Miniports versus standard ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Volumn 2013, Issue 8, 2013, Pages

  Gurusamy, Kurinchi Selvan ^a   Vaughan, Jessica ^a   Ramamoorthy, Rajarajan ^b   Fusai, Giuseppe ^a   Davidson, Brian R ^a  

^a ROYAL FREE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

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

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; GALLSTONE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY; LENGTH OF STAY; MINIPORT LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; STANDARD PORT LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; CHOLECYSTECTOMY; META ANALYSIS; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS; UTILIZATION; METHODOLOGY; STANDARD; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

CHOLECYSTECTOMY; CHOLECYSTECTOMY, LAPAROSCOPIC; HUMANS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84893402598     PISSN: 14651858     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006804.pub3     Document Type: Review

References (65)

1. Abbas MH, Hamade A, Nadeem R, Ammori B. An "all 5-mm ports" versus conventional ports approach to laparoscopic cholecystectomy and Nissen fundoplication: a randomized clinical trial. Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy and Percutaneous Techniques 2009;19(6):442-8.
2. 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. [PUBMED: 12297935]
3. Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Trap R, Kehlet H, Rosenberg J. Pain after microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy. A randomized double-blind controlled study. Surgical Endoscopy 2000;14(4):340-4.
4. 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. de Carvalho LF, Fierens K, Kint M. Mini-laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Laparoendoscopic and Advanced Surgical Techniques. Part A 2013;23(2):109-16.
6. Hsieh CH. Early minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with acute cholecystitis. American Journal of Surgery 2003;185(4):344-8.
7. 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.
8. Novitsky YW, Czerniach DR, Perugini RA, Yood SM, Kercher KW, Gallagher KA, et al. Prospective randomized trial of mini-port vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Gastroenterology 2002;123(1 Suppl):24.
9. Novitsky YW, Kercher KW, Czerniach DR, Kaban GK, Khera S, Gallagher DKA, et al. Advantages of mini-laparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Results of a prospective randomized trial. Archives of Surgery 2005;140(12):1178-83.
10. Saad S, Strassel V, Sauerland S. Randomized clinical trial of single-port, minilaparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. British Journal of Surgery 2013;100(3):339-49.
11. Sarli L, Iusco D, Gobbi S, Porrini C, Ferro M, Roncoroni L. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed with mini-instruments. British Journal of Surgery 2003;90(11):1345-8.
12. Schmidt J, Sparenberg C, Fraunhofer S, Zirngibl H. Sympathetic nervous system activity during laparoscopic and needlescopic cholecystectomy - A prospective randomized study. Surgical Endoscopy 2002;16(3):476-80.
13. Schwenk W, Neudecker J, Mall J, Bohm B, Muller JM. Prospective randomized blinded trial of pulmonary function, pain, and cosmetic results after laparoscopic vs. microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgical Endoscopy 2000;14(4):345-8.
14. 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.
15. Cabral PH, Silva IT, Melo JV, Gimenez FS, Cabral CR, Lima AP. Needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A prospective study of 60 patients. Acta Cirurgica Brasileira 2008;23(6):543-50.
16. Cheah WK, Lenzi JE, So JB, Kum CK, Goh PM. Randomized trial of needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. British Journal of Surgery 2001;88(1):45-7.
17. Dam DAV. Single Incision, MiniPort or convEntional Laparoscopic surgery for uncomplicated sympthomatic cholecystolithiasis (SIMPEL-trial). http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=3100 2011 (accessed on 10th February 2013).
18. Gupta A, Shrivastava UK, Kumar P, Burman D. Minilaparoscopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised controlled trial. Tropical Gastroenterology 2005;26(3):149-51.
19. Leggett PL, Churchman-Winn R, Miller G. Minimizing ports to improve laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgical Endoscopy 2000;14(1):32-6.
20. Look M, Chew SP, Tan YC, Liew SE, Cheong DM, Tan JC, et al. Post-operative pain in needlescopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomised trial. Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh 2001;46(3):138-42.
21. Pring CM. Randomized trial of needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Comment on: Randomized trial of needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cheah WK, Lenzi JE, So JB, Kum CK, Goh PM. Br J Surg. 2001 Jan; 88(1):45-7). British Journal of Surgery 2001;88(7):1017-8.
22. Yorganci K, Kaynaroglu ZV, Oner Z. Randomized trial of needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Comment on: Randomized trial of needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cheah WK, Lenzi JE, So JB, Kum CK, Goh PM. Br J Surg. 2001 Jan; 88(1):45-7). British Journal of Surgery 2001;88(7):1017-8.
23. 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.
24. Brok J, Thorlund K, Gluud C, Wetterslev J. Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008;61:763-9.
25. Brok J, Thorlund K, Wetterslev J, Gluud C. Apparently conclusive meta-analyses may be inconclusive--Trial sequential analysis adjustment of random error risk due to repetitive testing of accumulating data in apparently conclusive neonatal meta-analyses. International Journal of Epidemiology 2009;38(1):287-98.
26. Copenhagen Trial Unit. TSA - Trial Sequential Analysis. http://ctu.dk/tsa/2011 (accessed 5 July 2013).
27. David GG, Al-Sarira AA, Willmott S, Deakin M, Corless DJ, Slavin JP. Management of acute gallbladder disease in England. British Journal of Surgery 2008;95(4):472-6. [PUBMED: 17968981]
28. DeMets DL. Methods for combining randomized clinical trials: strengths and limitations. Statistics in Medicine 1987;6(3):341-50.
29. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986;7(3):177-88.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. Giger U, Ouaissi M, Schmitz SF, Krahenbuhl S, Krahenbuhl L. Bile duct injury and use of cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The British Journal of Surgery 2011;98(3):391-6.
33. Gluud C, Nikolova D, Klingenberg SL, Alexakis N, Als-Nielsen B, Colli A, et al. Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group. About The Cochrane Collaboration (Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs)). 2013, Issue 6. Art. No.: LIVER.
34. Gurtner GC, Werner S, Barrandon Y, Longaker MT. Wound repair and regeneration. Nature 2008;453(7193):314-21.
35. Gurusamy KS, Gluud C, Nikolova D, Davidson BR. Assessment of risk of bias in randomized clinical trials in surgery. British Journal of Surgery 2009;96(4):342-9.
36. 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.
37. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2002;21(11):1539-58.
38. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Colloboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
39. Hosono S, Osaka H. Minilaparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques. Part A 2007;17(2):191-9.
40. International Conference on Harmonisation Expert Working Group. International conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use. ICH harmonised tripartite guideline. Guideline for good clinical practice CFR & ICH Guidelines. Vol. 1, PA 19063-2043, USA: Barnett International/PAREXEL, 1997.
41. Jørgensen T. Prevalence of gallstones in a Danish population. American Journal of Epidemiology 1987;126(5):912-21.
42. 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. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006231]
43. 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.
44. Livingston EH, Rege RV. A nationwide study of conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. American Journal of Surgery 2004;188(3):205-11. [PUBMED: 15450821]
45. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 12. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2]
46. 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.
47. McCloy R, Randall D, Schug SA, Kehlet H, Simanski C, Bonnet F, et al. Is smaller necessarily better? A systematic review comparing the effects of minilaparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy on patient outcomes. Surgical Endoscopy 2008;22(12):2541-53.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. Muhrbeck O, Ahlberg J. Prevalence of gallstone disease in a Swedish population. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 1995;30(11):1125-8.
51. Newell DJ. Intention-to-treat analysis: implications for quantitative and qualitative research. International Journal of Epidemiology 1992;21(5):837-41.
52. National Institutes of Health. Gallstones and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy, NIH Consens Statement Online 1992 Sep 14-16. http://consensus.nih.gov/1992/1992GallstonesLaparoscopy090html.htm 1992 (accessed 5 July 2013).
53. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.
54. 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.
55. Savović J, Jones H, Altman D, Harris R, Juni P, Pildal J, et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies. Health Technology Assessment 2012;16(35):1-82.
56. Savović J, Jones HE, Altman DG, Harris RJ, Juni P, Pildal J, et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Annals of Internal Medicine 2012;157(6):429-38.
57. 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.
58. Thakur V, Schlachta CM, Jayaraman S. Minilaparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Surgery 2011;253(2):244-58.
59. Thorlund K, Devereaux PJ, Wetterslev J, Guyatt G, Ioannidis JP, Thabane L, et al. Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses. International Journal of Epidemiology 2009;38(1):276-86.
60. Thorlund K, Anema A, Mills E. Interpreting meta-analysis according to the adequacy of sample size. An example using isoniazid chemoprophylaxis for tuberculosis in purified protein derivative negative HIV-infected individuals. Clinical Epidemiology 2010;2:57-66.
61. Thorlund K, Engstrøm J, Wetterslev J, Brok J, Imberger G, Gluud C. User manual forTrial Sequential Analysis (TSA). http://ctu.dk/tsa/files/tsa_manual.pdf 2011 (accessed 5 July 2013).
62. Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, Gluud C. Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008;61(1):64-75.
63. Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, Gluud C. Estimating required information size by quantifying diversity in random-effects model meta-analyses. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2009;9:86.
64. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Jüni P, Altman GD, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 2008;336:601-5.
65. Gurusamy KS, Samraj K, Ramamoorthy R, Farouk M, Fusai G, Davidson BR. Miniport versus standard ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006804.pub2]