Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with uncomplicated gallbladder disease: a meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2012;22:487-497. [PMID: 23238374 DOI: 10.1097/sle.0b013e3182685d0a]

Suprapubic Cholecystectomy Improves Cosmetic Outcome Compared to Classic Cholecystectomy

Currently, cholecystectomy is performed laparoscopically. While the conventional approach (CA) with four access ports persists, other methods seek to reduce trauma or to optimize cosmetic results. In this study, the safety and cosmetic outcome of a suprapubic approach (SA) were evaluated. Between 2015 and 2016, patients undergoing elective cholecystectomy either by CA or by a suprapubic approach (SA) at our institution were included. The cosmetic outcome, postoperative morbidity, operative time and length of stay were evaluated. Pictures of the site of intervention were taken 6−12 months postoperatively and rated on a scale from 1 (unsatisfying aesthetic result) to 5 (excellent aesthetic result). Five “non-medical” and five “medical” raters as well as one board-certified plastic surgeon performed the ratings. A total of 70 patients were included (n = 28 SA, n = 42 CA). The two groups did not differ in baseline characteristics (age, gender, BMI). The SA group showed a significantly better aesthetic outcome compared to the CA group 4.8 (4.8−4.9) vs. 4.2 (3.8−4.4), (p > 0.001). Medical raters: 4.0 (3.8−4.2) vs. 4.8 (4.6−5.0), (p < 0.001); non-medical raters: 4.2 (3.8−4.6) vs. 5.0 (4.8−5.0), (p < 0.001); plastic surgeon: 4.0 (4.0−4.0) vs. 5.0 (5.0−5.0), (p < 0.001). Fair interrater consistency was demonstrated with an ICC of 0.47 (95% CI = 0.38−0.57). No significant difference in the complication rate (1 (3.5%) in SA vs. 6 (14%) in CA, (p = 0.3)), or the operating time 66 (50−86) vs. 70 (65−82) min, (p = 0.3), were observed. Patients stayed for a median of three (3−3) days in the SA group and 3 (3−4) days in the CA group (p = 0.08). This study demonstrated that the suprapubic approach is an appropriate alternative to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy, presenting a better cosmetic outcome with a similar complication rate.

Minimally Invasive Cholecystectomy: Transvaginal or Transabdominal Approach-Which Technique Is Preferred by Female Hospital Employees?

Background: Evidence is lacking concerning a clear benefit of single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and transvaginal cholecystectomy (TVC) over the classical laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). In this study, we investigated the preferences of the operation techniques among female employees in a tertiary university clinic. Materials and Methods: Study participants in the department of general surgery and gynecology were interviewed regarding their personal felt preferences for the mentioned procedures using a standardized illustrated questionnaire. Results: A total of 111 participants were included in the study. In 70.3% of cases, the transvaginal approach was unknown. The classical techniques were preferred in 95.2% of respondents. Participants with a wish for children showed a higher preference for nontransvaginal techniques (P = .011). The acceptance rate of transvaginal techniques among employees of the department of gynecology was higher than those of the department of general surgery (P = .028). Conclusions: The overall acceptance rate for TVC is low. Especially in case of a wish for children, SILC and CLC represent the preferred techniques. The lack of popularity of TVC could be an explanation for the refusal of this technique. Among employees of the gynecologic department, a transvaginal approach was significantly more often accepted. The cosmetic outcome and the knowledge about an operation technique certainly influence the decision making for the preferred surgical method.

Single-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Assisted with Neodymium Magnets: Initial Prospective Experience with 60 Cases

Introduction: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard performed by the majority of surgeons worldwide, and the use of single-port cholecystectomy remains a matter of debate. Single-port magnetic-assisted cholecystectomy (SPMAC) was described as an alternative because of its ability for proper triangulation and the advantage of reducing port surgery. The objective of this study is to describe the initial experience of SPMAC and evaluate the surgical learning curve. Materials and Methods: A prospective cohort was conducted between February 2017 and August 2018; 60 patients completed the inclusion criteria. Variables analyzed were gender, age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) classification, operative time, hospital stay, intraoperative bleeding, and conversion rate. Postoperative pain was measured with a visual analogue scale (VAS). Aesthetic perception was measured by the cosmetic visual analogue scale (CVAS). The postoperative complications were graded according to Clavien-Dindo classification, and the cumulative sum (CUSUM) model was used for evaluating the learning curve. Results: The mean operatory time was 56.1 minutes. With regard to the postoperative pain variable, the VAS value was 2 out of 10 in 78.33% of patients. With regard to aesthetic satisfaction, CVAS was reported to be 10 out of 10 in 96.67% of patients. Conversion rate was 0%. The learning curve of operative time was reached at the 22nd patient, according to the CUSUM chart. Conclusions: SPMAC is feasible and effective; in our consideration, an acceptable learning curve considering benign gallbladder pathology is one of the most prevalent in general surgery. Further comparative studies with conventional LC and SPMAC need to be performed to conduct a proper comparison.

A promising technique for easier single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: needle grasper traction of gallbladder

Introduction

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the primary treatment method for benign gallbladder diseases. Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) was reported to be superior in terms of work return, cosmetic results, and post-operative pain, but limited maneuver capacity and overlapping of hand tools are technical difficulties associated with SILC that endanger patient safety.

Aim

To perform SILC using a needle grasper for gallbladder traction, thus simplifying the dissection of Calot's triangle.

Material and methods

The files of patients who underwent elective LC for gallbladder stone and polyps in general surgery clinics between December 2013 and December 2014 were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups: needle-grasper-assisted SILC (nSILC) and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). Age, gender, height, weight, body mass index, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, ASA score, duration of operation, duration of post-operative hospital stay, complications, drain use, conversion to open and conventional technique, and oral feeding beginning time were analyzed.

Results

There were no per-operative or post-operative complications in either of the groups, and no significant differences were found between the groups in terms of complications. The mean duration of the operation was significantly longer in the nSILC group. There was no difference between the groups in terms of hospital stay. The mean visual analogue scale (VAS) scores in conventional nSILC were significantly lower for all hours. The patient satisfaction in terms of cosmetic results was better in the nSILC group.

Conclusions

Needle-grasper-assisted SILC reduces the number of tools that need to be held by surgeons; it also provides safe dissection, better cosmetic results, and less post-operative pain in elective cases.

Comparison of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy versus Needlescopic Cholecystectomy: A Single Institutional Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Both single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and needlescopic cholecystectomy (NSC) are superior to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in terms of cosmetic outcome and incisional pain. We conducted a prospective, randomized clinical trial to evaluate the surgical outcome, postoperative pain, and cosmetic outcome for SILC and NSC procedures.

METHODS

In this trial, 105 patients were enrolled (52 in the SILC group; 53 in the NSC group). A visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the cosmetic outcome and incisional pain for patients. Logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the operative difficulty that was present for both procedures.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in patient characteristics or surgical outcomes, including operative time and blood loss. The mean VAS scores for cosmetic satisfaction were similar in both groups. There were significant differences in the mean VAS scores for incisional pain on postoperative day 1 (p = 0.009), and analgesics were required within 12 h of surgery (p = 0.007). Obesity (body mass index ≥25 kg/m2) was the only significant influential factor for operating time over 100 min (p = 0.031).

CONCLUSION

NSC is superior to SILC in terms of short-term incisional pain. Experienced laparoscopic surgeons can perform both SILC and NSC without an increase in operative time.

Outcomes in laparoscopic cholecystectomy by single incision with SPIDER surgical system are comparable to conventional multiport technique: one surgeon's experience

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy has emerged as an alternative to conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Technical difficulty, prolonged surgical times and increased complication rates have been reported in single-incision laparoscopic surgery. One of the concerns is lack of triangulation of instruments. The SPIDER^® surgical system is a single-incision laparoscopic device that utilizes flexible instruments with the purpose of achieving adequate triangulation. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of SPIDER versus LC.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent LC and SPIDER cholecystectomy by a single surgeon during a concurrent 44-month period at Baptist Health South Florida hospitals was performed focusing on demographics, indication for surgery, complications and incisional hernia rates. Exclusion criteria were concomitant surgery and hernia repair at the time of surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 612 patients underwent minimally invasive cholecystectomy: 279 cases for SPIDER cholecystectomy and 333 for multiport LC. Baseline differences in patient characteristics between the SPIDER and LC groups were statistically significant. The SPIDER group had younger and healthier patients (lower ASA classification scores) with predominant diagnosis of cholelithiasis (69 %) compared to the LC group which had more complex cases. Total complications rate for both SPIDER and LC were 0.4 % (n = 1) and 3 % (n = 10), respectively. Conversion to open cholecystectomy occurred in one patient from the LC group (0.3 %). Conversion rate from SPIDER to additional ports or LC was performed in 5 cases (1.8 %) with no conversions to open surgery. Hemoperitoneum was reported in 2 cases, one for each approach, requiring reoperation.

CONCLUSION

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with SPIDER is a safe and feasible technique with similar outcomes to multiport LC. However, statistical significant difference was reported in baseline characteristics of both groups. No incisional hernias were reported in this case series for either technique.

Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Less scar, less pain

CONTEXT AND AIMS:

Our study aims to evaluate the post-operative pain and cosmesis of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) in comparison with the standard, 3-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) with respect to the length of incision, cosmetic scores, post-operative pain scores and duration of hospital stay.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN:

This comparative randomised study was conducted in a tertiary care centre teaching hospital between September 2012 and 2014. One hundred and fifty consecutive patients, who qualified as per inclusion criteria, were included in the study.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS:

Seventy-five patients were included in the SLC arm and 75 in the SILC arm. SILC procedure was carried out as transumbilical multiport technique and SLC as 3-port technique utilizing - 5, 5, 10 mm ports.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED:

The data for the primary observations (post-operative pain scores, cosmetic score and incision length) and secondary observation (post-operative hospital stay) were noted. Weighted mean difference was used for calculation of quantitative variables, and odds ratios were used for pooling qualitative variables.

RESULTS:

Pain scores at 4 and 24 h were significantly better for SILC arm than SLC arm (at 4 h - 4.84 ± 0.95 vs. 6.17 ± 0.98, P < 0.05 and at 24 h - 3.84 ± 0.96 vs. 5.17 ± 0.09, P < 0.05). Length of incision was significantly smaller (SILC - 2.631 ± 0.44 cm vs. SLC - 5.11 ± 0.44 cm), P < 0.05 and cosmetic score was significantly better in SILC arm (6.25 ± 1.24) than SLC arm (4.71 ± 1.04), P < 0.05. Difference between the hospital stay is insignificant for two arms SILC (2.12 ± 0.34) and SLC (2.13 ± 0.35), P > 0.05.

DISCUSSION:

Significant difference was found in duration and intensity of pain between two procedures at 4 and 24 h. Cosmesis was significantly better in SILC than SLC group, the sample size in our study was small to arrive at a definite conclusion. The procedure can be selectively and judiciously performed by surgeons trained in regular laparoscopic surgery. Furthermore, the threshold for conversion should be low in learning phase. Widespread application must await Level 1 evidence from prospective trials.

New minimally invasive approaches for cholecystectomy: Review of literature

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the most commonly performed abdominal intervention in Western countries. In an attempt to reduce the invasiveness of the procedure, surgeons have developed single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC), minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). The aim of this review was to determine the role of these new minimally invasive approaches for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the treatment of gallstone related disease. Current literature remains insufficient for the correct assessment of emerging techniques for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. None of these procedures has demonstrated clear benefits over conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. SILC cannot be currently recommended as it can be associated with an increased risk of bile duct injury and incisional hernia incidence. NOTES cholecystectomy is still experimental, although hybrid transvaginal cholecystectomy is gaining popularity in clinical practice. As it is standardized and almost identical to the standard laparoscopic technique, MLC could lead to limited benefits without exposing patients to increased postoperative complications, being therefore adoptable for routine elective cholecystectomy. Technical challenges of SILC and NOTES cholecystectomy could be addressed with the evolution of new surgical tools that need to catch up with the innovative minds of surgeons. Regardless the place of these approaches in the future, robotization may be necessary to impose them as standard treatment.

The early outcome of single-incision versus multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background:

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is a newly developed method of performing cholecystectomy and has been increasingly used. The aim of this study is to see if SILC has any advantages over conventional (three-port) laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC).

Materials and Methods:

In this cross-sectional study, 52 patients who underwent SILC (group A) during the period from May 2011 to March 2013 were compared with 62 patients who underwent CLC (group B) at two centers affiliated to Shiraz University of Medical Sciences in Shiraz, Iran. Data were gathered on operation time, pre- and postoperative complications, patients’ postoperative pain, pain reliever use, duration of hospital stay, and return to work, and these data were compared using SPSS software version 16.

Results:

The mean age of patients was 38.01 ± 13.24 in group A and 44.82 ± 15.11 in group B. Mean body mass index (BMI) was 23.97 ± 4.78 and 26.22 ± 4.67 in groups A and B, respectively. The mean operation time was 76.4 ± 29.0 min in group A and 72.9 ± 24.1 min in group B (P = 0.496). Preoperative complications were 3.8% in group A and 0 in group B (P = 0.206). Postoperative complications were 17.3% in group A and 11.3% in group B (P = 0.423). The mean for early postoperative pain revealed no significant difference (P = 0.814), but the mean pain on discharge was significantly higher in group A patients (P = 0.034). Regarding the mean admission time and return to normal activity, we found no significant differences.

Conclusion:

SILC does not have any special advantages over CLC with regard to surgical outcomes, but it can be a safe alternative to CLC, especially in patients concerned about cosmoses.

Extraumbilical single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with standard laparoscopic instruments

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is a rapidly progressing field as it combines some advantages such as cosmesis and less incisional pain. However, it also has some disadvantages such as limitation of movement and clashing of the hand instruments, which increase the complexity and technical challenges of the operation. In this study, we describe a pilot trial of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy through a paramedian access site.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 25 patients underwent single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with this method. Acute cases with empyema and patients with history of previous abdominal surgery were excluded. Single-incision is established on the right upper quadrant, right latero-superior of the umbilicus, so that trocar sites and projection of the gallbladder on the abdominal wall are on the same vertical line. Standard laparoscopic instruments were placed into the abdominal cavity providing triangulation. Once the laparoscope, grasper, and dissector are in place, the overall procedures are similar to the standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

RESULTS

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy through an extraumbilical access site was successfully completed in all 25 patients without conversion to open surgery. Additional skin incisions and trocar access were required only in two patients. The mean operative time was 39.3 min (range: 20-75 min). The mean body mass index was 27.2. Postoperative course was uneventful in all patients. The mean postoperative hospital stay was shorter than 24 h, and all patients were discharged at first day postoperatively. No postoperative complications including seroma, wound infection, and trocar-site hernia were observed at 6-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

We described a new access site for single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy using standard laparoscopic instruments. We believe that this type of access site overcomes the technical difficulties of performing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and it is a promising alternative method for the treatment of patients with symptomatic gallstone disease as a minimal invasive abdominal surgery.

Single port laparoscopy in gastroenterology and hepatology: A fine step forward

Single incision laparoscopy (SIL) has become an emerging technology aiming at a further reduction of abdominal wall trauma in minimally invasive surgery. Available data is encouraging for the safe application of standardized SIL in a wide range of procedures in gastroenterology and hepatology. Compared to technically simple SIL procedures, the merit of SIL in advanced surgeries, such as liver or colorectal interventions, compared to conventional laparsocopy is self-evident without any doubt. SIL has already passed the learning curve and is routinely utilized in expert centers. This minimized approach has allowed to enter a new era of surgical management that can not be acceded without a fruitful combination of prudent training, consistent day-to-day work and enthusiastic motivation for technical innovations. Both, basic and novel technical specifics as well as particular procedures are described herein. The focus is on the most important surgical interventions in gastroenterology and aims at reviewing the current literature and shares our experience in a high volume center.

Single incision versus standard multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: up-dated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We aimed to compare single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) to the standard multiport technique (MLC) for clinically relevant outcomes in adults.

METHODS

Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of randomized trials.

RESULTS

We identified 30 trials (SILC N = 1209, MLC N = 1202) mostly of moderate to low quality. Operating time (30 trials): longer with SILC (WMD = 12.4 min, 95% CI 9.3, 15.5; p < 0.001), but difference reduced with experience - in 10 large trials (1321 patients) WMD = 5.9 (-1.3, 13.1; p = 0.105). Intra-operative blood loss (12 trials, 1201 patients): greater with SILC, but difference practically irrelevant (WMD = 1.29 mL, 0.24-2.35; p = 0.017). Procedure failure (27 trials, 2277 patients): more common with SILC (OR = 13.9, 4.34-44.7; p < 0.001), but overall infrequent (SILC pooled incidence 4.39%) and almost exclusively addition of a trocar. Post-operative pain (29 trials) and hospital stay (22 trials): no difference. Complications (30 trials): infrequent (SILC pooled incidence 5.35%) with no overall SILC vs. MLC difference. Incisional hernia (19 trials, 1676 patients): very rare (15 vs. 4 cases), but odds significantly higher with SILC (OR = 4.94, 1.26-19.4; p = 0.025). Cosmetic satisfaction (16 trials, 11 with data at 1-3 months): in 5 trials with non-blinded patients (N = 513) in favour of SILC (SMD = 1.83, 0.13, 3.52; p = 0.037), but in 6 trials with blinded patients (N = 719) difference small and insignificant (SMD = 0.42, -1.12, 1.96; p = 0.548).

DISCUSSION

SILC outcomes largely depend on surgeon's skill, but regardless of it, when compared to MLC, SILC requires somewhat longer operating time, risk of incisional hernia is higher (but overall very low) and early cosmetic benefit is modest.

CONCLUSION

From the (in)convenience and safety standpoint, SILC is an acceptable alternative to MLC with a modest cosmetic benefit.

A prospective, randomized, controlled, trial comparing occult-scar incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and classic three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to evaluate the outcome of laparoscopic cholecystectomy by comparing a new technique using occult-scar incision for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (OSLC) with classic three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). In the occult-scar incision, we moved the subcostal and subxiphoid trocar insertion sites to the suprapubic area so that operative scars were hidden in the pubic hairs and below umbilicus.

METHODS

Between July 2009 and 2012, patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized to the OSLC or CLC approach after obtaining informed consent. Outcome was measured by operative time, operative complications, hospital length of stay, cost, analgesia required after surgery, and cosmetic outcomes. The patient satisfaction score (PSS) and visual analog score (VAS) also were used to evaluated the level of cosmetic result and postoperative pain.

RESULTS

A total of 75 patients were randomized into CLC (n = 35) and OSLC (n = 40) groups. No patient was converted to an open procedure in either the CLC or OSLC group. No operative complications were reported within 30 days in either group. The PSS of 7 and 30 days after surgery were both significantly higher in the OSLC group than in the CLC group (5.8 ± 1.5 vs. 8.0 ± 1.1, P = 0.03; 6.5 ± 1.2 vs. 9.2 ± 0.8, P = 0.02). The VAS for pain was significantly lower in the OSLC group on postoperative day 3 compared with the CLC group (2.6 ± 1.2 vs. 6.3 ± 0.9, P = 0.01). There was no significant difference in operative time, hospital stay, and cost between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The OSLC is a safe and feasible alternative compared with CLC in experienced hands, and it is superior for outcomes regarding pain control and cosmesis.

Patient scar assessment after single-incision versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: long-term follow-up from a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The single-incision laparoscopic approach for cholecystectomy has been reported to be cosmetically superior in the traditional four-port technique in several case series; however, prospective comparative data are lacking. We conducted a 60-patient, prospective, randomized trial comparing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with standard four-port cholecystectomy, including validated scar assessment evaluation around 6 weeks and 18 months after the operation in an effort to determine if a cosmetic advantage existed.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients over 12 years of age and parents of patients under 12 years of age enrolled in the trial were asked to complete the validated Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire (PSAQ). The PSAQ consists of four subscales: Appearance, Consciousness, Satisfaction with Appearance, and Satisfaction with Symptoms. The Symptoms subscale is omitted from analysis per PSAQ instructions because of insufficient reliability. Each subscale is a set of items with 4-point categorical responses (from 1=most favorable to 4=least favorable). The sum of the questions quantifies each subscale. Data are expressed as mean±standard deviation values.

RESULTS

Eighteen single-site patients and 8 four-port patients completed early questionnaires, in which there was no difference in overall scar assessment (P=.17). Telephone follow-up was accomplished for 17 single-site patients and 24 four-port patients and revealed that the overall scar assessment significantly favored the single-site approach (P=.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients or parents of patients do not identify an overall superior scar assessment at early follow-up after single-site laparoscopic versus four-port cholecystectomy. However, they do perceive a superior scar assessment at long-term follow-up, suggesting that there is a cosmetic benefit favoring the single-site approach.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.