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

BackgroundIn 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).MethodsThe 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.ResultsThirteen 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].ConclusionsThe 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.

[1]  T. Kobayashi,et al.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using fine-caliber instruments , 1998, Surgical Endoscopy.

[2]  A R Jadad,et al.  Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? , 1996, Controlled clinical trials.

[3]  G. Berci Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using fine-caliber instruments. Smaller is not necessarily better. , 1998, Surgical endoscopy.

[4]  H. Kehlet,et al.  PROSPECT: evidence-based, procedure-specific postoperative pain management. , 2007, Best practice & research. Clinical anaesthesiology.

[5]  K. C. Chan,et al.  Two-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy , 2003, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[6]  S. Dexter,et al.  Micropuncture cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. , 2003, Surgical endoscopy.

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

[8]  C. Kum,et al.  Needlescopic or minisite cholecystectomy , 1999, Surgical Endoscopy.

[9]  C. Lo,et al.  Early versus delayed-interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis , 2006, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[10]  H. Kehlet,et al.  PROSPECT: a practical method for formulating evidence-based expert recommendations for the management of postoperative pain , 2007, Surgical Endoscopy.

[11]  F. Brunicardi,et al.  Mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: validating a new approach. , 1999, Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A.

[12]  David Moher,et al.  The CONSORT Statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials 2001. , 2005, Explore.

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

[14]  D. Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials , 2001, The Lancet.

[15]  J. Rosenberg,et al.  Microlaparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind trial. , 2002, Surgical endoscopy.

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

[17]  D Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. , 2001, Annals of internal medicine.

[18]  R. Sharma,et al.  Umbilical port hernia following laparoscopic cholecystectomy , 2006, Journal of minimal access surgery.

[19]  J. Rosenberg,et al.  Pain after microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy. A randomized double-blind controlled study. , 2000, Surgical endoscopy.

[20]  C. Simanski,et al.  A procedure‐specific systematic review and consensus recommendations for analgesia after total hip replacement , 2005, Anaesthesia.

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

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

[23]  C. Lo,et al.  Early versus delayed-interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a metaanalysis. , 2006, Surgical endoscopy.

[24]  G. Anania,et al.  Elective transumbilical compared with standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. , 1999, The European journal of surgery = Acta chirurgica.

[25]  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.

[26]  Jacob Rosenberg,et al.  Characteristics and prediction of early pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy , 2001, Pain.

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

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

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

[30]  S. Trichak Three-port vs standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy , 2003, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[31]  R H Yuan,et al.  Mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a cosmetically better, almost scarless procedure. , 1997, Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A.

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