Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Updates in Surgery 1/2023

07-10-2022 | Cholecystectomy | Review Article

Comparative outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic, mini-laparoscopic, four-port laparoscopic, three-port laparoscopic, and single-incision robotic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Authors: Haomin Lin, Jinchang Zhang, Xujia Li, Yuanquan Li, Song Su

Published in: Updates in Surgery | Issue 1/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Benign gallbladder diseases are common in surgery department, and the laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard procedure for benign diseases of gallbladder. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is conventionally performed using four laparoscopic ports. However, the clinical application of different LCs is equivocal and there is no comprehensive comparison to explore which surgical options could benefit patients with benign gallbladder diseases. A network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the efficacy of the different LCs could benefit patients with benign gallbladder diseases by comprehensive comparison. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochran Library. Totally, 17 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 1627) met study selection criteria and were incorporated in this NMA study. The first ranking probabilities of the five surgical options to alleviate postoperative pain scores were: 54.4% for single-incision robotic cholecystectomy (SIRC), 25.2% for single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SALC), and 24.9% for mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Mini). The first ranking probabilities for reducing postoperative complications in the surgical options were: 61.3% for three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and 21.8% for four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The first ranking probabilities for reducing hospital stay(days) in the surgical options were: 32.3% for SIRC, 29.0% for three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and 19.8% for four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The first ranking probabilities for reducing operation time showed that the three-port technique had the shortest operation time, followed by three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (51.3%), four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (26.8%), and mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy (21.6%). Our study found that the optimal surgical plan for different outcomes varies, making it difficult to give a comprehensive recommendation. Three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy may be the best options in terms of reducing surgical complications and operative time. Meanwhile, SIRC is the best options for relieving postoperative pain relief. SIRC and three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy can reduce hospital stay (days) compared other LCs.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Branch of Biliary Surgery, C.S.o.S.C.M.A. and S. 2022 Chinese Medical Doctor Association in Chinese Committee of Biliary, [Consensus on the surgical management of benign gallbladder diseases(2021 edition)]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 60(1): p. 4–9. Branch of Biliary Surgery, C.S.o.S.C.M.A. and S. 2022 Chinese Medical Doctor Association in Chinese Committee of Biliary, [Consensus on the surgical management of benign gallbladder diseases(2021 edition)]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 60(1): p. 4–9.
2.
go back to reference Yu MH et al (2020) Benign gallbladder diseases: Imaging techniques and tips for differentiating with malignant gallbladder diseases. World J Gastroenterol 26(22):2967–2986CrossRef Yu MH et al (2020) Benign gallbladder diseases: Imaging techniques and tips for differentiating with malignant gallbladder diseases. World J Gastroenterol 26(22):2967–2986CrossRef
3.
4.
go back to reference Gerard J et al (2018) Acute cholecystitis: comparing clinical outcomes with TG13 severity and intended laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy in difficult operative cases. Surg Endosc 32(9):3943–3948CrossRef Gerard J et al (2018) Acute cholecystitis: comparing clinical outcomes with TG13 severity and intended laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy in difficult operative cases. Surg Endosc 32(9):3943–3948CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Vaughan, J., K.S. Gurusamy, and B.R. Davidson 2013 Day-surgery versus overnight stay surgery for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (7): p. CD006798. Vaughan, J., K.S. Gurusamy, and B.R. Davidson 2013 Day-surgery versus overnight stay surgery for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (7): p. CD006798.
7.
go back to reference Hajibandeh S et al (2021) Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of three-port vs four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (level 1 evidence). Updates Surg 73(2):451–471CrossRef Hajibandeh S et al (2021) Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of three-port vs four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (level 1 evidence). Updates Surg 73(2):451–471CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Warsi A et al (2021) Mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: evolution of a new technique. BMC Surg 21(1):391CrossRef Warsi A et al (2021) Mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: evolution of a new technique. BMC Surg 21(1):391CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Sanford DE (2019) An update on technical aspects of cholecystectomy. Surg Clin North Am 99(2):245–258CrossRef Sanford DE (2019) An update on technical aspects of cholecystectomy. Surg Clin North Am 99(2):245–258CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Zarbaliyev E et al (2021) When should i use an additional port at the time of three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 32(6):668–674CrossRef Zarbaliyev E et al (2021) When should i use an additional port at the time of three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 32(6):668–674CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Melling N et al (2019) Robotic cholecystectomy: first experience with the new Senhance robotic system. J Robot Surg 13(3):495–500CrossRef Melling N et al (2019) Robotic cholecystectomy: first experience with the new Senhance robotic system. J Robot Surg 13(3):495–500CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Han C et al (2018) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 32(11):4377–4392CrossRef Han C et al (2018) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 32(11):4377–4392CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Tan X et al (2017) Minilaparoscopic versus single incision cholecystectomy for the treatment of cholecystolithiasis: a meta-analysis and systematic review. BMC Surg 17(1):91CrossRef Tan X et al (2017) Minilaparoscopic versus single incision cholecystectomy for the treatment of cholecystolithiasis: a meta-analysis and systematic review. BMC Surg 17(1):91CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Abd Ellatif ME et al (2013) Quality-of-life measures after single-access versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc 27(6):1896–1906CrossRef Abd Ellatif ME et al (2013) Quality-of-life measures after single-access versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc 27(6):1896–1906CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Jorgensen LN et al (2014) Randomized clinical trial of single- versus multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 101(4):347–355CrossRef Jorgensen LN et al (2014) Randomized clinical trial of single- versus multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 101(4):347–355CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Lirici MM et al (2011) Laparo-endoscopic single site cholecystectomy versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a pilot randomized trial. Am J Surg 202(1):45–52CrossRef Lirici MM et al (2011) Laparo-endoscopic single site cholecystectomy versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a pilot randomized trial. Am J Surg 202(1):45–52CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Lurje G et al (2015) Cosmesis and body image in patients undergoing single-port versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a multicenter double-blinded randomized controlled trial (SPOCC-trial). Ann Surg 262(5):728–734CrossRef Lurje G et al (2015) Cosmesis and body image in patients undergoing single-port versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a multicenter double-blinded randomized controlled trial (SPOCC-trial). Ann Surg 262(5):728–734CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Saad S, Strassel V, Sauerland S (2013) Randomized clinical trial of single-port, minilaparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 100(3):339–349CrossRef Saad S, Strassel V, Sauerland S (2013) Randomized clinical trial of single-port, minilaparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 100(3):339–349CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Sinan H et al (2012) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 22(1):12–16CrossRef Sinan H et al (2012) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 22(1):12–16CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Lee PC et al (2010) Randomized clinical trial of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 97(7):1007–1012CrossRef Lee PC et al (2010) Randomized clinical trial of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 97(7):1007–1012CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Dabbagh N et al (2015) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized clinical trial study. J Res Med Sci 20(12):1153–1159CrossRef Dabbagh N et al (2015) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized clinical trial study. J Res Med Sci 20(12):1153–1159CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Khorgami Z 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 et al (2014) A randomized clinical trial comparing 4-port, 3-port, and single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Invest Surg 27(3):147–154CrossRef
23.
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):358–362 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):358–362
24.
go back to reference Pietrabissa A et al (2016) Short-term outcomes of single-site robotic cholecystectomy versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Surg Endosc 30(7):3089–3097CrossRef Pietrabissa A et al (2016) Short-term outcomes of single-site robotic cholecystectomy versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Surg Endosc 30(7):3089–3097CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Kudsi OY et al (2017) Cosmesis, patient satisfaction, and quality of life after da Vinci Single-Site cholecystectomy and multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: short-term results from a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Surg Endosc 31(8):3242–3250CrossRef Kudsi OY et al (2017) Cosmesis, patient satisfaction, and quality of life after da Vinci Single-Site cholecystectomy and multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: short-term results from a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Surg Endosc 31(8):3242–3250CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Grochola LF et al (2019) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic single-incision cholecystectomy: results of a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 33(5):1482–1490CrossRef Grochola LF et al (2019) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic single-incision cholecystectomy: results of a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 33(5):1482–1490CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Ito E et al (2019) Quality of life after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized, clinical trial. Surgery 165(2):353–359CrossRef Ito E et al (2019) Quality of life after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized, clinical trial. Surgery 165(2):353–359CrossRef
28.
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
29.
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
30.
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 diference? 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 diference? Int J Clin Exp Med 9(6):11558–11565
31.
go back to reference Steiner CA et al (1994) Surgical rates and operative mortality for open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Maryland. N Engl J Med 330(6):403–408CrossRef Steiner CA et al (1994) Surgical rates and operative mortality for open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Maryland. N Engl J Med 330(6):403–408CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Gaillard M et al (2015) New minimally invasive approaches for cholecystectomy: review of literature. World J Gastrointest Surg 7(10):243–248CrossRef Gaillard M et al (2015) New minimally invasive approaches for cholecystectomy: review of literature. World J Gastrointest Surg 7(10):243–248CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Wang W, Sun X, Wei F (2021) Laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for single-incision cholecystectomy: an updated systematic review. Updates Surg 73(6):2039–2046CrossRef Wang W, Sun X, Wei F (2021) Laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for single-incision cholecystectomy: an updated systematic review. Updates Surg 73(6):2039–2046CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Pisanu A et al (2012) Meta-analysis of prospective randomized studies comparing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CMLC). J Gastrointest Surg 16(9):1790–1801CrossRef Pisanu A et al (2012) Meta-analysis of prospective randomized studies comparing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CMLC). J Gastrointest Surg 16(9):1790–1801CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Pucher PH et al (2018) Outcome trends and safety measures after 30 years of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and pooled data analysis. Surg Endosc 32(5):2175–2183CrossRef Pucher PH et al (2018) Outcome trends and safety measures after 30 years of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and pooled data analysis. Surg Endosc 32(5):2175–2183CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparative outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic, mini-laparoscopic, four-port laparoscopic, three-port laparoscopic, and single-incision robotic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Authors
Haomin Lin
Jinchang Zhang
Xujia Li
Yuanquan Li
Song Su
Publication date
07-10-2022
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Updates in Surgery / Issue 1/2023
Print ISSN: 2038-131X
Electronic ISSN: 2038-3312
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-022-01387-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

Updates in Surgery 1/2023 Go to the issue