Advertisement

Hernia

pp 1–10 | Cite as

Incidence of incisional hernias following single-incision versus traditional laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis

  • M. B. Connell
  • R. Selvam
  • S. V. PatelEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To compare, using a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, the risk of incisional hernia in patients undergoing single-incision laparoscopic surgery to those undergoing traditional laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched. Randomized controlled trials comparing single-incision laparoscopic surgery to traditional laparoscopic surgery and which reported incisional hernias over a minimum 6-month follow-up period were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook. Pooled odds ratios were calculated using RevMan.

Results

Of 309 identified studies, 22 were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled results showed higher odds of incisional hernia following single-incision laparoscopic surgery relative to traditional laparoscopic surgery (odds ratio 2.83, 95% CI 1.34–5.98, p = 0.006, I2 = 0%). There was no difference in the odds of incisional hernias requiring surgical repair (p = 0.10). Subgroup analysis found no difference in the odds of incisional hernias based on procedure type (p = 0.69) or method of follow-up (p = 0.85). The quality of evidence was determined to be moderate.

Conclusion

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is associated with a threefold increase in the odds of incisional hernia compared with traditional laparoscopic surgery.

Keywords

Incisional hernia Single-incision laparoscopic surgery SILS Meta-analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Paola Durando, M.L.S., from Queen’s University Library, for her assistance in designing the search strategy and performing the search.

Author contributions

MBC and SVP designed the study. All authors were involved in data acquisition and analysis, and in the preparation of the manuscript.

Funding

Financial support of this project was provided by The John Franklin Kidd Studentship.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

M.B.C., R.S., and S.V.P. have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethics approval

This article did not require ethical approval.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Supplementary material

10029_2018_1853_MOESM1_ESM.docx (377 kb)
Supplemental Figure 1. MEDLINE search strategy (DOCX 376 KB)
10029_2018_1853_MOESM2_ESM.docx (399 kb)
Supplemental Figure 2. EMBASE search strategy (DOCX 398 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Sparkman RS (1982) 100th Anniversary of the first cholecystectomy. Arch Surg 117:1525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mühe E (1986) 296. Die erste Cholecystektomie durch das Laparoskop. Langenbecks Arch Für Chir 369:804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keus F, de Jong J, Gooszen HG, Laarhoven CJHM (2006) Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD006231Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Navarra G, Pozza E, Occhionorelli S, Carcoforo P, Donini I (1997) One-wound laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 84:695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arezzo A, Scozzari G, Famiglietti F, Passera R, Morino M (2013) Is single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy safe? Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 27:2293–2304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garg P, Thakur JD, Garg M, Menon GR (2012) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs. conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gastrointest Surg 16:1618–1628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pisanu A, Reccia I, Porceddu G, Uccheddu A (2012) Meta-analysis of prospective randomized studies comparing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CMLC). J Gastrointest Surg 16:1790–1801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aly OE, Black DH, Rehman H, Ahmed I (2016) Single incision laparoscopic appendicectomy versus conventional three-port laparoscopic appendicectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 35:120–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen J, Geng W, Xie S, Liu F, Zhao Y, Yu L, Geng X (2015) Single-incision versus conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 24:195–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haueter R, Schütz T, Raptis DA, Clavien P-A, Zuber M (2017) Meta-analysis of single-port versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy comparing body image and cosmesis. Br J Surg 104:1141–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Antoniou SA, Garcia-Alamino JM, Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Weitzendorfer M, Muysoms FE, Granderath FA, Chalkiadakis GE, Emmanuel K, Antoniou GA, Gioumidou M, Iliopoulou-Kosmadaki S, Mathioudaki M, Souliotis K (2017) Single-incision surgery trocar-site hernia: an updated systematic review meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis by the Minimally Invasive Surgery Synthesis of Interventions Outcomes Network (MISSION). Surg Endosc.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5717-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Julian PT, Higgins, Green S (eds) (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane Collaboration, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336:924–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pan Z, Jiang X-H, Zhou J-H, Ji Z-L (2013) Transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy using conventional instruments: the single working channel technique. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 23:208–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zapf M, Yetasook A, Leung D, Salabat R, Denham W, Barrera E, Butt Z, Carbray J, Du H, Wang CE, Ujiki M (2013) Single-incision results in similar pain and quality of life scores compared with multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a blinded prospective randomized trial of 100 patients. Surgery 154:662–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zheng M, Qin M, Zhao H (2012) Laparoendoscopic single-site cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled study. Minim Invasive Ther 21:113–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bingener J, Skaran P, McConico A, Novotny P, Wettstein P, Sletten DM, Park M, Low P, Sloan J (2015) A double-blinded randomized trial to compare the effectiveness of minimally invasive procedures using patient-reported outcomes. J Am Coll Surg 221:111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Abd Ellatif ME, Askar WA, Abbas AE, Noaman N, Negm A, El-Morsy G, Nakeeb AE, Magdy A, Amin M (2013) Quality-of-life measures after single-access versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc 27:1896–1906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Arezzo A, Passera R, Bullano A, Mintz Y, Kedar A, Boni L, Cassinotti E, Rosati R, Fumagalli Romario U, Sorrentino M, Brizzolari M, Di Lorenzo N, Gaspari AL, Andreone D, de Stefani E, Navarra G, Lazzara S, Degiuli M, Shishin K, Khatkov I, Kazakov I, Schrittwieser R, Carus T, Corradi A, Sitzman G, Lacy A, Uranues S, Szold A, Morino M (2017) Multi-port versus single-port cholecystectomy: results of a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial (MUSIC trial). Surg Endosc 31:2872–2880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chang SKY, Wang YL, Shen L, Iyer SG, Madhavan K (2015) A randomized controlled trial comparing post-operative pain in single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. World J Surg 39:897–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Guo W, Liu Y, Han W, Liu J, Jin L, Li J-S, Zhang Z-T (2015) Randomized trial of immediate postoperative pain following single-incision versus traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Chin Med J (Engl) 128:3310–3316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hosseini SV, Hosseini SA, Al-Hurry AMA, Khazraei H, Ganji F, Sadeghi F (2017) Comparison of early results and complications between multi-and single-port sleeve gastrectomy: a randomized clinical study. Iran J Med Sci 42:251–257PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jorgensen LN, Rosenberg J, Al-Tayar H, Assaadzadeh S, Helgstrand F, Bisgaard T (2014) Randomized clinical trial of single- versus multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 101:347–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Khorgami Z, Shoar S, Anbara T, Soroush A, Nasiri S, Movafegh A, Aminian A (2014) A randomized clinical trial comparing 4-port, 3-port, and single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Investig Surg Off J Acad Surg Res 27:147–154Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kye BH, Lee J, Kim W, Kim D, Lee D (2013) Comparative study between single-incision and three-port laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective randomized trial. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 23:431–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li M, Han Y, Feng YC (2012) Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a prospective randomized trial. J Int Med Res 40:701–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lurje G, Raptis DA, Steinemann DC, Amygdalos I, Kambakamba P, Petrowsky H, Lesurtel M, Zehnder A, Wyss R, Clavien P-A, Breitenstein S (2015) Cosmesis and body image in patients undergoing single-port versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a multicenter double-blinded randomized controlled trial (SPOCC-trial). Ann Surg 262:728–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Marks JM, Phillips MS, Tacchino R, Roberts K, Onders R, DeNoto G, Gecelter G, Rubach E, Rivas H, Islam A, Soper N, Paraskeva P, Rosemurgy A, Ross S, Shah S (2013) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with improved cosmesis scoring at the cost of significantly higher hernia rates: 1-year results of a prospective randomized, multicenter, single-blinded trial of traditional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 216:1037–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Noguera J, Tejada S, Tortajada C, Sanchez A, Munoz J (2013) Prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing the use of a single-port device with that of a flexible endoscope with no other device for transumbilical cholecystectomy: LLATZER-FSIS pilot study. Surg Endosc 27:4284–4290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Omar MA, Redwan AA, Mahmoud AG (2017) Single-incision versus 3-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in symptomatic gallstones: a prospective randomized study. Surgery 162:96–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Perez EA, Piper H, Burkhalter LS, Fischer AC (2013) Single-incision laparoscopic surgery in children: a randomized control trial of acute appendicitis. Surg Endosc.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2617-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Porta A, Aiolfi A, Musolino C, Antonini I, Zappa MA (2017) Prospective comparison and quality of life for single-incision and conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in a series of morbidly obese patients. Obes Surg 27:681–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Saad S, Strassel V, Sauerland S (2013) Randomized clinical trial of single-port, minilaparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 100:339–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sulu B, Yildiz BD, Ilingi ED, Gunerhan Y, Cakmur H, Anuk T, Yildiz B, Koksal N (2015) Single port vs. four port cholecystectomy—randomized trial on quality of life. Adv Clin Exp Med 24:469–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vilallonga R, Barbaros U, Demirel T, Fort J, Rodriguez N, Carrasco M (2012) Single-port transumbilical laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomised comparison of clinical results of 140 cases. J Minim Access Surg 8:74–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Villalobos Mori R, Escoll Rufino J, Herrerias Gonzalez F, Mias Carballal MC, Arias EA, Kissler OJJ (2014) Prospective, randomized comparative study between single-port laparoscopic appendectomy and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy. Cirugia Espanola 92:472–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yoo E-H, Shim E (2013) Single-port access compared with three-port laparoscopic adnexal surgery in a randomized controlled trial. J Int Med Res 41:673–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Youssef T, Abdalla E (2015) Single incision transumbilical laparoscopic varicocelectomy versus the conventional laparoscopic technique: a randomized clinical study. Int J Surg Lond Engl 18:178–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zhao L, Wang Z, Xu J, Wei Y, Guan Y, Liu C, Xu L, Liu C, Wu B (2016) A randomized controlled trial comparing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy using a novel instrument to that using a common instrument. Int J Surg Lond Engl 32:174–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Flum DR, Horvath K, Koepsell T (2003) Have outcomes of incisional hernia repair improved with time? Ann Surg 237:129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gillion J-F, Sanders D, Miserez M, Muysoms F (2016) The economic burden of incisional ventral hernia repair: a multicentric cost analysis. Hernia 20:819–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of MedicineQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  2. 2.General SurgeryKingston Health Sciences CentreKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations