Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review of available data. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2012;22:e190-e196. [PMID: 22874697 DOI: 10.1097/sle.0b013e318257000c]

Systematic Review of Utilized Ports in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Pushing the Boundaries

Introduction

Surgical procedures have undergone a paradigm shift in the last 3 decades, with minimally invasive surgery becoming standard of care for a number of surgeries, including the treatment of benign gallbladder diseases. By providing a thorough and impartial summary of the earlier published systematic reviews, the current systematic review is the first to present comparison results. This review illustrates the data of intraoperative and postoperative results of each laparoscopic cholecystectomy technique.

Materials and Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was meticulously followed to conduct the present systematic review. MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science were searched for eligible publications, and a total of 14 systematic reviews were included. A newly developed extraction table was utilized to obtain the predefined parameters from eligible systematic reviews, including operative time, conversion rate, estimated blood loss, bile leak, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, and cosmetic results. All statistical analyses were conducted using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software, version 26.0. The analysis of dichotomous results was summarized using relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), and continuous results were summarized using mean differences and 95% CIs. The proportions were compared using a single proportion z-test.

Results

The analysis of our primary and secondary outcomes revealed a statistically significant improvement in aesthetic results after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) in comparison to the multiport approach of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This, however, is accompanied by extended operative timing and subsequently, prolonged exposure to anesthesia.

Conclusion

Patients should be carefully selected for SILC to minimize technical difficulties and prevent complications both intraoperatively and shortly after the procedure. This trial is registered with CRD42023392037.

Prospective assessment of trocar-specific morbidity in laparoscopy

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the present study was to challenge the hypothetical advantage of single port laparoscopy (SPL) over conventional laparoscopy by measuring prospectively the morbidity specifically related to conventional trocar sites (TS).

METHODS

From November 2010 to December 2011, 300 patients undergoing various laparoscopic procedures were enrolled. Patient, surgery, and trocar characteristics were recorded. We evaluated at three time points (in-hospital and at 1 and 6 months postoperatively) specifically for each TS, pain (Visual Analog Scale), morbidity (infection, hematoma, hernia), and cosmesis (Patient Scar Assessment Score; PSAS). Patients designated their "worst TS," and a composite endpoint "bad TS" was defined to include any adverse outcome at a TS.

RESULTS

We analyzed 1,074 TS. Follow-up was >90 %. Pain scores of >3/10 at 1 and 6 months postoperatively, were reported by 3 and 1 % of patients at the 5 mm TS and by 9 and 1 % at the larger TS, respectively (5 mm TS vs larger TS; p = 0.001). Pain was significantly lower for TS located in the lower abdomen than for the upper abdomen or the umbilicus (p = 0.001). The overall complication rate was <1 % and significantly lower for the 5 mm TS (hematoma p = 0.046; infection p = 0.0001). No hernia was found. The overall PSAS score was low and significantly lower for the 5 mm TS (p = 0.0001). Significant predictors of "bad TS" were larger TS (p = 0.001), umbilical position (p = 0.0001), emergency surgery (p = 0.0001), accidental trocar exit (p = 0.022), fascia closure (p = 0.006), and specimen extraction site (p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Specific trocar morbidity is low and almost negligible for 5 mm trocars. The umbilicus appears to be an unfavorable TS.

Therapeutic advances: Single incision laparoscopic hepatopancreatobiliary surgery

Single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) is proposed to be a step towards minimizing the invasiveness of surgery, and has since gained popularity in several surgical sub-specialties including hepatopancreatobiliary surgery. SPLS has since been applied to cholecystectomy, liver resection as well as pancreatectomy for a multitude of pathologies. Benefits of SPLS over conventional multi-incision laparoscopic surgery include improved cosmesis and potentially post-operative pain at specific time periods and extra-umbilical sites. However, it is also associated with longer operating time, increased rate of complications, and increased rate of port-site hernia. There is no significant difference between length of hospital stay. SPLS has a significant learning curve that affects operating time, rate of conversion and rate of complications. In this article, we review the literature on SPLS in hepatobiliary surgery - cholecystectomy, hepatectomy and pancreatectomy, and offer tips on overcoming potential technical obstacles and minimizing the complications when performing SPLS - surgeon position, position of port and instruments, instrument crossing position, standard hand grip vs reverse hand grip, snooker cue guide position, prevention of incisional hernia. SPLS is a promising direction in laparoscopic surgery, and we recommend step-wise progression of applications of SPLS to various hepatopancreatobiliary surgeries to ensure safe adoption of the surgical technique.

Four-channel single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy using a snake retractor: comparison between 3- and 4-channel SILC 4-channel single incision cholecystectomy

Purpose

Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is a widely used method of performing cholecystectomy. A common technique used in SILC is a 3-channel method. However, exposure of Calot's triangle is limited in conventional 3-channel SILC. Therefore, we herein report the adequacy and feasibility of 4-channel SILC using a snake retractor.

Methods

Four hundred and fifteen SILC cases were performed between April 2010 and February 2013. We performed 326 SILC cases between April 2010 and September 2012 using the 3-channel method. We introduced a snake retractor for liver traction in October 2012, and 89 cases of 4-channel SILC using snake retractor have been performed since.

Results

Thirty patients (9.2%) in the 3-channel SILC group, and 23 patients (25.8%) in the 4-channel SILC group, were treated with percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage insertion because of acute inflammation of the gallbladder (GB) before operation (P < 0.001). The mean operating time was 53.0 ± 25.8 minutes in the 3-channel SILC group and 51.9 ± 18.6 minutes in the 4-channel SILC group (P = 0.709). In the 3-channel SILC group, mean hospital stay was 3.0 ± 3.3 days whereas it was 2.6 ± 0.9 days in the 4-channel SILC group (P = 0.043). There were a total 9 cases (2.1%) of additional port usages, 6 cases (1.8%) in the 3-channel SILC group and 3 cases (3.4%) in the 4-channel SILC group (P = 0.411), due to cystic artery bleeding and bile leakage from gallbladder bed, but there were no open conversions.

Conclusion

Benign diseases of the GB can be operated on using SILC with the 4-channel method using a snake retractor.

Single-port versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies

BACKGROUND

Although current guidelines recommend performing cholecystectomy via laparoscopy, consensus on the application of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for cholecystectomy is still lacking. The aim of the current study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized comparative studies (NRCSs), comparing single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) and conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CMLC) for benign gallbladder diseases.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies published between January 1997 and December 2012 comparing SPLC and CMLC. Operative outcomes, postoperative parameters, complications, cosmetic results, and quality of life were evaluated.

RESULTS

Forty studies were included in the analyses (16 RCTs, 24 NRCSs) that included 3711 patients (1865 SPLCs, 1846 CMLCs). SPLC had higher conversion rates (odds ratio [OR], 4.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.71-6.56; P<.001), longer operating time (mean difference [MD], 16.1; 95% CI, 9.93-22.26 minutes; P<.001), and shorter hospital stay (MD, 0.16; 95% CI, -0.28 to -0.04 day; P=.01) than CMLC. There were no significant differences between the two procedures for early (MD, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.44 to 0.24; P=.57) or late (MD, -0.13; 95% CI, -0.45 to 0.19; P=.42) visual analog scale pain scores and overall complications (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.92-1.61; P=.18). Cosmetic outcomes favored SILC at 2 weeks (MD, -1.39; 95% CI, -2.66 to -0.12; P=.03) and 1 month (MD, -0.13, 95% CI, -2.05 to 0.55; P=.0007) after surgery (index score, 0-10).

CONCLUSIONS

SPLC can be performed safely and effectively with better cosmetic results than with the CMLC technique for benign gallbladder diseases.

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.

A randomized clinical trial comparing 4-port, 3-port, and single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUNDS

Despite increasing trend in single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC), there is still controversy regarding its global acceptance as a routine practice. Our study aimed to compare surgical events, early in-hospital and later outcomes of SILC with conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

METHODS

Through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) between June and December 2011, 90 consecutive patients with documented biliary diseases waiting for LC were equally allocated to 3-port, 4-port, and single incision LC group. Operative time, surgical adverse events, postoperative pain according to visual analogue scale (VAS), total morphine administration, length of hospital stay, and cosmetic outcomes were compared between these three groups.

RESULTS

A total of 27 males (30%) and 63 females (70%) were enrolled in this study. The average patients' age and BMI were 42.6 ± 12.1 years and 26.2 ± 2.7 kg/m(2), respectively. Operative time in SILC group was significantly longer than other groups. Total intraoperative adverse events and postoperative complications did not differ significantly between the three groups. Mean ± SD VAS score at rest was significantly lower (p < 0.05) in SILC group. The average VAS at coughing was significantly lower in SILC group in all time intervals except the first 6 hr (p < 0.05). In addition, total morphine dose showed significantly lower amount in SILC group (p = 0.02). 12-month follow-up did not reveal significant difference between the study groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

SILC is associated with less postoperative pain in later hours, reduces in-hospital analgesic dosages, has longer procedure time, but does not increase intraoperative and postoperative adverse events It seems that SILC has no obvious advantages in terms of later outcomes.