Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2016 Oct 18;16(1):71.
doi: 10.1186/s12893-016-0187-5.

Single-incision versus standard multi-incision laparoscopic colectomy in patients with malignant or benign colonic disease: a systematic review, meta-analysis and assessment of the evidence

Anne Catharina Brockhaus  1   2 , Stefan Sauerland  3 , Stefan Saad  4
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Single-incision versus standard multi-incision laparoscopic colectomy in patients with malignant or benign colonic disease: a systematic review, meta-analysis and assessment of the evidence

Anne Catharina Brockhaus et al. BMC Surg. .

Abstract

Background: Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) requires only one umbilical port site and (depending on technique) a specimen extraction site. The aim of this study was the assessment of the available evidence for the comparison of SILC to conventional multi-port laparoscopic colectomy (MLC) in adult patients, in whom elective colectomy is indicated because of malignant or benign disease. First, previous meta-analyses on this topic were assessed. Secondly, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, was performed.

Methods: Electronic literature searches (CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE; up to March 2016) were performed. Additionally, we searched clinical trials registries and abstracts from surgical society meetings. For meta-analysis, risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95 % confidence intervals were calculated and pooled. The quality of previous meta-analyses was evaluated against established criteria (AMSTAR) and their reported results were investigated for consistency.

Results: We identified 6 previous meta-analyses of mostly low methodological quality (AMSTAR total score: 2 - 5 out of 11 items). To fill the evidence gaps, all these meta-analyses had included non-randomised studies, but usually without assessing their risk of bias. In our systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials exclusively, we included two randomised controlled trials with a total of 82 colorectal cancer patients. There was insufficient evidence to clarify whether SILC leads to less local complications (RR = 0.52, 95 % CI 0.14 - 1.94) or lower mortality (1 death per treatment group). Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the SILC group (MD = -1.20 days, 95 % CI -1.95 to -0.44). One of the two studies found postoperative pain intensity to be lower at the first day. We also identified 7 ongoing trials with a total sample size of over 1000 patients.

Conclusion: The currently available study results are too sparse to detect (or rule out) relevant differences between SILC and MLC. The quality of the current evidence is low, and the additional analysis of non-randomised data attempts, but does not solve this problem. SILC should still be considered as an experimental procedure, since the evidence of well-designed randomised controlled trials is too sparse to allow any recommendation.

Keywords: Colon; Laparoscopy; Mini-invasive; Single port; Surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Literature search and study flow
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Risk of bias summary: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Forest plot, local complications (incl. intraoperative and postoperative)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Forest plot, Operative time
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Forest plot, Length of hospital stay
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Forest plot, Number of lymph nodes harvested
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kuhry E, Schwenk W, Gaupset R, Romild U, Bonjer J. Long-term results of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008(5). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003432.pub2 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schwenk W, Haase O, Neudecker JJ, Müller JM. Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2005;2:CD003145. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003145.pub2. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kössler-Ebs JB, Grummich K, Jensen K, Hüttner FJ, Müller-Stich B, Seiler CM, et al. Incisional hernia rates after laparoscopic or open abdominal surgery-a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg. 2016;40(10):2319–30. doi: 10.1007/s00268-016-3520-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. De Vivo A, Mancuso A, Giacobbe A, Priolo AM, De Dominici R, Maggio Savasta L. Wound length and corticosteroid administration as risk factors for surgical-site complications following cesarean section. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89(3):355–9. doi: 10.3109/00016340903568175. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bucher P, Pugin F, Morel P. Single port access laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2008;23(10):1013–6. doi: 10.1007/s00384-008-0519-8. - DOI - PubMed