Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, 22:2541 | Cite as

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

  • Rory McCloy
  • Delia Randall
  • Stephan A. Schug
  • Henrik Kehlet
  • Christian Simanski
  • Francis Bonnet
  • Frederic Camu
  • Barrie Fischer
  • Girish Joshi
  • Narinder Rawal
  • Edmund A. M. NeugebauerEmail author
Review

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.

Keywords

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy Minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy Systematic review 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Caroline Sharp (M.Sci, Medical Writer, Choice Pharma, Hitchin, UK) for her help with data extraction and entry; Emmanuel Marret (M.D., Departement d’Anesthesie-Reanimation, Hôpital Tenon, Paris, France) for his expert statistical input; Iradj Reza (Ph.D., Biomedical Information Scientist, Pfizer, Sandwich, UK) for his help and expertise in performing literature searches in EmBASE and MEDLINE; and Roseanne Wilkinson (Ph.D., Senior Medical Writer, Choice Pharma), Christine Drewienkiewicz (B.Sc., Scientific Services Director, Choice Pharma), Eva Leung (B.Sc., Account Executive, Choice Pharma), and James Pickford (B.Sc., Editorial Director, Choice Pharma) for editorial assistance.

Financial support: All authors are members or associates of the PROSPECT working group, which is supported by Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA. The PROSPECT working group members have been reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. for attending PROSPECT meetings to formulate the consensus recommendations. D.R. is employed by Choice Pharma, which has received funding from Pfizer Inc. to implement PROSPECT activities. This paper makes no specific recommendations about the use of any medical products, drugs or equipment manufactured by Pfizer Inc. or by any of its subsidiaries.

References

  1. 1.
    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 140:1178–1183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gupta A, Shrivastava UK, Kumar P, Burman D (2005) Minilaparoscopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised controlled trial. Trop Gastroenterol 26:149–151PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Rosenberg J, Kehlet H (2001) Characteristics and prediction of early pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Pain 90:261–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yuan RH, Lee WJ, Yu SC (1997) Mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a cosmetically better, almost scarless procedure. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 7:205–211PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kimura T, Sakuramachi S, Yoshida M, Kobayashi T, Takeuchi Y (1998) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using fine-caliber instruments. Surg Endosc 12:283–286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ngoi SS, Goh P, Kok K, Kum CK, Cheah WK (1999) Needlescopic or minisite cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 13:303–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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 232–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Unger SW, Paramo JC, Perez M (2000) Microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Less invasive gallbladder surgery. Surg Endosc 14:336–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fischer HB, Simanski CJ (2005) A procedure-specific systematic review and consensus recommendations for analgesia after total hip replacement. Anaesthesia 60:1189–1202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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 21:149–159Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    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 21:1047–1053Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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 17:1–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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) 1:40–45Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    The Cochrane Collaboration (2003) RevMan Analyses [Computer program]. Version 1.0 for Windows. In: Review Manager (RevMan) 4.2. Oxford, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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 175:766–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 2612:1437–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Trap R, Kehlet H, Rosenberg J (2000) Pain after microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy. A randomized double-blind controlled study. Surg Endosc 14:340–344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Trap R, Kehlet H, Rosenberg J (2002) Microlaparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind trial. Surg Endosc 16:458–464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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 165:29–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cheah WK, Lenzi JE, So JB, Kum CK, Goh PM (2001) Randomized trial of needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 88:45–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huang MT, Wang W, Wei PL, Chen RJ, Lee WJ (2003) Minilaparoscopic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study. Arch Surg 138:1017–1023PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leggett PL, Churchman-Winn R, Miller G (2000) Minimizing ports to improve laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 14:32–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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 463:138–142Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Poon CM, Chan KW, Lee DW, Chan KC, Ko CW, Cheung HY, Lee KW (2003) Two-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 17:1624–1627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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 90:1345–1348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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 14:345–348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Trichak S (2003) Three-port vs standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 17:1434–1436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Singh P, Kaushik R, Sharma R (2006) Umbilical port hernia following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Min Access Surg 2:29–30Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lau H, Lo CY, Patil NG, Yuen WK (2006) Early versus delayed-interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a metaanalysis. Surg Endosc 20:82–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Berci G (1998) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using fine-caliber instruments. Smaller is not necessarily better. Surg Endosc 12:197PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rory McCloy
    • 1
  • Delia Randall
    • 2
  • Stephan A. Schug
    • 3
  • Henrik Kehlet
    • 4
  • Christian Simanski
    • 5
  • Francis Bonnet
    • 6
  • Frederic Camu
    • 7
  • Barrie Fischer
    • 8
  • Girish Joshi
    • 9
  • Narinder Rawal
    • 10
  • Edmund A. M. Neugebauer
    • 11
    Email author
  1. 1.North of England Wolfson Centre for Minimally Invasive TherapiesLancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustLancashireUK
  2. 2.Choice PharmaHitchinUK
  3. 3.School of Medicine and PharmacologyUniversity of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia
  4. 4.Section for Surgical PathophysiologyThe Juliane Marie CentreRigshospitaletDenmark
  5. 5.Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery Cologne-MerheimUniversity of Witten/HerdeckeCologneGermany
  6. 6.Departement d’Anesthésie-RéanimationHôpital Tenon Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris and Université Pierre & Marie CurieParisFrance
  7. 7.Department of AnesthesiologyFlemish Free University of Brussels Medical CenterBrusselsBelgium
  8. 8.Department of AnaesthesiaAlexandra HospitalRedditchUK
  9. 9.Department of Anesthesiology and Pain ManagementUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA
  10. 10.Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive CareÖrebro Medical Center HospitalOrebroSweden
  11. 11.Institute for Research in Operative MedicineUniversity of Witten/HerdeckeCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations