Small-incision cholecystectomy (through a cylinder retractor) under local anaesthesia and sedation: a prospective observational study of five hundred consecutive cases

Randomized controlled trial of single incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy with long-term follow-up

Background

Within the last years, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) emerged as an alternative to multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC). SLC has advantages in cosmetic results, and postoperative pain seems lower. Overall complications are comparable between SLC and MLC. However, long-term results of randomized trials are lacking, notably to answer questions about incisional hernia rates, long-term cosmetic impact and chronic pain.

Methods

A randomized trial of SLC versus MLC with a total of 193 patients between December 2009 and June 2011 was performed. The primary endpoint was postoperative pain on the first day after surgery. Secondary endpoints were conversion rate, operative time, intraoperative and postoperative morbidity, technical feasibility and hospital stay. A long-term follow-up after surgery was added.

Results

Ninety-eight patients (50.8%) underwent SLC, and 95 patients (49.2%) had MLC. Pain on the first postoperative day showed no difference between the operative procedures (SLC vs. MLC, 3.4 ± 1.8 vs. 3.7 ± 1.9, respectively; p = 0.317). No significant differences were observed in operating time or the overall rate of postoperative complications (4.1% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.731). SLC exhibited better cosmetic results in the short term. In the long term, after a mean of 70.4 months, there were no differences in incisional hernia rate, cosmetic results or pain at the incision between the two groups.

Conclusions

Taking into account a follow-up rate of 68%, the early postoperative advantages of SLC in relation to cosmetic appearance and pain did not persist in the long term. In the present trial, there was no difference in incisional hernia rates between SLC and MLC, but the sample size is too small for a final conclusion regarding hernia rates.

Trial registration

German Registry of Clinical Trials DRKS00012447

Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional imaging during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the comparative outcomes of three-dimensional (3D) versus two-dimensional (2D) imaging during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of electronic information sources and bibliographic reference lists and applied a combination of free text and controlled vocabulary search adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators and limits. Procedure time, Calot's triangle dissection time, gallbladder removal time, gallbladder perforation, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative complications, conversion to open and intraoperative errors were the evaluated outcome parameters.

RESULTS

We identified 6 randomised controlled trials (RCT) reporting a total of 577 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy using 3D (n = 282) or 2D (n = 295) imaging. The 3D imaging was associated with significantly shorter procedure time (MD - 4.23, 95% CI - 8.14 to - 0.32, p = 0.03), Calot's triangle dissection time (MD - 4.19, 95% CI - 6.52 to - 1.86, p = 0.0004) and significantly lower risk of gallbladder perforation (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28-0.88, p = 0.02) compared to the 2D approach. No significant difference was found in gallbladder removal time (MD - 0.79, 95% CI - 2.24 to 0.66, p = 0.28), intraoperative bleeding (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.68-1.90, p = 0.61), postoperative complications (RD - 0.01, 95% CI - 0.06 to 0.05, p = 0.85), conversion to open (RD 0.00, 95% CI - 0.02 to 0.03, p = 0.70) or intraoperative errors (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79-1.17, p = 0.70) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although our findings suggest that the use of 3D imaging during laparoscopic cholecystectomy may be associated with significantly shorter procedure time, Calot's triangle dissection time and gallbladder injury compared to the 2D imaging, the differences seem to be clinically insignificant. Moreover, both approaches carry s similar risk of postoperative morbidities. The impact of the surgeon's level of experience and difficulty of the procedure on the outcomes of each imaging modality remains unknown.