Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomised control trials
- 303 Downloads
To use meta-analytic techniques to compare peri-operative and short term post-operative outcomes for patients undergoing cholecystectomy via the laparoscopic or mini-open approach.
Randomised control trials published between 1992 and 2005, cited in the literature of elective laparoscopic (LC) versus mini-open cholecystectomy (MoC) for symptomatic gallstone disease were included. End points evaluated were adverse events, operative and functional outcomes. A random effects meta-analytical model was used and between-study heterogeneity assessed. Subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate the difference in results for study size and quality and data reported from 2000.
Nine randomised studies of 2032 patients were included in the analysis. There was considerable variation in the size and type of incision used for MoC in the studies. There was a significantly longer operating time for the LC group, by 14.14 minutes (95% CI 2.08, 26.19; p < 0.0001). Length of stay was reduced in the LC group by 0.37 days (95% CI −0.53, −0.21; p < 0.0001), with no significant heterogeneity for either outcome. For all other operative and post-operative outcomes, there was no significant difference between the two groups.
MoC appeared to have similar outcomes compared to LC, however LC did reduce the length of hospital stay. MoC is a viable and safe option for healthcare providers without the financial resources for laparoscopic equipment and appropriately trained surgical teams.
KeywordsCholecystectomy Laparoscopy Mini-laparotomy Randomised trial Meta-analysis
The authors would like to thank Mr. Alex von Roon, Miss Rosamund Jacklin and Mr. Jesus Muñoz for their invaluable help in translating the foreign language papers included in this study.
- 27.Syrakos T, Antonitsis P, Zacharakis E, Takis A, Manousari A, Bakogiannis K, Efthimiopoulos G, Achoulias I, Trikoupi A, Kiskinis D (2004) Small-incision (mini-laparotomy) versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a retrospective study in a university hospital. Langenbecks Arch Surg 389: 172–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar