Multi-incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Research Articles

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is responsible for increased adverse events: results of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Over the last decade, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) has gained popularity, although it is not evident if benefits of this procedure overcome the potential increased risk. Aim of the study is to compare the outcome of SLC with conventional multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) in a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials only. A systematic Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials literature search of articles on SLC and MLC for any indication was performed in June 2017. The main outcomes measured were overall adverse events, pain score (VAS), cosmetic results, quality of life, and incisional hernias. Linear regression was used to model the effect of each procedure on the different outcomes. Forty-six trials were included and data from 5141 participants were analysed; 2444 underwent SLC and 2697 MLC, respectively. Mortality reported was nil in both treatment groups. Overall adverse events were higher in the SLC group (RR 1.41; p < 0.001) compared to MLC group, as well severe adverse events (RR 2.06; p < 0.001) and even mild adverse events (RR 1.23; p = 0.041). This was confirmed also when only trials including 4-port techniques (RR 1.37, p = 0.004) or 3-port techniques were considered (RR 1.89, p = 0.020). The pain score showed a standardized mean difference (SMD) of - 0.36 (p < 0.001) in favour of SLC. Cosmetic outcome by time point scored a SMD of 1.49 (p < 0.001) in favour of SLC. Incisional hernias occurred more frequently (RR 2.97, p = 0.005) in the SLC group. Despite SLC offers a better cosmetic outcome and reduction of pain, the consistent higher rate of adverse events, both severe and mild, together with the higher rate of incisional hernias, should suggest to reconsider the application of single incision techniques when performing cholecystectomy with the existing technology.

Single-incision results in similar pain and quality of life scores compared with multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A blinded prospective randomized trial of 100 patients

Our objective was to compare hospital charges and both perioperative and mid-term quality of life between single- (SILC) and multi-incision (MILC) laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a randomized controlled trial. Patients with acute or chronic biliary disease were invited to participate. Pain scores, quality of life, and perioperative outcomes were measured. Patients were followed for 1 year postoperatively in the clinic with examination to document hernia formation. One hundred subjects were randomized to SILC (n = 49) or MILC (n = 51). Demographics weresimilar for both groups except more women underwent SILC (86% vs 67%, P = .026). Operative time was greater for SILC (63.5 ± 21.0 vs 43.8 ± 24.2 minute, P < .0001). Five SILC patients requiredadded ports. One substantial complication occurred in SILC. Pain, the use of analgesics, and durationof hospital stay were equal between groups; however, charges were greater in the SILC group ($17,602 ± $6,089 vs $13,342 ± $8,197, P < .0001). Both groups reported similar quality of life and cosmesis. At an average follow-up of SILC (16.4 ± 12.1 months) and MILC (16.2 ± 10.5 months), no novel umbilical hernias were identified. SILC results in longer operative time and greater hospital charges with similar pain and quality of life scores compared with a standard laparoscopic approach.

Is single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy safe? Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is gaining popularity. It is not evident whether the benefits of this procedure overcome the potential increased risk. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare SILC with conventional multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MILC). Data from randomized, controlled trials published up to December 2011 and comparing SILC versus MILC were extracted. The primary end point was overall morbidity. A fixed-effect model was applied to summarize the study outcomes in the meta-analysis, and a random-effect model was used in the sensitivity analysis. The outcome measures were relative risk (RR) and mean difference (MD); a RR of <1.0 or a negative MD indicated a more favorable outcome after SILC. Publication bias was assessed by a funnel plot, and heterogeneity was tested by the I (2) measure and subgroup analyses. A total of 12 trials (996 patients) were included. Mortality was nil in both treatment groups; the overall RR for morbidity was 1.36 (p = 0.098). The mean operating time was 47.2 min for MILC and 58.1 min for SILC (MD 9.47 min; p < 0.001). The visual analog scale pain score at 24 h after surgery was 2.96 in MILC and 2.34 in SILC (MD -0.64; p = 0.058), but sensitivity analysis of the four studies deemed at low risk of bias for pain assessment, according to blinding and postoperative analgesic protocols, showed significance at -0.43 points (95 % confidence interval -0.87 to 0.00; p = 0.049). Cosmetic outcome scored better in the SILC group, with its standardized MD being equal to 1.16 (95 % confidence interval 0.57 to 1.75; p < 0.001). In selected patients, SILC has similar overall morbidity compared with MILC; further, it results in better cosmetic satisfaction and reduced postoperative pain despite longer operative time.

From multi-incision to single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy step-by-step: One surgeon's self-taught experience and retrospective analysis

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is emerging as an alternative to standard four-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (4ILC). This study presents one surgeon's experience of SILC and a retrospective analysis of the data. Sixty-seven consecutive patients treated by a single surgeon and undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for benign gallbladder diseases were enrolled. LCs were attempted with conventional instruments as follows: 24 three-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomies (3ILC); 10 two-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomies (2ILC); and 33 SILC. The procedure conversion rate into the SILC, 2ILC, and 3ILC groups was 9.1%, 0%, and 8.3% respectively. Operative time was significantly longer with SILC (111.1±30.34 minutes) compared to 2ILC (79.1±15.74 minutes) and 3ILC (80.2±29.41 minutes) (p<0.01). Post-operative pethidine dosage was significantly lower in the 2ILC group (0.29±0.358 mg/kg) compared to the 3ILC group (1.02±0.802 mg/kg) (p<0.05). Length of hospital stay (LOS) was significantly shorter in the SILC group (2.52±0.566 days) compared to the 3ILC group (3.1±1.02 days) (p<0.05). There were no complications. SILC is a safe and feasible procedure that is comparable to multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MILC). We have introduced a recommended step-by-step training program. SILC needed longer operative time than MILC but has potential benefits in terms of LOS and post-operative pain.

Analysis of perioperative factors and cost comparison of single-incision and traditional multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Recent technological advances in single-incision platforms have allowed many general surgeons to add single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) to their armamentarium. However, adopting new surgical technologies comes at a cost to the patient and the surgeon. This study compared retrospective case-matched SILC and traditional multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MILC) to evaluate the effects of SILC on perioperative outcomes and patient cost. The study compared 50 patients who underwent SILC with a case-matched population of individuals who underwent traditional MILC. The SILC technique was performed using one of three commercially available single-incision platforms currently used for single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) cholecystectomies. All the SILS platforms were placed in a 2-cm supraumbilical incision. All statistical analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel 2008 for Macintosh, with statistical significance determined by a p value of 0.05 or less. The average operative time was 42 min for the SILC group and 45 min for the MILC group. The difference was not statistically significant. Similarly, the average estimated blood loss was 14 ml for the SILC group and 11 ml for the MILC group. Again, the difference was not statistically significant. Moreover, the body mass index (BMI) did not differ statistically between the SILC group (28.4 kg/m(2)) and the MILC group (32.2 kg/m(2)). The average patient cost was $18,447 for SILC and $17,701 for MILC, yielding a cost difference of $746. This difference was not statistically significant. At the authors' institution, SILS cholecystectomy was performed with blood loss, operating room time, and cost equal to that for MILC. Further research is necessary to assess the economic feasibility of SILC and the trade-off of cost with the improved cosmesis, decreased pain, greater patient satisfaction, reduced postoperative analgesic requirement, and faster return to work to determine the overall value and superiority of SILC compared with MILC.

Laparoendoscopic Single-site Cholecystectomy

Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery has emerged as a viable and widely applicable minimally invasive technique. Presented here are the steps necessary to perform LESS cholecystectomy using a readily available gelport device. To perform LESS cholecystectomy we make a 2 cm incision through the umbilicus until the fascia is identified. The fascia is opened 2 cm and a wound protector is inserted. Through the gelport we insert a 5 mm trocar with a balloon tip for the insufflation and three 5 mm trocars as working ports. Three of the trocars are placed in the lower third in a semilunar configuration before mounting the gelport onto the wound protector. A fourth trocar can then be placed at the superior aspect of the gelport. Intra-abdominal visualization is obtained with an articulating 5 mm laparoscope. At our institution 19 patients have undergone LESS cholecystectomy out of 20 attempts (5% conversion rate), with the first 15 patients undergoing a single skin incision, multifascial incision approach and the last 5 done using a gelport device and single fascial incision. One patient in the multifascial group required conversion to a dual incision laparoscopic cholecytectomy due to cystic duct bleeding. Overall, procedures averaged 81 minutes (range, 43 to 181 min), the average length of stay was <1 day (range, 0 to 2 d). To date, 1 patient developed a wound infection that responded to oral antibiosis (5% overall complication rate), and no hernias have developed with a mean follow-up of 9 months (range, 3 to 12 mo). The gelport may allow for the widespread use of this exciting technology even in nonspecialized centers because of the familiarity of minimally invasive surgeons with this device. The elasticity of this device seems to facilitate the use of 4 trocars, thus, replicating the "critical view" of the structures of the triangle of Calot seen in standard multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

The Learning Curve of Laparoendoscopic Single-Site (LESS) Cholecystectomy: Definable, Short, and Safe

The applications of laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery, including cholecystectomy, are occurring quickly, although little is generally known about issues associated with the learning curve of this new technique including operative time, conversion rates, and safety. We prospectively followed all patients undergoing LESS cholecystectomy, and compared operations undertaken at our institutions in cohorts of 25 patients with respect to operative times, conversion rates, and complications. One-hundred fifty patients of mean age 46 years underwent LESS cholecystectomy. No significant differences in operative times were demonstrable between any of the 25-patient cohorts operated on at our institution. A significant reduction in operative times (p < 0.001) after completion of 75 LESS procedures was, however, identified with the experience of a single surgeon. No significant reduction in the number of procedures requiring an additional trocar(s) or conversion to open operations was observed after completion of 25 LESS cholecystectomies. Complication rates were low, and not significantly different between any 25-patient cohorts. For surgeons proficient with multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the learning curve for LESS cholecystectomy begins near proficiency. Operative complications and conversions were infrequent and unchanged across successive 25-patient cohorts, and were similar to those reported for multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy after the learning curve.

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Using Conventional Instruments: Early Experience in Comparison with the Gold Standard

The aim of this pilot study was to describe our initial experience with single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) using conventional laparoscopic equipment in comparison with concurrent patients undergoing conventional multiincision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. During the 7-month study period, data from all consecutive patients undergoing SILC by two surgeons were retrospectively analyzed and compared with data from patients undergoing conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy by the same surgeons during the same time period. Outcomes measures included completion rate of attempted SILC, operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, and assessment of complications. From 51 laparoscopic cholecystectomies performed during the study period, 29 were attempted using single-incision technique and 22 were performed using the conventional four incisions. Of the attempted SILC cases, 14 (48%) were successfully completed, with the remainder requiring one to three additional skin incisions. There were no conversions to open in either group. Operative time was significantly longer in SILC cases compared with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (85 versus 67 minutes; p = 0.01). There was a tendency toward greater postoperative pain in the SILC group. No substantial difference in complications was identified. SILC using conventional laparoscopic instrumentation is an effective alternative to standard four-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy in selected patients. Development of a standardized technique and additional experience is needed for more consistent success. Additional studies of SILC are needed to demonstrate safety, define selection criteria, and determine any benefits over conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy.