Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy vs. Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: a Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery Aims and scope

Abstract

Introduction

We analyzed different morbidity parameters between single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC).

Methods

Pubmed, Ovid, Embase, SCI database, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched. The primary endpoints analyzed were cosmetic result and the postoperative pain (at 6 and 24 h) and the secondary endpoints were operating time, hospital stay, incidence of overall postoperative complications, wound-related complications, and port-site hernia.

Results

Six hundred fifty-nine patients (SILC—349, CLC—310) were analyzed from nine randomized controlled trials. The objective postoperative pain scores at 6 and 24 h and the hospital stay were similar in both groups. The total postoperative complications, wound-related problems, and port-site hernia formation, though higher in SILC, were also comparable in both groups. SILC had significantly favorable cosmetic scoring compared to CLC [weighted mean difference = 1.0, p = 0.0001]. The operating time was significantly longer in SILC [weighted mean difference = 15.63, p = 0.0001].

Conclusions

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy does not confer any benefit in postoperative pain (6 and 24 h) and hospital stay as compared to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy while having significantly better cosmetic results at the same time. Postoperative complications, though higher in SILC, were statistically similar in both the groups.

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. Tacchino R, Greco F, Matera D Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: surgery without a visible scar. Surg Endosc 2009; 23:896–899.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lee PC, Lo C, Lai PS, et al. Randomized clinical trial of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 2010; 97:1007–1012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Marks J, Tacchino R, Roberts K, et al. Prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: report of preliminary data. Am J Surg 2011; 201:369–372; discussion 372–363.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tsimoyiannis EC, Tsimogiannis KE, Pappas-Gogos G, et al. Different pain scores in single transumbilical incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 2010; 24:1842–1848.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Aprea G, Coppola Bottazzi E, Guida F, Masone S, Persico G Laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) versus classic video-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized prospective study. J Surg Res 2011; 166:e109–112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lai EC, Yang GP, Tang CN, Yih PC, Chan OC, Li MK Prospective randomized comparative study of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 2011; 202:254–258.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lirici MM, Califano AD, Angelini P, Corcione F Laparo-endoscopic single site cholecystectomy versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a pilot randomized trial. Am J Surg 2011; 202:45–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Phillips MS, Marks JM, Roberts K, et al. Intermediate results of a prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2012; 26:1296–1303.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Zheng M, Qin M, Zhao H Laparoendoscopic single-site cholecystectomy: A randomized controlled study. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2012; 21:113–117.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cao ZG, Cai W, Qin MF, Zhao HZ, Yue P, Li Y Randomized clinical trial of single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: short-term operative outcomes. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2011; 21:311–313.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ma J, Cassera MA, Spaun GO, Hammill CW, Hansen PD, Aliabadi-Wahle S Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Single-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy and 4-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 2011; 254:22–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Keus F, de Jong JA, Gooszen HG, van Laarhoven CJ Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006:CD006231.

  13. Blinman T Incisions do not simply sum. Surg Endosc 2010; 24:1746–1751.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Garg P, Thakur JD, Singh I, Nain N, Garima, Gupta V A prospective controlled trial comparing single incision and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: caution before damage control. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2012 (Accepted, under print).

  15. Bignell M, Hindmarsh A, Nageswaran H, et al. Assessment of cosmetic outcome after laparoscopic cholecystectomy among women 4 years after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: is there a problem? Surg Endosc 2011; 25:2574–2577.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Monkhouse SJ, Court EL, Beard LA, Bunni J, Burgess P A retrospective wound review of standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: is there need for single-port laparoscopic surgery? Surg Endosc 2012; 26:255–260.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Garg P, Thakur JD, Raina NC, Mittal G, Garg M, Gupta V Comparison of cosmetic outcome between single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: an objective study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2012; 22:127–130.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pollard JS, Fung AK, Ahmed I Are natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and single-incision surgery viable techniques for cholecystectomy? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2012; 22:1–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MM Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Mullana, Haryana, India

    Pankaj Garg & Mahak Garg

  2. Fortis Super Specialty Hospital, Mohali, Punjab, India

    Pankaj Garg

  3. Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, USA

    Jai Deep Thakur

  4. Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), New Delhi, India

    Geetha R. Menon

  5. 1042, Sector-15, Panchkula, Haryana, India, 134113

    Pankaj Garg

Authors
  1. Pankaj Garg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jai Deep Thakur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mahak Garg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Geetha R. Menon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pankaj Garg.

Additional information

There is no support in form of grant, equipment, or anything else from any organization, company, or individual.

Presentation in a Society

The abstract of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES), San Diego, California, USA, on March 7, 2012.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Garg, P., Thakur, J.D., Garg, M. et al. Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy vs. Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: a Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Gastrointest Surg 16, 1618–1628 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-012-1906-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-012-1906-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation