Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Updates in Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Litynski GS (1999) Profiles in laparoscopy: Mouret, Dubois, and Perissat: the laparoscopic breakthrough in Europe (1987–1988). JSLS 3(2):163–167

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 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):17626–17634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 18:196–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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):3739–3753

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 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:b2700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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. 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. 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. 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:i4919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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):40–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Google Scholar 

  13. Shah SF, Waqar SH, Chaudry MA, Hameed S (2017) Three ports versus four ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy. RMJ 42(3):359–362

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sharma PK, Mehta KS (2017) Three port versus standard four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy—a prospective study. JK Sci 17(1):38–42

    Google Scholar 

  15. 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):147–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Harsha HS, Gunjiganvi M, Singh C, Moirangthem GS (2013) A study of three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Med Soc 27:208–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mohamed AE, Zaazou MM (2020) Three-port versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study. Egypt J Surg 39:119–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Hashimoto D, Hirota M, Yagi Y, Baba H (2011) Umbilicus saving three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Webmed Cent Laparosc 2(4):WMC001882

    Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Google Scholar 

  22. 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):8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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):3054–3059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Google Scholar 

  25. 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):2339–2342

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 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

    Google Scholar 

  27. 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):235–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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):1904–1908

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Shahab Hajibandeh and David A. Finch equally contributed to this paper and joined first authorship is proposed.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. General Surgery, Wales Deanery, Health Education and Improvement Wales, Cardiff, UK

    Shahab Hajibandeh

  2. Department of General Surgery, Glan Clwyd Hospital, The Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Rhyl, UK

    Shahab Hajibandeh & Gowtham Venkatesan

  3. Department of General Surgery, Pinderfields General Hospital, Wakefield, UK

    David A. Finch

  4. Department of General Surgery, Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK

    Ali Yasen Y. Mohamedahmed

  5. Department of General Surgery, North Manchester General Hospital, North Manchester Care Organisation, Manchester, UK

    Amir Iskandar

  6. Department of General Surgery, Hereford County Hospital, Wye Valley NHS Trust, Hereford, UK

    Shahin Hajibandeh

  7. Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Manchester Royal Infirmary Hospital, Manchester, UK

    Thomas Satyadas

Authors
  1. Shahab Hajibandeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David A. Finch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ali Yasen Y. Mohamedahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amir Iskandar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gowtham Venkatesan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Shahin Hajibandeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Thomas Satyadas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception and design: TS, SH. Data collection: DAF, SH. Analysis and interpretation: all authors. Writing the article: SH, DAF. Critical revision of the article: all authors. Final approval of the article: all authors. Statistical analysis: SH, AYYM, SH, DAF.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shahab Hajibandeh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors included in this work declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 28 KB)

Appendix I

Appendix I

Search No

Search strategya

#1

Three port: TI,AB,KW

#2

Three-port: TI,AB,KW

#3

3-Port: TI,AB,KW

#4

3 Port: TI,AB,KW

#5

#1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4

#6

Four port: TI,AB,KW

#7

Four-port: TI,AB,KW

#8

4-Port: TI,AB,KW

#9

4 Port: TI,AB,KW

#10

Standard: TI,AB,KW

#11

Conventional: TI,AB,KW

#12

#6 OR #7 OR #8 OR #9 OR #10 OR #11

#13

MeSH descriptor: [laparoscopic cholecystectomy] explode all trees

#14

Laparosco* near2 cholecystectomy: TI,AB,KW

#15

Cholecystectomy: TI,AB,KW

#16

#13 OR #14 OR #15

#17

#5 AND #11 AND #16

  1. aThis search strategy was adopted for following databases: CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Scopus

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hajibandeh, S., Finch, D.A., Mohamedahmed, A.Y.Y. et al. Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of three-port vs four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (level 1 evidence). Updates Surg 73, 451–471 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-021-00982-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-021-00982-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation