Miniports versus standard ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND In conventional (standard) port laparoscopic cholecystectomy, four abdominal ports (two of 10 mm diameter and two of 5 mm diameter) are used. Recently, use of smaller ports, miniports, have been reported. OBJECTIVES To assess the benefits and harms of miniport (defined as ports smaller than the standard ports) laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2013 to identify randomised clinical trials of relevance to this review. SELECTION CRITERIA Only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing miniport versus standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy were considered for the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects models using RevMan analysis. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS We included 12 trials with 734 patients randomised to miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (380 patients) versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy (351 patients). Only one trial which included 70 patients was of low risk of bias. Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy could be completed successfully in more than 80% of patients in most trials. The remaining patients were mostly converted to standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy but some were also converted to open cholecystectomy. These patients were included for the outcome conversion to open cholecystectomy but excluded from other outcomes. Accordingly, the results of the other outcomes are on 343 patients in the miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy group and 351 patients in the standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy group, and therefore the results have to be interpreted with extreme caution.There was no mortality in the seven trials that reported mortality (0/194 patients in miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus 0/203 patients in standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy). There were no significant differences between miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy and standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the proportion of patients who developed serious adverse events (eight trials; 460 patients; RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.04 to 3.08) (miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: 1/226 (adjusted proportion 0.4%) versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: 3/234 (1.3%); quality of life at 10 days after surgery (one trial; 70 patients; SMD -0.20; 95% CI -0.68 to 0.27); or in whom the laparoscopic operation had to be converted to open cholecystectomy (11 trials; 670 patients; RR 1.23; 95% CI 0.44 to 3.45) (miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: 8/351 (adjusted proportion 2.3%) versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy 6/319 (1.9%)). Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy took five minutes longer to complete than standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy (12 trials; 695 patients; MD 4.91 minutes; 95% CI 2.38 to 7.44). There were no significant differences between miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy and standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the length of hospital stay (six trials; 351 patients; MD -0.00 days; 95% CI -0.12 to 0.11); the time taken to return to activity (one trial; 52 patients; MD 0.00 days; 95% CI -0.31 to 0.31); or in the time taken for the patient to return to work (two trials; 187 patients; MD 0.28 days; 95% CI -0.44 to 0.99) between the groups. There was no significant difference in the cosmesis scores at six months to 12 months after surgery between the two groups (two trials; 152 patients; SMD 0.13; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.46). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be completed successfully in more than 80% of patients. There appears to be no advantage of miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy in terms of decreasing mortality, morbidity, hospital stay, return to activity, return to work, or improving cosmesis. On the other hand, there is a modest increase in operating time after miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared with standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the safety of miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy is yet to be established. Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy cannot be recommended routinely outside well-designed randomised clinical trials. Further trials of low risks of bias and low risks of random errors are necessary.

[1]  K. Fierens,et al.  Mini-laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. , 2013, Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A.

[2]  S. Sauerland,et al.  Randomized clinical trial of single‐port, minilaparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy , 2013, The British journal of surgery.

[3]  Ross J. Harris,et al.  Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies. , 2012, Health technology assessment.

[4]  Ethan M Balk,et al.  Influence of Reported Study Design Characteristics on Intervention Effect Estimates From Randomized, Controlled Trials , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[5]  L. Krähenbühl,et al.  Bile duct injury and use of cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy , 2011, The British journal of surgery.

[6]  C. Schlachta,et al.  Minilaparoscopic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis , 2011, Annals of surgery.

[7]  Kristian Thorlund,et al.  Clinical Epidemiology Dovepress , 2022 .

[8]  Kristian Thorlund,et al.  Estimating required information size by quantifying diversity in random-effects model meta-analyses , 2009, BMC medical research methodology.

[9]  B. Ammori,et al.  An “All 5-mm Ports” Versus Conventional Ports Approach to Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy and Nissen Fundoplication: A Randomized Clinical Trial , 2009, Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques.

[10]  Anika Ashok,et al.  ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline , 2009 .

[11]  K. Gurusamy,et al.  Assessment of risk of bias in randomized clinical trials in surgery , 2009, The British journal of surgery.

[12]  Kristian Thorlund,et al.  Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses? , 2009, International journal of epidemiology.

[13]  Kristian Thorlund,et al.  Apparently conclusive meta-analyses may be inconclusive--Trial sequential analysis adjustment of random error risk due to repetitive testing of accumulating data in apparently conclusive neonatal meta-analyses. , 2009, International journal of epidemiology.

[14]  P. H. O. Cabral,et al.  Needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A prospective study of 60 patients. , 2008, Acta cirurgica brasileira.

[15]  Girish Joshi,et al.  Is smaller necessarily better? A systematic review comparing the effects of minilaparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy on patient outcomes , 2008, Surgical Endoscopy.

[16]  K. Thorlund,et al.  Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses. , 2008, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[17]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[18]  K. Gurusamy,et al.  Meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials on the safety and effectiveness of day‐case laparoscopic cholecystectomy , 2008, The British journal of surgery.

[19]  M. Deakin,et al.  Management of acute gallbladder disease in England , 2007, The British journal of surgery.

[20]  Shunsuke Hosono,et al.  Minilaparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. , 2007, Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A.

[21]  H. Gooszen,et al.  Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. , 2006, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[22]  Y. Novitsky,et al.  Advantages of mini-laparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a prospective randomized trial. , 2005, Archives of surgery.

[23]  Aman Gupta,et al.  Minilaparoscopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised controlled trial. , 2005, Tropical gastroenterology : official journal of the Digestive Diseases Foundation.

[24]  O. Mjåland,et al.  [Cholecystectomy in Norway 1990-2002]. , 2004, Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening : tidsskrift for praktisk medicin, ny raekke.

[25]  R. Rege,et al.  A nationwide study of conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. , 2004, American journal of surgery.

[26]  E. Kullman,et al.  Development of symptoms and complications in individuals with asymptomatic gallstones , 2004, The British journal of surgery.

[27]  Alexander J Sutton,et al.  What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of sparse data. , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[28]  Pamela Royle,et al.  LITERATURE SEARCHING FOR RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS USED IN COCHRANE REVIEWS: RAPID VERSUS EXHAUSTIVE SEARCHES , 2003, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[29]  L. Sarli,et al.  Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed with mini‐instruments , 2003, The British journal of surgery.

[30]  P. Wei,et al.  Minilaparoscopic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study. , 2003, Archives of surgery.

[31]  C. Hsieh.  Early minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with acute cholecystitis. , 2003, American journal of surgery.

[32]  S. Dexter,et al.  Micropuncture cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy , 2003, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[33]  A. Alponat,et al.  Is minisite cholecystectomy less traumatic? Prospective randomized study comparing minisite and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomies , 2002, World Journal of Surgery.

[34]  J. Olson,et al.  A prospective, blinded assessment of the impact of preoperative staging on the management of rectal cancer. , 2002, Gastroenterology.

[35]  S. Thompson,et al.  Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[36]  J. Rosenberg,et al.  Microlaparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy , 2002, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[37]  H. Zirngibl,et al.  Sympathetic nervous system activity during laparoscopic and needlescopic cholecystectomy , 2002, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[38]  Christian Gluud,et al.  Reported Methodologic Quality and Discrepancies between Large and Small Randomized Trials in Meta-Analyses , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[39]  Pring Cm.  Randomized trial of needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Br J Surg 2001; 88: 45-7). , 2001 .

[40]  K. Yorgancı,et al.  Randomized trial of needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Br J Surg 2001; 88: 45-7). , 2001, British Journal of Surgery.

[41]  C. Low,et al.  Post-operative pain in needlescopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomised trial. , 2001, Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh.

[42]  P. de Lagausie,et al.  Elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy , 2001, Surgical Endoscopy.

[43]  S D Walter,et al.  A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta‐analysis , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[44]  C. Kum,et al.  Randomized trial of needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy , 2001, The British journal of surgery.

[45]  J. Müller,et al.  Prospective randomized blinded trial of pulmonary function, pain, and cosmetic results after laparoscopic vs microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy , 2000, Surgical Endoscopy.

[46]  J. Rosenberg,et al.  Pain after microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy , 2000, Surgical Endoscopy.

[47]  O. Mjåland,et al.  Cholecystectomy rates, gallstone prevalence, and handling of bile duct injuries in Scandinavia , 1998, Surgical Endoscopy.

[48]  D. Cook,et al.  Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? , 1998, The Lancet.

[49]  G. Smith,et al.  Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test , 1997, BMJ.

[50]  J. Ahlberg,et al.  Prevalence of gallstone disease in a Swedish population. , 1995, Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology.

[51]  R. J. Hayes,et al.  Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. , 1995, JAMA.

[52]  G. Fullarton,et al.  Prospective audit of the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the west of Scotland. West of Scotland Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Audit Group. , 1994, Gut.

[53]  D J Newell,et al.  Intention-to-treat analysis: implications for quantitative and qualitative research. , 1992, International journal of epidemiology.

[54]  T. Jørgensen.  Prevalence of gallstones in a Danish population. , 1987, American journal of epidemiology.

[55]  D L Demets,et al.  Methods for combining randomized clinical trials: strengths and limitations. , 1987, Statistics in medicine.

[56]  N. Laird,et al.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials. , 1986, Controlled clinical trials.

[57]  Robert West,et al.  About The Cochrane Collaboration (Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs)). , 2011 .

[58]  P. L. Leggett,et al.  Minimizing ports to improve laparoscopic cholecystectomy , 2009, Surgical Endoscopy.

[59]  J. Abraham.  The international conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use , 2009 .

[60]  K. Thorlund,et al.  Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis. , 2008, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[61]  V. Kapoor,et al.  Thick-walled gallbladder. , 2006, The National medical journal of India.