Systematic Review of Utilized Ports in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Pushing the Boundaries

IF 1.3 Q3 SURGERY
Shadi A. Alshammary, Dhuha N. Boumarah
{"title":"Systematic Review of Utilized Ports in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Pushing the Boundaries","authors":"Shadi A. Alshammary, Dhuha N. Boumarah","doi":"10.1155/2024/9961528","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. Surgical procedures have undergone a paradigm shift in the last 3 decades, with minimally invasive surgery becoming standard of care for a number of surgeries, including the treatment of benign gallbladder diseases. By providing a thorough and impartial summary of the earlier published systematic reviews, the current systematic review is the first to present comparison results. This review illustrates the data of intraoperative and postoperative results of each laparoscopic cholecystectomy technique. Materials and Methods. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was meticulously followed to conduct the present systematic review. MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science were searched for eligible publications, and a total of 14 systematic reviews were included. A newly developed extraction table was utilized to obtain the predefined parameters from eligible systematic reviews, including operative time, conversion rate, estimated blood loss, bile leak, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, and cosmetic results. All statistical analyses were conducted using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software, version 26.0. The analysis of dichotomous results was summarized using relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), and continuous results were summarized using mean differences and 95% CIs. The proportions were compared using a single proportion z-test. Results. The analysis of our primary and secondary outcomes revealed a statistically significant improvement in aesthetic results after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) in comparison to the multiport approach of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This, however, is accompanied by extended operative timing and subsequently, prolonged exposure to anesthesia. Conclusion. Patients should be carefully selected for SILC to minimize technical difficulties and prevent complications both intraoperatively and shortly after the procedure. This trial is registered with CRD42023392037.","PeriodicalId":45110,"journal":{"name":"Minimally Invasive Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minimally Invasive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/9961528","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction. Surgical procedures have undergone a paradigm shift in the last 3 decades, with minimally invasive surgery becoming standard of care for a number of surgeries, including the treatment of benign gallbladder diseases. By providing a thorough and impartial summary of the earlier published systematic reviews, the current systematic review is the first to present comparison results. This review illustrates the data of intraoperative and postoperative results of each laparoscopic cholecystectomy technique. Materials and Methods. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was meticulously followed to conduct the present systematic review. MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science were searched for eligible publications, and a total of 14 systematic reviews were included. A newly developed extraction table was utilized to obtain the predefined parameters from eligible systematic reviews, including operative time, conversion rate, estimated blood loss, bile leak, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, and cosmetic results. All statistical analyses were conducted using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software, version 26.0. The analysis of dichotomous results was summarized using relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), and continuous results were summarized using mean differences and 95% CIs. The proportions were compared using a single proportion z-test. Results. The analysis of our primary and secondary outcomes revealed a statistically significant improvement in aesthetic results after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) in comparison to the multiport approach of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This, however, is accompanied by extended operative timing and subsequently, prolonged exposure to anesthesia. Conclusion. Patients should be carefully selected for SILC to minimize technical difficulties and prevent complications both intraoperatively and shortly after the procedure. This trial is registered with CRD42023392037.
腹腔镜胆囊切除术中使用端口的系统性回顾:突破界限
导言。在过去的 30 年中,外科手术的模式发生了转变,微创手术已成为包括良性胆囊疾病治疗在内的多种手术的标准治疗方法。本系统性综述对之前发表的系统性综述进行了全面、公正的总结,并首次提出了对比结果。本综述说明了每种腹腔镜胆囊切除术技术的术中和术后结果数据。材料和方法。本系统综述严格遵循系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses,PRISMA)指南。在 MEDLINE(通过 PubMed)、Cochrane 系统综述数据库和 Web of Science 中检索了符合条件的出版物,共纳入了 14 篇系统综述。利用新开发的提取表从符合条件的系统综述中获取预定义参数,包括手术时间、转换率、估计失血量、胆汁渗漏、住院时间、术后疼痛和美容效果。所有统计分析均使用社会科学统计软件包(SPSS)26.0 版进行。二项结果的分析采用相对风险和 95% 置信区间 (95% CI) 进行总结,连续结果的分析采用均值差异和 95% CI 进行总结。比例比较采用单一比例 z 检验。结果我们对主要和次要结果的分析表明,与多孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术相比,单切口腹腔镜胆囊切除术(SILC)在美学效果上有显著改善。然而,这伴随着手术时间的延长,以及随后麻醉暴露时间的延长。结论。应谨慎选择患者进行 SILC 手术,以尽量减少技术难度,防止术中和术后不久出现并发症。本试验注册号为 CRD42023392037。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信