Abstract
Background
Since the first laparoscopic cholecystectomy was reported, the four-trocar laparoscope has become the golden standard procedure. Some surgeons, however, thought that the three-port technique may be safe, effective, and economic. Our meta-analysis compared the three-port technique to the four-port technique.
Methods
We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Quality assessment and data extraction were done by two reviewers independently. The statistical analysis was performed by RevMan4.2.10 software.
Results
A total of five publications comprising 591 patients met the inclusion criteria. The result showed that three-port technique could not reduce the analgesia requirements: the sample mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were –0.28 (–0.66, 0.10). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of operating time [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 2.08, 95% CI (–3.63, 7.79)], success rate [odds ratio (OR) = 0.99,95% CI (0.31, 3.12)], or postoperative hospital stay [OR = –0.52,95% CI (–1.22, 0.17)].
Conclusions
The current evidence showed that the two groups had similar operating times, success rates, analgesia requirements, and postoperative hospital stays. The methodological qualities of studies are not high, so more high-quality studies are needed for further analysis.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Dubois F, Icard P, Berthelot G et al (1990) Coelioscopic cholecystectomy: premilary report of 36 cases. Ann Surg 211:60
Litynski GS (1999) Profiles in laparoscopy: Mouret, Dubois, and Perissat—the laparoscopic breakthrough in Europe (1987–1988). JSLS 3:163
Cerci C, Tarhan OR, Barut I et al (2007) Three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 54:15
Welter FH (2006) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy—a never-ending success story? MMW Fortschr Med 148:38
Kalloo A, Kantsevoy S (2001) Gallstones and biliary diseases. Primary Care 28:591–606
Nathanson LK, Shimi S, Cushchieri A (1991) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the Dundee technique. Br J Surg 78:155
Olsen DO (1991) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 161:339
Trichak S (2003) Three-port vs standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 17:1434–1436
Novitsky YW, Kercher KW, Czerniach DR et al (2005) Advantages of mini-laparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg 140:1178
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 11:358
Slim K, Pezet D, Stencl J Jr et al (1995) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: an original three-trocar technique. World J Surg 19:394
Osborne D, Boe B, Rosemurgy AS et al (2005) Twenty-millimeter laparoscopic cholecystectomy: fewer ports results in less pain, shorter hospitalization, and faster recovery. Am Surg 71:298
Leggett PL, Bissell CD, Churchman-Winn R et al (2001) Three-port microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy in 159 patients. Surg Endosc 15:293
Collaboration TC (2006) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 4.2.6. The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK
Gupta A, Shrivastava UK, Kumar P et al (2005) Minilaparoscopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised controlled trial. Trop Gastroenterol 26:149
Hu MQ, Song XJ, Jiang CW et al (2005) Clinical application and study on three-port-looping laparoscopic cholecystectomy. China J Endosc 11:552
Ng WT (1998) Three-trocar laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a cautionary note. Surg Laparosc Endosc 8:159
Acknowledgments
We thank the co-authors and all of the other authors, who have contributed significantly.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sun, S., Yang, K., Gao, M. et al. Three-Port Versus Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. World J Surg 33, 1904–1908 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0108-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0108-1