Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Single Incision versus Conventional Laparoscopic Appendectomy

  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Single incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) has been proposed as an alternative to conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA).

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of SILA when compared with CLA through a systematic review.

Methods

We performed an electronic search of EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared SILA with CLA were included.

Results

Six RCTs met eligibility criteria, which included a total of 800 patients, 401 in the SILA group and 399 in the CLA group. There were no significant differences in terms of overall complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.93; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.59–1.47; p = 0.77). SILA had a higher technical failure rate (OR 3.30; 95 % CI 1.26–8.65; p = 0.01) and required a longer operative time (mean difference [MD] 4.67; 95 % CI 1.76–7.57; p = 0.002). SILA was associated with better cosmetic results (standardized MD –0.4; 95 % CI –0.64 to –0.16; p = 0.001) and earlier return to normal activity (MD –0.64; 95 % CI –1.09 to –0.20; p = 0.005), although these advantages should be taken with caution due to the small number of studies reporting these two items and the short follow-up in the evaluation of cosmetic results. There were no significant differences in terms of postoperative pain or length of hospital stay between groups.

Conclusions

SILA is comparable to CLA in selected patients, although it is associated with a higher technical failure rate and longer operative time. Further randomized trials are needed to determine if SILA really offers benefits over CLA.

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
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Addiss DG, Shaffer N, Fowler BS et al (1990) The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States. Am J Epidemiol 132:910–925

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wilms IM, de-Hoog DE, de-Visser DC et al (2011) Appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment for acute appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11:CD008359

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Vettoretto N, Gobbi S, Corradi A et al (2011) Consensus conference on laparoscopic appendectomy: development of guidelines. Colorectal Dis 13:748–754

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sauerland S, Jaschinski T, Neugebauer EA (2010) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10:CD001546

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tiwari MM, Reynoso JF, Tsang AW et al (2011) Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic and open appendectomy in management of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis. Ann Surg 254:927–932

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pelosi MA, Pelosi MA III (1992) Laparoscopic appendectomy using a single umbilical puncture (minilaparoscopy). J Reprod Med 37:588–594

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Vidal O, Valentini M, Ginestà C et al (2010) Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery appendectomy. Surg Endosc 24:686–691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Park J, Kwak H, Kim SG et al (2012) Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy: comparison with conventional laparoscopic appendectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 22:142–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Raakow R, Jacob DA (2011) Initial experience in laparoscopic single-port appendectomy: a pilot study. Dig Surg 28:74–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kim HO, Yoo CH, Lee SR et al (2012) Pain after laparoscopic appendectomy: a comparison of transumbilical single-port and conventional laparoscopic surgery. J Korean Surg Soc 82:172–178

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gill RS, Shi X, Al-Adra DP et al (2012) Single-incision appendectomy is comparable to conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: a systematic review and pooled analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 22:319–327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pisanu A, Porceddu G, Reccia I et al (2013) Meta-analysis of studies comparing single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy and conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy. J Surg Res 183:e49–e59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rehman H, Mathews T, Ahmed I (2012) A review of minimally invasive single-port/incision laparoscopic appendectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 22:641–646

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 8:336–341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Higgins J, Green S (eds) (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1. 0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration

  16. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kang J, Bae BN, Gwak G et al (2013) Comparative study of a single-incision laparoscopic and a conventional laparoscopic appendectomy for the treatment of acute appendicitis. J Korean Soc Coloproctol 28:304–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Vilallonga R, Barbaros U, Nada A et al (2012) Single-port transumbilical laparoscopic appendectomy: a preliminary multicentric comparative study in 87 patients with acute appendicitis. Minim Invasive Surg 2012:492409

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Malik M, McCormack K, Krukowski ZH et al (2012) Single port/incision laparoscopic surgery compared with standard three-port laparoscopic surgery for appendicectomy: a randomised controlled trial. Trials 13:201

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Knott EM, Gasior AC, Holcomb GW III et al (2012) Impact of body habitus on single-site laparoscopic appendectomy for nonperforated appendicitis: subset analysis from a prospective, randomized trial. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 22:404–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Perez EA, Piper H, Burkhalter LS et al (2013) Single-incision laparoscopic surgery in children: a randomized control trial of acute appendicitis. Surg Endosc 27:1367–1371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. St Peter SD, Adibe OO, Juang D et al (2011) Single incision versus standard 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 254:586–590

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Frutos MD, Abrisqueta J, Lujan J et al (2013) Randomized prospective study to compare laparoscopic appendectomy versus umbilical single-incision appendectomy. Ann Surg 257:413–418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kye BH, Lee J, Kim W et al (2013) Comparative study between single-incision and three-port laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective randomized trial. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 23:431–436

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lee WS, Choi ST, Lee JN et al (2013) Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective randomized controlled study. Ann Surg 257:214–218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Park JH, Hyun KH, Park CH et al (2010) Laparoscopic vs transumbilical single-port laparoscopic appendectomy; results of prospective randomized trial. J Korean Surg Soc 78:213–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sozutek A, Colak T, Dirlik M et al (2013) A prospective randomized comparison of single-port laparoscopic procedure with open and standard 3-port laparoscopic procedures in the treatment of acute appendicitis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 23:74–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Teoh AY, Chiu PW, Wong TC et al (2012) A double-blinded randomized controlled trial of laparoendoscopic single-site access versus conventional 3-port appendectomy. Ann Surg 256:909–914

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Moreno-Sanz C, Morandeira-Rivas A, Morales-Conde S et al (2012) Single incision laparoscopic surgery: analysis of the national register. Cir Esp 90:298–309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rehman H, Ahmed I (2011) Technical approaches to single port/incision laparoscopic appendicectomy: a literature review. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 93:508–513

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Alptekin H, Yilmaz H, Acar F et al (2012) Incisional hernia rate may increase after single-port cholecystectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 22:731–737

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Marks JM, Phillips MS, Tacchino R et al (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 216:1037–1047

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Swank HA, Eshuis EJ, van Berge Henegouwen MI et al (2011) Short- and long-term results of open versus laparoscopic appendectomy. World J Surg 35:1221–1226. doi:10.1007/s00268-011-1088-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Saad S, Strassel V, Sauerland S (2013) Randomized clinical trial of single-port, minilaparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 100:339–349

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, “La Mancha Centro” General Hospital, Avd. de la Constitución nº 3. 13600, Alcázar de San Juan, Ciudad Real, Spain

    Michael Clerveus, Antonio Morandeira-Rivas, Carlos Moreno-Sanz, Maria Luz Herrero-Bogajo, Joaquin Salvelio Picazo-Yeste & Gloria Tadeo-Ruiz

Authors
  1. Michael Clerveus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonio Morandeira-Rivas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carlos Moreno-Sanz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maria Luz Herrero-Bogajo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joaquin Salvelio Picazo-Yeste
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gloria Tadeo-Ruiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Clerveus.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Clerveus, M., Morandeira-Rivas, A., Moreno-Sanz, C. et al. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Single Incision versus Conventional Laparoscopic Appendectomy. World J Surg 38, 1937–1946 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-014-2535-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-014-2535-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation