Abstract

Abstract Background The four-port technique is currently considered the gold standard technique for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A three-port technique has been described but there is no consensus over the safety profile and efficacy of this technique compared to the four-port technique. Methods A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the three-port technique to the standard four-port technique in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign diseases of the gallbladder was performed. Two authors independently conducted an electronic database search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals. Results Eighteen trials were included which randomised 2085 participants. Length of hospital stay and postoperative analgesia requirement favoured the three-port group [(MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.43 – -0.16, p < 0.0001) and (SMD -0.68, 95% CI -1.03 – -0.33, p = 0.0001) respectively]. There were no differences in length of procedure and success rate between the two groups [(MD 0.90, 95% CI -3.78 – 5.58, p = 0.71) and (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.97 – 1.01, p = 0.17) respectively]. There were no differences in the rate of any measured adverse events. There were no mortalities in either group. The GRADE quality of evidence was low. Conclusions The three-port technique for laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be chosen by experienced surgeons who perform it regularly. However, the decision to use three ports should not be at the expense of safe dissection.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call