Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Single-incision versus three-port laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Single-incision versus three-port laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Do you wish to request the book?
Single-incision versus three-port laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Single-incision versus three-port laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
2015
Overview
Background
Three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (TPLA) has been shown superior to open appendectomy for acute appendicitis (AA); alternatively, single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) is gaining popularity. The choice between SILA and traditional TPLA remains controversial. This meta-analysis of high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aims to compare efficacy and safety of SILA with TPLA for AA.
Methods
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for RCTs comparing SILA with TPLA. Reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, conference proceedings, and ongoing trial databases were also searched. Primary outcomes were operative time, postoperative complications, hospital duration, and days back to normal activities. Meta-analysis was conducted where possible comparing items using weighted mean differences (WMDs) and relative risks (RRs) according to type of data. Methodological quality was evaluated to assess bias risk.
Results
A total of 8 distinct RCTs comparing SILA (
n
= 616) with TPLA (
n
= 618) published from 2010 to 2013 were identified in our analysis. SILA took longer to conduct than TPLA (43 vs 38, WMD: 5.96, 95 % CI 2.54–9.38,
P
= 0.0006). Patients undergoing SILA needed more extra trocars addressed during operation (7 % vs 0 %, RR: 12.36, 95 % CI 3.83–39.90,
P
< 0.0001), but could return to full activities earlier (6 vs 7, WMD: −0.68, 95 % CI −1.10 to −0.26,
P
= 0.001). However, these differences were not clinically significant. All other parameters were comparable.
Conclusions
These results provide level 1a support for the clinical similarity that SILA is basically as feasible, effective and safe as TPLA when dealing with AA, although statistically, SILA takes longer to perform, requires more extra trocars, and benefits patients with faster recovery compared with TPLA. Further RCTs are needed to update our finding with advancement of surgical techniques and skills.
Publisher
Springer US,Springer Nature B.V
Subject
