Single-access laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery has been proposed as a minimally invasive technique with the advantages of fewer scars and reduced pain. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized clinical trials of single-access laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SALC) versus classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). METHODS: All randomized controlled trials were identified through electronic searches (MEDLINE, PubMed, SAGES, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) up to October 2011. Methodologically appropriate clinical trials identified in the search process were included in a meta-analysis to provide a pooled estimate of effect. RESULTS: Nine true randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis and reported a total of 695 patients, divided into the SALC group of 362 patients and the CLC group of 333 patients. Median operating time was longer with 57 minutes in SALC versus 45 minutes in CLC (P=0.00001). There was no significant difference in length of stay (SALC 1.36 d vs. CLC 1.15 d, P=0.18). Conversion to laparotomy in either group was similar; however, in 18 of 66 SALC patients an additional instrument was used, compared with 1 of 67 CLC patients (P=0.0003). Complications were not significant different [16% in SALC vs. 12% in the CLC group (P=0.74)]. Median postoperative pain with the visual analog scale score was 3.8 points in SALC versus 3.15 points in the CLC group (P=0.48). Cosmetic satisfaction was significantly more satisfying with 9 points favoring SALC versus 0 points favoring CLC (P=0.0005) in contrast to the quality-of-life questionnaire where there was no significant difference in patient overall satisfaction between SALC and CLC groups (P=0.0515). CONCLUSIONS: SALC required longer operative times than CLC without significant benefits in patient overall satisfaction, postoperative pain, and hospital stay. Only satisfaction with the cosmetic result showed a significantly higher preference towards SALC.

Minimally invasive surgical approach for the treatment of gastroparesis.

BACKGROUND: Gastroparesis is a chronic disorder resulting in decreased quality of life. The gastric electrical stimulator (GES) is an alternative to gastrectomy in patients with medically refractory gastroparesis. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes of patients treated with the gastric stimulator versus patients treated with laparoscopic subtotal or total gastrectomy. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of all patients who had surgical treatment of gastroparesis from January 2003 to January 2012. Postoperative outcomes were analyzed and symptoms were assessed with the Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI). RESULTS: There were 103 patients: 72 patients (26 male/46 female) with a GES, implanted either with laparoscopy (n = 20) or mini-incision (n = 52), and 31 patients (9 male/22 female) who underwent laparoscopic subtotal (n = 27), total (n = 1), or completion gastrectomy (n = 3). Thirty-day morbidity rate (8.3% vs. 23%, p = 0.06) and in-hospital mortality rate (2.7% vs. 3%, p = 1.00) were similar for GES and gastrectomy. There were 19 failures (26%) in the group of GES patients; of these, 13 patients were switched to a subtotal gastrectomy for persistent symptoms (morbidity rate 7.7%, mortality 0). In total, 57% of patients were treated with GES while only 43% had final treatment with gastrectomy. Of the GES group, 63% rated their symptoms as improved versus 87% in the primary gastrectomy group (p = 0.02). The patients who were switched from GES to secondary laparoscopic gastrectomy had 100% symptom improvement. The median total GCSI score did not show a difference between the procedures (p = 0.12). CONCLUSION: The gastric electrical stimulator is an effective treatment for medically refractory gastroparesis. Laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy should also be considered as one of the primary surgical treatments for gastroparesis given the significantly higher rate of symptomatic improvement with acceptable morbidity and comparable mortality. Furthermore, the gastric stimulator patients who have no improvement of symptoms can be successfully treated by laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy.