Konstantinos Kossenas, Riad Kouzeiha, Olga Moutzouri, Filippos Georgopoulos
{"title":"成人单切口与传统腹腔镜阑尾切除术:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Konstantinos Kossenas, Riad Kouzeiha, Olga Moutzouri, Filippos Georgopoulos","doi":"10.1007/s13304-025-02112-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Three-port (trocar) laparoscopic appendectomy is the standard treatment for acute appendicitis and previous studies have compared to single-incision approach, however, they often include both pediatric and adult patients and fail to account for surgeons' experience, leading to variability in outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to address these literature gaps by focusing on adult patients and controlling for surgeon expertise. We conducted a comprehensive search of randomized controlled trials comparing single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) up to November 2024. We assessed the length of hospitalization, operative duration, postoperative complications, and surgical wound infections. Data were synthesized using random-effects models to account for variability among studies. The meta-analysis included four studies with a total of 408 patients, comprising 202 in the single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) group and 206 in the conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) group. For the length of hospitalization, no statistically significant difference was observed, with a weighted mean difference (WMD) of 0.07 days (95% CI - 0.32 to 0.47, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, p = 0.72). Similarly, the operative duration showed no significant difference, with a WMD of 4.49 min (95% CI - 7.02 to 16.00, I<sup>2</sup> = 89%, p = 0.44). The analysis of postoperative complications also revealed no significant difference between the groups, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.32 (95% CI 0.69 to 2.51, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, p = 0.40). Surgical wound infections were found to be comparable, with an OR of 1.14 (95% CI 0.46 to 2.83, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, p = 0.78). Sensitivity analysis indicated that the results were statistically significant regarding operative duration when Kim et al. was excluded from the analysis. SILA and CLA yield comparable outcomes in terms of hospitalization length, operative duration, and complications, suggesting that both techniques are viable options for the management of acute appendicitis in adults. Further studies investigating overall cosmesis, patient satisfaction, and postoperative pain are warranted to optimize surgical approaches.PROSPERO registration: CRD42024612596.</p>","PeriodicalId":23391,"journal":{"name":"Updates in Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"287-296"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11961530/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.\",\"authors\":\"Konstantinos Kossenas, Riad Kouzeiha, Olga Moutzouri, Filippos Georgopoulos\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13304-025-02112-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Three-port (trocar) laparoscopic appendectomy is the standard treatment for acute appendicitis and previous studies have compared to single-incision approach, however, they often include both pediatric and adult patients and fail to account for surgeons' experience, leading to variability in outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to address these literature gaps by focusing on adult patients and controlling for surgeon expertise. We conducted a comprehensive search of randomized controlled trials comparing single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) up to November 2024. We assessed the length of hospitalization, operative duration, postoperative complications, and surgical wound infections. Data were synthesized using random-effects models to account for variability among studies. The meta-analysis included four studies with a total of 408 patients, comprising 202 in the single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) group and 206 in the conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) group. For the length of hospitalization, no statistically significant difference was observed, with a weighted mean difference (WMD) of 0.07 days (95% CI - 0.32 to 0.47, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, p = 0.72). Similarly, the operative duration showed no significant difference, with a WMD of 4.49 min (95% CI - 7.02 to 16.00, I<sup>2</sup> = 89%, p = 0.44). The analysis of postoperative complications also revealed no significant difference between the groups, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.32 (95% CI 0.69 to 2.51, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, p = 0.40). Surgical wound infections were found to be comparable, with an OR of 1.14 (95% CI 0.46 to 2.83, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, p = 0.78). Sensitivity analysis indicated that the results were statistically significant regarding operative duration when Kim et al. was excluded from the analysis. SILA and CLA yield comparable outcomes in terms of hospitalization length, operative duration, and complications, suggesting that both techniques are viable options for the management of acute appendicitis in adults. Further studies investigating overall cosmesis, patient satisfaction, and postoperative pain are warranted to optimize surgical approaches.PROSPERO registration: CRD42024612596.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23391,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Updates in Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"287-296\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11961530/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Updates in Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-025-02112-5\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Updates in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-025-02112-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
三孔(套管针)腹腔镜阑尾切除术是急性阑尾炎的标准治疗方法,先前的研究将其与单切口方法进行了比较,然而,它们通常包括儿童和成人患者,并且没有考虑到外科医生的经验,导致结果的差异。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在通过关注成人患者和控制外科医生的专业知识来解决这些文献空白。我们对截至2024年11月单切口腹腔镜阑尾切除术(SILA)和常规腹腔镜阑尾切除术(CLA)的随机对照试验进行了全面检索。我们评估了住院时间、手术时间、术后并发症和手术伤口感染。使用随机效应模型综合数据,以解释研究之间的可变性。meta分析包括4项研究,共408例患者,其中单切口腹腔镜阑尾切除术(SILA)组202例,常规腹腔镜阑尾切除术(CLA)组206例。住院时间差异无统计学意义,加权平均差异(WMD)为0.07天(95% CI - 0.32 ~ 0.47, I2 = 0%, p = 0.72)。同样,手术时间无显著差异,WMD为4.49 min (95% CI - 7.02 ~ 16.00, I2 = 89%, p = 0.44)。术后并发症分析也显示两组间无显著差异,优势比(OR)为1.32 (95% CI 0.69 ~ 2.51, I2 = 0%, p = 0.40)。手术伤口感染具有可比性,OR为1.14 (95% CI 0.46 ~ 2.83, I2 = 0%, p = 0.78)。敏感性分析表明,当Kim等人被排除在分析之外时,手术时间的结果具有统计学意义。在住院时间、手术时间和并发症方面,SILA和CLA的结果相当,表明这两种技术都是治疗成人急性阑尾炎的可行选择。进一步研究整体美容、患者满意度和术后疼痛是优化手术入路的必要条件。普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD42024612596。
Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Three-port (trocar) laparoscopic appendectomy is the standard treatment for acute appendicitis and previous studies have compared to single-incision approach, however, they often include both pediatric and adult patients and fail to account for surgeons' experience, leading to variability in outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to address these literature gaps by focusing on adult patients and controlling for surgeon expertise. We conducted a comprehensive search of randomized controlled trials comparing single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) up to November 2024. We assessed the length of hospitalization, operative duration, postoperative complications, and surgical wound infections. Data were synthesized using random-effects models to account for variability among studies. The meta-analysis included four studies with a total of 408 patients, comprising 202 in the single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) group and 206 in the conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) group. For the length of hospitalization, no statistically significant difference was observed, with a weighted mean difference (WMD) of 0.07 days (95% CI - 0.32 to 0.47, I2 = 0%, p = 0.72). Similarly, the operative duration showed no significant difference, with a WMD of 4.49 min (95% CI - 7.02 to 16.00, I2 = 89%, p = 0.44). The analysis of postoperative complications also revealed no significant difference between the groups, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.32 (95% CI 0.69 to 2.51, I2 = 0%, p = 0.40). Surgical wound infections were found to be comparable, with an OR of 1.14 (95% CI 0.46 to 2.83, I2 = 0%, p = 0.78). Sensitivity analysis indicated that the results were statistically significant regarding operative duration when Kim et al. was excluded from the analysis. SILA and CLA yield comparable outcomes in terms of hospitalization length, operative duration, and complications, suggesting that both techniques are viable options for the management of acute appendicitis in adults. Further studies investigating overall cosmesis, patient satisfaction, and postoperative pain are warranted to optimize surgical approaches.PROSPERO registration: CRD42024612596.
期刊介绍:
Updates in Surgery (UPIS) has been founded in 2010 as the official journal of the Italian Society of Surgery. It’s an international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the surgical sciences. Its main goal is to offer a valuable update on the most recent developments of those surgical techniques that are rapidly evolving, forcing the community of surgeons to a rigorous debate and a continuous refinement of standards of care. In this respect position papers on the mostly debated surgical approaches and accreditation criteria have been published and are welcome for the future.
Beside its focus on general surgery, the journal draws particular attention to cutting edge topics and emerging surgical fields that are publishing in monothematic issues guest edited by well-known experts.
Updates in Surgery has been considering various types of papers: editorials, comprehensive reviews, original studies and technical notes related to specific surgical procedures and techniques on liver, colorectal, gastric, pancreatic, robotic and bariatric surgery.