Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Updates in Surgery 2/2021

01-04-2021 | Cholecystectomy | Original Article

Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of three-port vs four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (level 1 evidence)

Authors: Shahab Hajibandeh, David A. Finch, Ali Yasen Y. Mohamedahmed, Amir Iskandar, Gowtham Venkatesan, Shahin Hajibandeh, Thomas Satyadas

Published in: Updates in Surgery | Issue 2/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

To compare the outcomes of three-port and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In compliance with PRISMA statement standards, electronic databases were searched to identify all comparative studies investigating outcomes of three-port vs four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Two techniques were compared using direct comparison meta-analysis model. The risks of type 1 or type 2 error in the meta-analysis model were assessed using trial sequential analysis model. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE system. Random effects modelling was applied to calculate pooled outcome data. Analysis of 2524 patients from 17 studies showed that both techniques were comparable in terms of operative time (MD:− 0.13, P = 0.88), conversion to open operation (OR:0.80, P = 0.43), gallbladder perforation (OR: 1.43, P = 0.13), bleeding from gallbladder bed (OR:0.81, P = 0.34), bile duct injury (RD: 0.00, P = 0.97), iatrogenic visceral injury (RD: − 0.00, P = 0.81), bile or stone spillage (OR:1.67, P = 0.08), port site infection (OR: 0.90, P = 0.76), port site hernia (RD: 0.00, P = 0.89), port site haematoma (RD: − 0.01, P = 0.23), port site seroma (RD: 0.00, P = 1.00), and need for reoperation (RD: − 0.00, P = 0.94). However, the three-port technique was associated with lower VAS pain score at 12 h (MD: − 0.66, P < 0.00001) and 24 h (MD: − 0.54, P < 0.00001) postoperatively, shorter length of hospital stay (MD:-0.09, P = 0.41), and shorter time to return to normal activities (MD: − 0.79, P = 0.02). Trial sequential analysis confirmed that the meta-analysis was conclusive with no significant risks of type 1 or type 2 error. Robust evidence (level 1 with high certainty) suggests that in an elective setting with uncomplicated cholelithiasis as indication for cholecystectomy, three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy is comparable with the four-port technique in terms of procedural and morbidity outcomes and may be associated with less postoperative pain, shorter length of hospital stay and shorter time to return to normal activities.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Litynski GS (1999) Profiles in laparoscopy: Mouret, Dubois, and Perissat: the laparoscopic breakthrough in Europe (1987–1988). JSLS 3(2):163–167PubMedPubMedCentral Litynski GS (1999) Profiles in laparoscopy: Mouret, Dubois, and Perissat: the laparoscopic breakthrough in Europe (1987–1988). JSLS 3(2):163–167PubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath FA (2014) Meta-analysis of laparoscopic vs open cholecystectomy in elderly patients. World J Gastroenterol 20(46):17626–17634CrossRef Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath FA (2014) Meta-analysis of laparoscopic vs open cholecystectomy in elderly patients. World J Gastroenterol 20(46):17626–17634CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Coccolini F, Catena F, Pisano M, Gheza F, Fagiuoli S, Di Saverio S et al (2015) Open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 18:196–204CrossRef Coccolini F, Catena F, Pisano M, Gheza F, Fagiuoli S, Di Saverio S et al (2015) Open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 18:196–204CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Arezzo A, Passera R, Forcignanò E, Rapetti L, Cirocchi R, Morino M (2018) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is responsible for increased adverse events: results of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc 32(9):3739–3753CrossRef Arezzo A, Passera R, Forcignanò E, Rapetti L, Cirocchi R, Morino M (2018) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is responsible for increased adverse events: results of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc 32(9):3739–3753CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700CrossRef Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (eds) (2019) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester (UK) Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (eds) (2019) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester (UK)
7.
go back to reference Thorlund K, Engstrøm J, Wetterslev JG, Brok J, Imberger Gluud C (2011) User manual for trial sequential analysis (TSA). Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2011. . p. 1–115. Available at www.ctu.dk/tsa. Accessed 28 Nov 2020 Thorlund K, Engstrøm J, Wetterslev JG, Brok J, Imberger Gluud C (2011) User manual for trial sequential analysis (TSA). Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2011. . p. 1–115. Available at www.​ctu.​dk/​tsa. Accessed 28 Nov 2020
8.
go back to reference Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A (2013) GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Updated October 2013. The GRADE Working Group, 2013. Available at GRADE handbook (gradepro.org). Accessed 28 Nov 2020 Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A (2013) GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Updated October 2013. The GRADE Working Group, 2013. Available at GRADE handbook (gradepro.org). Accessed 28 Nov 2020
9.
go back to reference Higgins JPT, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane, 2020. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. Accessed 28 Nov 2020 Higgins JPT, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane, 2020. Available from www.​training.​cochrane.​org/​handbook. Accessed 28 Nov 2020
10.
go back to reference Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M et al (2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 355:i4919CrossRef Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M et al (2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 355:i4919CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Koirala R, Gurung T, Rajbhandari A, Rai P (2019) Three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Nepal Med Coll J 21(1):40–43CrossRef Koirala R, Gurung T, Rajbhandari A, Rai P (2019) Three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Nepal Med Coll J 21(1):40–43CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Mirza AA, Asif M, Sukh N, Saeed A, Jamil K, Zaidi AH (2017) Outcome of three ports versus four ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy in terms of mean operative time, hospital stay and pain. Ann Pak Inst Med Sci 13(2):169–172 Mirza AA, Asif M, Sukh N, Saeed A, Jamil K, Zaidi AH (2017) Outcome of three ports versus four ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy in terms of mean operative time, hospital stay and pain. Ann Pak Inst Med Sci 13(2):169–172
13.
go back to reference Shah SF, Waqar SH, Chaudry MA, Hameed S (2017) Three ports versus four ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy. RMJ 42(3):359–362 Shah SF, Waqar SH, Chaudry MA, Hameed S (2017) Three ports versus four ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy. RMJ 42(3):359–362
14.
go back to reference Sharma PK, Mehta KS (2017) Three port versus standard four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy—a prospective study. JK Sci 17(1):38–42 Sharma PK, Mehta KS (2017) Three port versus standard four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy—a prospective study. JK Sci 17(1):38–42
15.
go back to reference Khorgami Z, Shoar S, Anbara T, Soroush A, Nasiri S, Movafegh A et al (2014) A randomized clinical trial comparing 4-port, 3-port, and single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Invest Surg 27(3):147–154CrossRef Khorgami Z, Shoar S, Anbara T, Soroush A, Nasiri S, Movafegh A et al (2014) A randomized clinical trial comparing 4-port, 3-port, and single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Invest Surg 27(3):147–154CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Harsha HS, Gunjiganvi M, Singh C, Moirangthem GS (2013) A study of three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Med Soc 27:208–211CrossRef Harsha HS, Gunjiganvi M, Singh C, Moirangthem GS (2013) A study of three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Med Soc 27:208–211CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Mohamed AE, Zaazou MM (2020) Three-port versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study. Egypt J Surg 39:119–123CrossRef Mohamed AE, Zaazou MM (2020) Three-port versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study. Egypt J Surg 39:119–123CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Kumar M, Agrawal CS, Gupta RK (2007) Three-port versus standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled clinical trial in a community-based teaching hospital in eastern Nepal. JSLS 11(3):358–362PubMedPubMedCentral Kumar M, Agrawal CS, Gupta RK (2007) Three-port versus standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled clinical trial in a community-based teaching hospital in eastern Nepal. JSLS 11(3):358–362PubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Hashimoto D, Hirota M, Yagi Y, Baba H (2011) Umbilicus saving three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Webmed Cent Laparosc 2(4):WMC001882 Hashimoto D, Hirota M, Yagi Y, Baba H (2011) Umbilicus saving three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Webmed Cent Laparosc 2(4):WMC001882
20.
go back to reference Eroler E, Dilektasli E, Tihan D, Duman U, Bayam EM, Erol FM et al (2016) Reducing one port in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: does that really make a difference? Int J Clin Exp Med 9(6):11558–11565 Eroler E, Dilektasli E, Tihan D, Duman U, Bayam EM, Erol FM et al (2016) Reducing one port in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: does that really make a difference? Int J Clin Exp Med 9(6):11558–11565
21.
go back to reference Akay T, Örün S, Leblebici M (2019) Three-port versus standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a clinical trial. Laparosc Endosc Surg Sci 26(4):175–180 Akay T, Örün S, Leblebici M (2019) Three-port versus standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a clinical trial. Laparosc Endosc Surg Sci 26(4):175–180
22.
go back to reference Al-Azawi D, Houssein N, Rayis AB, McMahon D, Hehir DJ (2007) Three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute and chronic cholecystitis. BMC Surg 13(7):8CrossRef Al-Azawi D, Houssein N, Rayis AB, McMahon D, Hehir DJ (2007) Three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute and chronic cholecystitis. BMC Surg 13(7):8CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Bari S, Islam F, Rather A, Malik A (2019) Three port versus four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective comparative clinical study. Int J Res Med Sci 7(8):3054–3059CrossRef Bari S, Islam F, Rather A, Malik A (2019) Three port versus four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective comparative clinical study. Int J Res Med Sci 7(8):3054–3059CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Kumar A, Kumar D, Gupta P, Shakya JPS (2018) Three port versus four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study. Indian J Appl Res 8(10):18–20 Kumar A, Kumar D, Gupta P, Shakya JPS (2018) Three port versus four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study. Indian J Appl Res 8(10):18–20
25.
go back to reference Mayir B, Dogan U, Koc U, Aslaner A, Bılecık T, Ensarı CO et al (2014) Safety and effectiveness of three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Int J Clin Exp Med 7(8):2339–2342PubMedPubMedCentral Mayir B, Dogan U, Koc U, Aslaner A, Bılecık T, Ensarı CO et al (2014) Safety and effectiveness of three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Int J Clin Exp Med 7(8):2339–2342PubMedPubMedCentral
26.
go back to reference Reshie AA, Rather ZM, Bhat MY, Salroo NA, Majid AN, Ahmed MM (2015) Three port versus four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study. Int J of Adv Res 3:1040–1044 Reshie AA, Rather ZM, Bhat MY, Salroo NA, Majid AN, Ahmed MM (2015) Three port versus four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study. Int J of Adv Res 3:1040–1044
27.
go back to reference Wilkinson TRV, Mehrotra P, Bansod P, Akhtar M (2017) Three port versus four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy—a prospective study. Int J Med Res Rev 5(03):235–241CrossRef Wilkinson TRV, Mehrotra P, Bansod P, Akhtar M (2017) Three port versus four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy—a prospective study. Int J Med Res Rev 5(03):235–241CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Sun S, Yang K, Gao M, He X, Tian J, Ma B (2009) Three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. World J Surg 33(9):1904–1908CrossRef Sun S, Yang K, Gao M, He X, Tian J, Ma B (2009) Three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. World J Surg 33(9):1904–1908CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of three-port vs four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (level 1 evidence)
Authors
Shahab Hajibandeh
David A. Finch
Ali Yasen Y. Mohamedahmed
Amir Iskandar
Gowtham Venkatesan
Shahin Hajibandeh
Thomas Satyadas
Publication date
01-04-2021
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Updates in Surgery / Issue 2/2021
Print ISSN: 2038-131X
Electronic ISSN: 2038-3312
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-021-00982-z

Other articles of this Issue 2/2021

Updates in Surgery 2/2021 Go to the issue