Miniport versus standard ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: In conventional (standard) laparoscopic cholecystectomy, four abdominal ports (two of 10 mm diameter and two of 5 mm diameter) are used. Recently, use of smaller ports have been reported. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of miniport (defined as ports smaller than conventional ports) laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until September 2009 for identifying the randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing miniport versus standard ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy were considered for the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included thirteen trials with 803 patients randomised to miniport (n = 416) versus standard ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 387). In twelve trials, four ports were used. In one trial, three ports were used. The bias risk of all trials was high. Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy could be completed successfully in 87% of patients. The remaining patients were mostly converted to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy but some were also converted to open cholecystectomy. Further information about these patients who underwent conversion to open cholecystectomy was not available in most trials. In the patients on whom information was available, there was no mortality reported; and there was no significant difference in the surgery-related morbidity or conversion to open cholecystectomy. Most trials excluded the patients who were converted to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In patients who underwent successful miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the pain was significantly lower in the miniport group than in the standard port at various time points. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be completed successfully in more than 85% of patients. Patients, in whom elective miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy was completed successfully, had lower pain than those who underwent standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, because of the lack of information on its safety, miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy cannot be recommended outside well-designed, randomised clinical trials.

Cholecystectomy for gallbladder polyp.

BACKGROUND: The management of gallbladder polyps is controversial. Cholecystectomy has been recommended for gallbladder polyps larger than 10 mm because of the association with gallbladder cancer. Cholecystectomy has also been suggested for gallbladder polyps smaller than 10 mm in patients with biliary type of symptoms. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to compare the benefits (relief of symptoms, decreased incidence of gallbladder cancer) and harms (surgical morbidity) of cholecystectomy in patients with gallbladder polyp(s). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until July 2008 to identify the randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing cholecystectomy and no cholecystectomy were considered for the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We planned to collect the data on the characteristics, methodological quality, mortality, number of patients in whom symptoms were improved or cured from the one identified trial. We planned to analyse the data using the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we planned to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We were unable to identify any randomised clinical trials comparing cholecystectomy versus no cholecystectomy in patients with a gallbladder polyp. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no randomised trials comparing cholecystectomy versus no cholecystectomy in patients with gallbladder polyps. Randomised clinical trials with low bias -risk are necessary to address the question of whether cholecystectomy is indicated in gallbladder polyps smaller than10 mm.

Cholecystectomy for suspected gallbladder dyskinesia.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment for patients with suspected biliary dyskinesia is controversial. Some studies found that cholecystectomy produced symptomatic improvement in patients with gallbladder dyskinesia (diagnosed by low gallbladder ejection fraction) while others found no significant benefit. Some studies have shown that gallbladder ejection fraction can discriminate patients who would benefit from cholecystectomy. Other studies have not confirmed this. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to compare the benefits and harms of cholecystectomy for patients with suspected gallbladder dyskinesia. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until March 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered for inclusion all randomised clinical trials comparing cholecystectomy versus no cholecystectomy on patients with gallbladder dyskinesia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected the data on the characteristics, methodological quality, mortality, number of patients in whom symptoms were improved or cured from the one identified trial. We planned to analyse the data using the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we planned to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included one trial with 21 patients randomised: 11 to cholecystectomy and 10 to control (no cholecystectomy). This trial was considered to be of high risk of bias as patients were not blinded and the procedure-related morbidity was not reported. There was no mortality in either group. All patients in the cholecystectomy group and only one patient in the control group had improvement in symptoms (P = 0.0001) after a mean follow-up period of 33.6 months. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for the benefits and harms of cholecystectomy in gallbladder dyskinesia from randomised clinical trials is based on a single small trial at risk of bias. Further randomised clinical trials with improved bias control are necessary to confirm or reject the promising results.

Day-case versus overnight stay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Although day-case elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy can save bed costs, its safety remains to be established. OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and benefits of day-case surgery compared to overnight stay in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until April 2008 for identifying randomised trials using search strategies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised clinical trials, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status, comparing day-case and overnight stay in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were considered for the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected the data on the characteristics of the trial, methodological quality of the trials, morbidity, prolonged hospitalisation, re-admissions, pain and quality of life from each trial. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio, weighted mean difference, or standardised mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on available case-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials with 429 patients randomised to the day-case group (215) and overnight stay group (214) were included in the review. All the trials were of high risk of bias. The trials recruited 49% of patients undergoing cholecystectomy. The selection criteria varied, but most included only patients without other diseases. The patients were living in easy reach of the hospital and with a responsible adult to take care of them. On the day of surgery, 81% of day-case patients were discharged. The drop-out rate after randomisation varied from 6.5% to 12.7%. There was no significant difference between day-case and overnight stay group as regards to morbidity, prolongation of hospital stay, re-admission rates, pain, quality of life, patient satisfaction and return to normal activity and work. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Day-case elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy seems to be a safe and effective intervention in selected patients (with no or minimal systemic disease and within easy reach of the hospital) with symptomatic gallstones. Because of the decreased hospital stay, it is likely to save costs.