility and outcomes but that costs associated with robot-assisted surgery are higher because of longer operating times and expense of equipment. While a limited number of studies on the da Vinci robotic system have proven the benefit of this approach in regard to patient outcomes, including significantly reduced blood loss, lower percentage of postoperative complications, and shorter hospital stays, there are mechanical and institutional risks that must be more fully addressed. Robotic assistance will remain an intensively discussed subject since clinical benefits for most procedures have not yet been proven. While the benefit still remains open to discussion, robotic systems are spreading and are available worldwide in tertiary centers.

Real-time simultaneous near-infrared fluorescence imaging of bile duct and arterial anatomy

BACKGROUND

We hypothesized that two independent wavelengths of near-infrared (NIR) fluorescent light could be used to identify bile ducts and hepatic arteries simultaneously, and intraoperatively.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three different combinations of 700 and 800 nm fluorescent contrast agents specific for bile ducts and arteries were injected into N = 10 35-kg female Yorkshire pigs intravenously. Combination 1 (C-1) was methylene blue (MB) for arterial imaging and indocyanine green (ICG) for bile duct imaging. Combination 2 (C-2) was ICG for arterial imaging and MB for bile duct imaging. Combination 3 (C-3) was a newly developed, zwitterionic NIR fluorophore ZW800-1 for arterial imaging and MB for bile duct imaging. Open and minimally invasive surgeries were imaged using the fluorescence-assisted resection and exploration (FLARE) surgical imaging system and minimally invasive FLARE (m-FLARE) imaging systems, respectively.

RESULTS

Although the desired bile duct and arterial anatomy could be imaged with contrast-to-background ratios (CBRs) ≥ 6 using all three combinations, each one differed significantly in terms of repetition and prolonged imaging. ICG injection resulted in high CBR of the liver and common bile duct (CBD) and prolonged imaging time (120 min) of the CBD (C-1). However, because ICG also resulted in high background of liver and CBD relative to arteries, ICG produced a lower arterial CBR (C-2) at some time points. C-3 provided the best overall performance, although C-2, which is clinically available, did enable effective laparoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate that dual-channel NIR fluorescence imaging provides simultaneous, real-time, and high resolution identification of bile ducts and hepatic arteries during biliary tract surgery.

A 10-step intraoperative surgical checklist (ISC) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy-can it really reduce conversion rates to open cholecystectomy?

INTRODUCTION

The recent introduction of a Surgical Safety Checklist has significantly reduced the morbidity and mortality of surgery. Such a simple measure that can impact so highly on surgical outcomes causes all surgeons to pause for thought. This paper documents the introduction of a 10-step intraoperative surgical checklist (ISC) to standardize performance, decision-making, and training during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The checklist's impact on conversion rates to open cholecystectomy (OC) is presented.

METHODS

In 2004, a 10-step ISC was introduced by a single consultant surgeon for the performance of LCs. Data were collected comparing LCs between 1999-2003 (period 1) and 2004-2008 (period 2). Data on sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiology grade, previous abdominal surgery, severity of gallbladder pathology, and conversion to OC were recorded. The chi-squared test with Yates correction was used to compare groups.

RESULTS

In total, 637 LCs were performed, 277 during period 1 and 360 during period 2. Risk factors for conversion (gender, age, previous abdominal surgery, and severity of gallbladder pathology) were not significantly different in the two periods studied. The overall conversion rate to OC fell significantly in period 2 (p=0.001). Subgroup analysis also showed a significant reduction in conversion rates in female patients (p=0.002) and patients with grades III and IV gallbladder disease (p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of a 10-step ISC was temporally related to reduced conversion rates to OC. The standardization of a frequently performed operation such as a LC that could potentially lead to an impact as great the one we observed warrants further attention in prospective, appropriately designed studies.

Three-dimensional vision enhances task performance independently of the surgical method

BACKGROUND

Within the next few years, the medical industry will launch increasingly affordable three-dimensional (3D) vision systems for the operating room (OR). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of two-dimensional (2D) and 3D visualization on surgical skills and task performance.

METHODS

In this study, 34 individuals with varying laparoscopic experience (18 inexperienced individuals) performed three tasks to test spatial relationships, grasping and positioning, dexterity, precision, and hand-eye and hand-hand coordination. Each task was performed in 3D using binocular vision for open performance, the Viking 3Di Vision System for laparoscopic performance, and the DaVinci robotic system. The same tasks were repeated in 2D using an eye patch for monocular vision, conventional laparoscopy, and the DaVinci robotic system.

RESULTS

Loss of 3D vision significantly increased the perceived difficulty of a task and the time required to perform it, independently of the approach (P < 0.0001-0.02). Simple tasks took 25 % to 30 % longer to complete and more complex tasks took 75 % longer with 2D than with 3D vision. Only the difficult task was performed faster with the robot than with laparoscopy (P = 0.005). In every case, 3D robotic performance was superior to conventional laparoscopy (2D) (P < 0.001-0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

The more complex the task, the more 3D vision accelerates task completion compared with 2D vision. The gain in task performance is independent of the surgical method.

Comparison of short-term outcomes between transvaginal hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy

INTRODUCTION

A natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) approach offers the potential of reducing pain and convalescence after intra-abdominal operations. We present a single-institution series of transvaginal hybrid NOTES cholecystectomies (TVC) and compare outcomes with patients undergoing standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

METHODS

Patients had an indication for elective cholecystectomy and met the following institutional review board-approved inclusion criteria: female gender, age >18 years, body mass index ≤35, ASA Classification I or II, and absence of acute cholecystitis. TVC was performed by using one or two transabdominal ports to enable gallbladder retraction and clip application. Dissection was performed with a flexible endoscope through a posterior colpotomy using instrumentation from the NOTES GEN1 Toolbox (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.).

RESULTS

Seven patients underwent TVC and seven patients underwent LC. Operative times were significantly longer for TVC (162 vs. 68 min; p < 0.001). All procedures were performed on an outpatient basis, except for one patient in each group who were discharged on POD#1. Three minor (grade I) complications occurred: two in the LC group and one in the TVC group. TVC patients required less narcotics in the postanesthesia care unit (1 vs. 8 mg morphine equivalents; p = 0.02). Visual Analog Scale pain scores (scale 0-10) were less in the TVC group at 30 min (1 vs. 5; p = 0.02) and 60 min (2 vs. 5; p = 0.02). TVC pain scores also were lower on postoperative days 1, 4, and 7 (2, 1, 0 vs. 6, 3, 2), although only significantly on POD#1 (p = 0.01). SF-36 scores were similar at 1 and 3 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

This series adds to the existing evidence that transvaginal hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy using a flexible endoscope for dissection is a technically feasible and safe procedure. TVC requires a longer operative time than LC but may result in less pain in the immediate postoperative period with patients subsequently requiring fewer narcotics.

Therapy of gallstone disease: What it was, what it is, what it will be

Cholesterol gallstone disease is a common clinical condition influenced by genetic factors, increasing age, female gender, and metabolic factors. Although laparoscopic cholecystectomy is currently considered the gold standard in treating patients with symptomatic gallstones, new perspectives regarding medical therapy of cholelithiasis are currently under discussion, also taking into account the pathogenesis of gallstones, the natural history of the disease and the analysis of the overall costs of therapy. A careful selection of patients may lead to successful non-surgical therapy in symptomatic subjects with a functioning gallbladder harboring small radiolucent stones. The classical oral litholysis by ursodeoxycholic acid has been recently paralleled by new experimental observations, suggesting that cholesterol-lowering agents which inhibit cholesterol synthesis (statins) or intestinal cholesterol absorption (ezetimibe), or drugs acting on specific nuclear receptors involved in cholesterol and bile acid homeostasis, might be proposed as additional approaches for treating cholesterol gallstones. In this review we discuss old, recent and future perspectives on medical treatment of cholesterol cholelithiasis.

Outcome of laparoscopic cholecystectomy conversion: is the surgeon's selection needed?

BACKGROUND

Risk factors for conversion in cholecystectomy may be of clinical value. This study aimed to investigate whether a set of risk factors, including the surgeon's specialization, can be used for the development of a preoperative strategy to optimize conversion outcome.

METHODS

The data for all patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy at a single institution between January 2004 and December 2008 were retrospectively reviewed. Factors predictive for conversion were identified, and a preoperative strategy model was deduced.

RESULTS

Of the 1,126 patients analyzed, 106 (9%) underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an emergency setting. Delayed surgery was performed for 63 (46%) of 138 patients (12%) with acute cholecystitis. Preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography was achieved for 161 of the patients (14%). Risk factors predictive of conversion (for 65 patients) were male gender [odds ratio (OR), 2.3; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.3-3.9; p = 0.004], age older than 65 years (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-4.8; p = 0.002), body mass index (BMI) exceeding 25 kg/m(2) (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.7-7.1; p < 0.001), history of complicated biliary disease (HCBD) (OR, 5.6; 95% CI, 3.2-9.8; p = < 0.001), and surgery by a non-gastrointestinal (non-GI) surgeon (OR, 4.9; 95% CI, 2.2-10.6; p < 0.001). The conversion rate for patients with a history of no complications who had two or more risk factors (gender, age, BMI > 25) and for patients with a HCBD who had one or more risk factors was significantly higher if the surgery was performed by non-GI rather than GI surgeons.

CONCLUSION

Male gender, age older than 65 years, BMI exceeding 25 kg/m(2), HCBD, and surgery by a non-GI surgeon are predictive for conversion. A preoperative triage for surgeon selection based on risk factors and a HCBD is proposed to optimize conversion outcome.

Laparoscopic versus open peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion, the LOCI-trial: a study protocol

Background

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an effective treatment for end-stage renal disease. It allows patients more freedom to perform daily activities compared to haemodialysis. Key to successful PD is the presence of a well-functioning dialysis catheter. Several complications, such as in- and outflow obstruction, peritonitis, exit-site infections, leakage and migration, can lead to catheter removal and loss of peritoneal access. Currently, different surgical techniques are in practice for PD-catheter placement. The type of insertion technique used may greatly influence the occurrence of complications. In the literature, up to 35% catheter failure has been described when using the open technique and only 13% for the laparoscopic technique. However, a well-designed randomized controlled trial is lacking.

Methods/Design

The LOCI-trial is a multi-center randomized controlled, single-blind trial (pilot). The study compares the laparoscopic with the open technique for PD catheter insertion. The primary objective is to determine the optimum placement technique in order to minimize the incidence of catheter malfunction at 6 weeks postoperatively. Secondary objectives are to determine the best approach to optimize catheter function and to study the quality of life at 6 months postoperatively comparing the two operative techniques.

Discussion

This study will generate evidence on any benefits of laparoscopic versus open PD catheter insertion.

Trial registration

Dutch Trial Register NTR2878

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

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has gained increasing attention due to the potential to maximize the benefits of laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this systematic review and pooled analysis was to compare clinical outcome following SILS and standard multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the treatment of gallstone-related disease.

METHODS

An electronic search of Embase and Medline databases for articles from 1966 to 2011 was performed. Publications were included if they were randomised controlled studies in which patients underwent either single-incision or multiport cholecystectomy. The primary outcome measures for the meta-analysis were postoperative complications and postoperative pain score [visual analogue scale (VAS) on the day of surgery]. Secondary outcome measures were operating time and length of hospital stay. Weighted mean difference was calculated for the effect size of SILS on continuous variables, and pooled odds ratios were calculated for discrete variables.

RESULTS

In total, 375 cholecystectomy operations from 7 randomised controlled trials were included, 195 by single-incision (SILS) and 180 by conventional multiport. Operating time was significantly longer in the SILS group compared to the standard multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy group (weighted mean difference = 2.13; P = 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications, postoperative pain score (VAS), or the length of hospital stay between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a safe procedure for the treatment of uncomplicated gallstone disease, with postoperative outcome similar to that of standard multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Future high-powered randomized studies should be focused on elucidating subtle differences in postoperative complications, reported postoperative pain, and cosmesis following SILS cholecystectomy in more severe biliary disease.

Status of robotic assistance--a less traumatic and more accurate minimally invasive surgery?

PURPOSE

Robotic assistance is considered one innovation within abdominal surgery over the past decade that has the potential to compensate for the drawbacks of conventional laparoscopy, such as limited degree of freedom, 2D vision, fulcrum, and pivoting effect. Robotic systems provide corresponding solutions as 3D view, intuitive motion and enable additional degrees of freedom. This review provides an overview of the history of medical robotics, experimental studies, clinical state-of-the-art and economic impact.

METHODS

The Medline database was searched for the terms "robot, telemanipulat, and laparoscop." A total of 2,573 references were found. All references were considered for information on robotic assistance in advanced laparoscopy. Further references were obtained through cross-referencing the bibliography cited in each work.

RESULTS

In experimental studies, current robotic systems showed superior handling and ergonomics compared to conventional laparoscopic techniques. In gynecology especially for hysterectomy and in urology especially for prostatectomy, two procedures formerly performed via an open approach, the robot enables a laparoscopic approach. This results in reduced need for pain medication, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay. Within abdominal surgery, clinical studies were generally unable to prove a benefit of the robot. While the benefit still remains open to discussion, robotic systems are spreading and are available worldwide in tertiary centers.

CONCLUSION

Robotic assistance will remain an intensively discussed subject since clinical benefits for most procedures have not yet been proven. The most promising procedures are those in which the robot enables a laparoscopic approach where open surgery is usually required.

Single incision versus conventional multi-incision appendicectomy for suspected appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Appendicectomy is a well established surgical procedure used in the management of acute appendicitis.  The operation can be performed with minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic) or as an open procedure. A recent development in appendicectomy has been the introduction of less invasive single incision laparoscopic surgery, using a single multi-luminal port or multiple mono-luminal ports, through a single skin incision. There are yet unanswered questions regarding the efficacy of this new and novel technique including: patient benefit and satisfaction, complications, long-term outcomes, and survival.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to perform meta-analysis using data from available trials comparing single incision with conventional multi-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendicitis, in order to ascertain any differences in outcome.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the electronic databases including MEDLINE/PubMed (from 1980 to December 2010), EMBASE/Ovid (from 1980 to December 2010) and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 11) with pre-specified terms. We also searched reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, conference proceedings and ongoing trial databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of patients with appendicitis, or symptoms of appendicitis, undergoing laparoscopic appendicectomy, in which at least one arm involves single incision procedures and another multi-incision procedures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

There were no RCTs or prospectively controlled trials found that met the inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Three authors performed study selection independently.No studies that met the inclusion criteria of this review were identified. Current evidence exists only the form of case-series.This review has been authored as 'empty' pending the results of 5 ongoing trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No RCTs comparing single incision laparoscopic appendectomy with multi-incision surgery could be identified. No definitive conclusions can be made at this time. Well designed prospective RCTs are required in order to evaluate benefit or harm from laparoscopic surgical approaches for appendicectomy. Until appropriate data has been reported, the institutional polices of healthcare providers must be based on the clinical judgement of experts in the field.

Major biliary complications in 2,714 cases of laparoscopic cholecystectomy without intraoperative cholangiography: a multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The ongoing debate between routine and selective users of intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has not yet come to an end. Routine users argue that IOC decreases the rate of biliary complications such as bile duct injury, biliary leak and missed common bile duct (CBD) stones, a claim that selective users do not fully support. On the other hand, a third policy that was adopted by many other centers is performing LC without IOC. In this retrospective study, we are exploring the results of a relatively large multicenter series of LC without IOC regarding major biliary complications.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of LC cases operated by experienced laparoscopic surgeons, without resorting to IOC, in four surgical units of university hospitals in Egypt during a 6-year period (January 2004 through December 2009). Excluded from the study were cases with positive predictors of CBD stones, namely, sonographically detected CBD dilatation and/or CBD stones, elevated bilirubin and/or alkaline phosphatase, persistent biliary pancreatitis, cholangitis, and those who had preoperative magnetic resonance cholangiography.

RESULTS

Of the 2,955 cases of LC reviewed, 241 were excluded, leaving 2,714 cases enrolled in the study. Fifty-five cases (2%) were converted to open surgery. Five cases (0.18%) had major bile duct injuries requiring surgical repair. Postoperative bile leakage was encountered in seven cases (0.26%). Missed CBD stones were reported in six cases (0.22%). There was no perioperative mortality in the present study.

CONCLUSION

LC can be performed safely without the use of IOC, with acceptable low rates of biliary complications provided that proper detection of patients with silent CBD stones is done and facilities for pre- and postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography are available.