Miniport versus standard ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Volumn , Issue 4, 2007, Pages

  Gurusamy, Kurinchi S ^a   Samraj, K ^b   Davidson, B R ^b  

^a ROYAL FREE AND UNIVERSITY COLLEGE MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BILE DUCT INJURY; CHOLECYSTECTOMY; CLINICAL TRIAL; FOLLOW UP; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LUNG FUNCTION; MORBIDITY; MORTALITY; OPERATION DURATION; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; REVIEW; WOUND INFECTION;

EID: 44949242470     PISSN: 1469493X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006804     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Ainslie 2003 Ainslie WG, Catton JA, Davides D, Dexter S, Gibson J, Larvin M, et al.Micropuncture cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Surgical Endoscopy 2003;17(5):766-72.
2. Alponat 2002 Alponat A, Cubukcu A, Gonullu N, Canturk Z, Ozbay O. Is minisite cholecystectomy less traumatic? Prospective randomized study comparing minisite and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomies. World Journal of Surgery 2002;26(12):1437-40.
3. Bakken 2004 Bakken IJ, Skjeldestad FE, Mjåland O, Johnson E. Cholecystectomy in Norway 1990-2002 [Kolecystektomi i Norge i 1990-2002]. Tidsskrift for den Norske Laegeforening 2004;124(18):2376-8.
4. Bisgaard 2002 Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Trap R, Kehlet H, Rosenberg J. Microlaparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy - A prospective randomized double-blind trial. Surgical Endoscopy 2002;16(3):458-64.
5. DeMets 1987 DeMets DL. Methods for combining randomized clinical trials: strengths and limitations. Statistics in Medicine 1987;6(3):341-50.
6. DerSimonian 1986 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986;7(3):177-88.
7. Egger 1997 Egger M, Davey SG, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 1997;315(7109):629-34.
8. Fullarton 1994 Fullarton GM, Bell G. Prospective audit of the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the west of Scotland. West of Scotland Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Audit Group. Gut 1994;35(8):1121-6.
9. Gluud 2007 Gluud C, Nikolova D, Klingenberg SL, Als-Nielsen B, D'Amico G, Davidson B, et al.Hepato-Biliary Group. About The Cochrane Collaboration (Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs)) 2007, Issue 2. Art. No.: LIVER.
10. Halldestam 2004 Halldestam I, Enell EL, Kullman E, Borch K. Development of symptoms and complications in individuals with asymptomatic gallstones. British Journal of Surgery 2004;91(6):734-8.
11. Higgins 2002 Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2002;21(11):1539-58.
12. Higgins 2006 Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention 4.2.6 [updated September 2006]. The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2006. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
13. Huang 2003 Huang MT, Wang W, Wei PL, Chen RJ, Lee WJ. Minilaparoscopic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study. Archives of Surgery 2003;138(9):1017-23.
14. Jørgensen 1987 Jørgensen T. Prevalence of gallstones in a Danish population. American Journal of Epidemiology 1987;126(5):912-21.
15. Keus 2006 Keus F, de Jong JAF, Gooszen HG, van Laarhoven CJHM. Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD006231. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006231.
16. Kjaergard 2001 Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Annals of Internal Medicine 2001;135(11):982-9.
17. Macaskill 2001 Macaskill P, Walter SD, Irwig L. A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2001;20(4):641-54.
18. Mjäland 1998 Mjäland O, Adamsen S, Hjelmquist B, Ovaska J, Buanes T. Cholecystectomy rates, gallstone prevalence, and handling of bile duct injuries in Scandinavia. A comparative audit. Surgical Endoscopy 1998;12(12):1386-9.
19. Moher 1998 Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al.Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?. Lancet 1998;352(9128):609-13.
20. Muhrbeck 1995 Muhrbeck O, Ahlberg J. Prevalence of gallstone disease in a Swedish population. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 1995;30(11):1125-8.
21. Newell 1992 Newell DJ. Intention-to-treat analysis: implications for quantitative and qualitative research. International Journal of Epidemiology 1992;21(5):837-41.
22. NIH 1992 National Institutes of Health. NIH consensus statement on gallstones and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. http://consensus.nih.gov/1992/ 1992GallstonesLaparoscopy090html.htm 1992 (accessed 1 March 2007).
23. RevMan 2003 RevMan. Review Manager (RevMan). 4.2 for Windows. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2003.
24. Royle 2003 Royle P, Milne R. Literature searching for randomized controlled trials used in Cochrane reviews: rapid versus exhaustive searches. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2003;19(4):591-603.
25. Schulz 1995 Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273(5):408- 12.
26. Sweeting 2004 Sweeting MJ, Sutton AJ, Lambert PC. What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of sparse data. Statistics in Medicine 2004;23(9):1351-75.