Pregled bibliografske jedinice broj: 1091982
Single incision versus standard multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Up-dated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
Single incision versus standard multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Up-dated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials // The Surgeon, 12 (2014), 5; 271-289 doi:10.1016/j.surge.2014.01.009 (međunarodna recenzija, članak, znanstveni)
CROSBI ID: 1091982 Za ispravke kontaktirajte CROSBI podršku putem web obrasca
Naslov
Single incision versus standard multiport
laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Up-dated systematic
review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
Autori
Milas, Mate ; Deveđija, Sabina ; Trkulja, Vladimir
Izvornik
The Surgeon (1479-666X) 12
(2014), 5;
271-289
Vrsta, podvrsta i kategorija rada
Radovi u časopisima, članak, znanstveni
Ključne riječi
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy ; Single incision ; Multiport ; Meta-analysis
Sažetak
Abstract 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.
Izvorni jezik
Engleski
Znanstvena područja
Kliničke medicinske znanosti
POVEZANOST RADA
Ustanove:
Medicinski fakultet, Zagreb
Citiraj ovu publikaciju:
Časopis indeksira:
- Current Contents Connect (CCC)
- Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC)
- Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXP)
- SCI-EXP, SSCI i/ili A&HCI
- Scopus
- MEDLINE