Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy 12/2008

01.12.2008 | Review

Is smaller necessarily better? A systematic review comparing the effects of minilaparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy on patient outcomes

verfasst von: Rory McCloy, Delia Randall, Stephan A. Schug, Henrik Kehlet, Christian Simanski, Francis Bonnet, Frederic Camu, Barrie Fischer, Girish Joshi, Narinder Rawal, Edmund A. M. Neugebauer

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 12/2008

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

In recent years, minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC; total size of trocar incision <25 mm) has been increasingly advocated for the removal of the gallbladder, due to potentially better surgical outcomes (e.g., better cosmetic result, reduced pain, shorter hospital stay, quicker return to activity), but an evidence-based approach has been lacking. The current systematic review was undertaken to evaluate the importance of total size of trocar incision in improving surgical outcomes in adult laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

Methods

The literature was systematically reviewed using MEDLINE and EmBASE. Only randomized controlled trials in English, investigating minilaparoscopic versus conventional LC (total size of trocar incision ≥25 mm) and reporting pain scores were included. Quantitative analyses (meta-analyses) were performed on postoperative pain scores and other patient outcomes from more than one study where feasible and appropriate. Qualitative analyses consisted of assessing the number of studies showing a significant difference between the techniques.

Results

Thirteen trials met the inclusion criteria. There was a trend towards reduced pain with MLC compared with conventional LC, without reduction in opioid use. Patients in the MLC group had slightly reduced length of hospital stay, but there were no significant differences for return to activity. The two interventions were also similar in terms of operating times and adverse events, but MLC was associated with better cosmetic result (largely patient rated). There was a significantly greater likelihood of conversion to conventional LC or to open cholecystectomy in the MLC group than there was of conversion to open cholecystectomy in the conventional LC group [OR 4.71 (95% confidence interval 2.67–8.31), p < 0.00001].

Conclusions

The data included in this review suggest that reducing the size of trocar incision results in some limited improvements in surgical outcomes after LC. However, it carries a higher risk of conversion to conventional LC or open cholecystectomy.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Novitsky YW, Kercher KW, Czerniach DR, Kaban GK, Khera S, Gallagher-Dorval KA, Callery MP, Litwin DE, Kelly JJ (2005) Advantages of mini-laparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg 140:1178–1183PubMedCrossRef Novitsky YW, Kercher KW, Czerniach DR, Kaban GK, Khera S, Gallagher-Dorval KA, Callery MP, Litwin DE, Kelly JJ (2005) Advantages of mini-laparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg 140:1178–1183PubMedCrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Gupta A, Shrivastava UK, Kumar P, Burman D (2005) Minilaparoscopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised controlled trial. Trop Gastroenterol 26:149–151PubMed Gupta A, Shrivastava UK, Kumar P, Burman D (2005) Minilaparoscopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised controlled trial. Trop Gastroenterol 26:149–151PubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Rosenberg J, Kehlet H (2001) Characteristics and prediction of early pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Pain 90:261–269PubMedCrossRef Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Rosenberg J, Kehlet H (2001) Characteristics and prediction of early pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Pain 90:261–269PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Yuan RH, Lee WJ, Yu SC (1997) Mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a cosmetically better, almost scarless procedure. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 7:205–211PubMed Yuan RH, Lee WJ, Yu SC (1997) Mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a cosmetically better, almost scarless procedure. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 7:205–211PubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Kimura T, Sakuramachi S, Yoshida M, Kobayashi T, Takeuchi Y (1998) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using fine-caliber instruments. Surg Endosc 12:283–286PubMedCrossRef Kimura T, Sakuramachi S, Yoshida M, Kobayashi T, Takeuchi Y (1998) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using fine-caliber instruments. Surg Endosc 12:283–286PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Ngoi SS, Goh P, Kok K, Kum CK, Cheah WK (1999) Needlescopic or minisite cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 13:303–305PubMedCrossRef Ngoi SS, Goh P, Kok K, Kum CK, Cheah WK (1999) Needlescopic or minisite cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 13:303–305PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Reardon PR, Kamelgard JI, Applebaum BA, Brunicardi FC (1999) Mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: validating a new approach. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 9:227–232 discussion 232–233PubMedCrossRef Reardon PR, Kamelgard JI, Applebaum BA, Brunicardi FC (1999) Mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: validating a new approach. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 9:227–232 discussion 232–233PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Unger SW, Paramo JC, Perez M (2000) Microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Less invasive gallbladder surgery. Surg Endosc 14:336–339PubMedCrossRef Unger SW, Paramo JC, Perez M (2000) Microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Less invasive gallbladder surgery. Surg Endosc 14:336–339PubMedCrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Fischer HB, Simanski CJ (2005) A procedure-specific systematic review and consensus recommendations for analgesia after total hip replacement. Anaesthesia 60:1189–1202PubMedCrossRef Fischer HB, Simanski CJ (2005) A procedure-specific systematic review and consensus recommendations for analgesia after total hip replacement. Anaesthesia 60:1189–1202PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Kehlet H, Wilkinson RC, Fischer HB, Camu F; on behalf of the PROSPECT Working Group (2007) PROSPECT: evidence-based, procedure-specific postoperative pain management. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 21:149–159 Kehlet H, Wilkinson RC, Fischer HB, Camu F; on behalf of the PROSPECT Working Group (2007) PROSPECT: evidence-based, procedure-specific postoperative pain management. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 21:149–159
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Neugebauer EA, Wilkinson RC, Kehlet H, Schug SA; on behalf of the PROSPECT Working Group (2007) PROSPECT: a practical method for formulating evidence-based expert recommendations for the management of postoperative pain. Surg Endosc 21:1047–1053 Neugebauer EA, Wilkinson RC, Kehlet H, Schug SA; on behalf of the PROSPECT Working Group (2007) PROSPECT: a practical method for formulating evidence-based expert recommendations for the management of postoperative pain. Surg Endosc 21:1047–1053
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Jadad AR, Moore A, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay H (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1–12PubMedCrossRef Jadad AR, Moore A, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay H (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1–12PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D; CONSORT Group (2005) The CONSORT Statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials 2001. Explore (NY) 1:40–45 Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D; CONSORT Group (2005) The CONSORT Statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials 2001. Explore (NY) 1:40–45
14.
Zurück zum Zitat The Cochrane Collaboration (2003) RevMan Analyses [Computer program]. Version 1.0 for Windows. In: Review Manager (RevMan) 4.2. Oxford, England The Cochrane Collaboration (2003) RevMan Analyses [Computer program]. Version 1.0 for Windows. In: Review Manager (RevMan) 4.2. Oxford, England
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Ainslie WG, Catton JA, Davides D, Dexter S, Gibson J, Larvin M, McMahon MJ, Moore M, Smith S, Vezakis A (2003) Micropuncture cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 175:766–772CrossRef Ainslie WG, Catton JA, Davides D, Dexter S, Gibson J, Larvin M, McMahon MJ, Moore M, Smith S, Vezakis A (2003) Micropuncture cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 175:766–772CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Alponat A, Cubukcu A, Gonullu N, Canturk Z, Ozbay O (2002) Is minisite cholecystectomy less traumatic? Prospective randomized study comparing minisite and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomies. World J Surg 2612:1437–1440CrossRef Alponat A, Cubukcu A, Gonullu N, Canturk Z, Ozbay O (2002) Is minisite cholecystectomy less traumatic? Prospective randomized study comparing minisite and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomies. World J Surg 2612:1437–1440CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Trap R, Kehlet H, Rosenberg J (2000) Pain after microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy. A randomized double-blind controlled study. Surg Endosc 14:340–344PubMedCrossRef Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Trap R, Kehlet H, Rosenberg J (2000) Pain after microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy. A randomized double-blind controlled study. Surg Endosc 14:340–344PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Trap R, Kehlet H, Rosenberg J (2002) Microlaparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind trial. Surg Endosc 16:458–464PubMedCrossRef Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Trap R, Kehlet H, Rosenberg J (2002) Microlaparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind trial. Surg Endosc 16:458–464PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Bresadola F, Pasqualucci A, Donini A, Chiarandini P, Anania G, Terrosu G, Sistu MA, Pasetto A (1999) Elective transumbilical compared with standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Eur J Surg 165:29–34PubMedCrossRef Bresadola F, Pasqualucci A, Donini A, Chiarandini P, Anania G, Terrosu G, Sistu MA, Pasetto A (1999) Elective transumbilical compared with standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Eur J Surg 165:29–34PubMedCrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Cheah WK, Lenzi JE, So JB, Kum CK, Goh PM (2001) Randomized trial of needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 88:45–47PubMedCrossRef Cheah WK, Lenzi JE, So JB, Kum CK, Goh PM (2001) Randomized trial of needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 88:45–47PubMedCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Huang MT, Wang W, Wei PL, Chen RJ, Lee WJ (2003) Minilaparoscopic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study. Arch Surg 138:1017–1023PubMedCrossRef Huang MT, Wang W, Wei PL, Chen RJ, Lee WJ (2003) Minilaparoscopic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study. Arch Surg 138:1017–1023PubMedCrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Leggett PL, Churchman-Winn R, Miller G (2000) Minimizing ports to improve laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 14:32–36PubMedCrossRef Leggett PL, Churchman-Winn R, Miller G (2000) Minimizing ports to improve laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 14:32–36PubMedCrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Look M, Chew SP, Tan YC, Liew SE, Cheong DM, Tan JC, Wee SB, Teh CH, Low CH (2001) Post-operative pain in needlescopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomised trial. J R Coll Surg Edinb 463:138–142 Look M, Chew SP, Tan YC, Liew SE, Cheong DM, Tan JC, Wee SB, Teh CH, Low CH (2001) Post-operative pain in needlescopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomised trial. J R Coll Surg Edinb 463:138–142
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Poon CM, Chan KW, Lee DW, Chan KC, Ko CW, Cheung HY, Lee KW (2003) Two-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 17:1624–1627PubMedCrossRef Poon CM, Chan KW, Lee DW, Chan KC, Ko CW, Cheung HY, Lee KW (2003) Two-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 17:1624–1627PubMedCrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Sarli L, Iusco D, Gobbi S, Porrini C, Ferro M, Roncoroni L (2003) Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed with mini-instruments. Br J Surg 90:1345–1348PubMedCrossRef Sarli L, Iusco D, Gobbi S, Porrini C, Ferro M, Roncoroni L (2003) Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed with mini-instruments. Br J Surg 90:1345–1348PubMedCrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Schwenk W, Neudecker J, Mall J, Bohm B, Muller JM (2000) Prospective randomized blinded trial of pulmonary function, pain, and cosmetic results after laparoscopic vs microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 14:345–348PubMedCrossRef Schwenk W, Neudecker J, Mall J, Bohm B, Muller JM (2000) Prospective randomized blinded trial of pulmonary function, pain, and cosmetic results after laparoscopic vs microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 14:345–348PubMedCrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Trichak S (2003) Three-port vs standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 17:1434–1436PubMedCrossRef Trichak S (2003) Three-port vs standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 17:1434–1436PubMedCrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Singh P, Kaushik R, Sharma R (2006) Umbilical port hernia following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Min Access Surg 2:29–30 Singh P, Kaushik R, Sharma R (2006) Umbilical port hernia following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Min Access Surg 2:29–30
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Lau H, Lo CY, Patil NG, Yuen WK (2006) Early versus delayed-interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a metaanalysis. Surg Endosc 20:82–87PubMedCrossRef Lau H, Lo CY, Patil NG, Yuen WK (2006) Early versus delayed-interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a metaanalysis. Surg Endosc 20:82–87PubMedCrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Berci G (1998) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using fine-caliber instruments. Smaller is not necessarily better. Surg Endosc 12:197PubMed Berci G (1998) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using fine-caliber instruments. Smaller is not necessarily better. Surg Endosc 12:197PubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Is smaller necessarily better? A systematic review comparing the effects of minilaparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy on patient outcomes
verfasst von
Rory McCloy
Delia Randall
Stephan A. Schug
Henrik Kehlet
Christian Simanski
Francis Bonnet
Frederic Camu
Barrie Fischer
Girish Joshi
Narinder Rawal
Edmund A. M. Neugebauer
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2008
Verlag
Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 12/2008
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0055-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 12/2008

Surgical Endoscopy 12/2008 Zur Ausgabe

News and notices

News and Notices

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.