切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"
高级检索
中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版)

中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版) ›› 2016, Vol. 09 ›› Issue (03) : 146 -151. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-6899.2016.03.006

所属专题： 文献；

论著

单孔与多孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术的安全性Meta分析
郑凯欣1, 许锐锐1, 韩慧1, 吴成亮1, 陈耿臻,1   
  1. 1. 515041　汕头大学医学院第二附属医院微创医学中心
  • 收稿日期:2016-03-07 出版日期:2016-06-30
  • 通信作者: 陈耿臻
  • 基金资助:
    汕头大学医学院临床研究提长计划项目(201408)

Single incision versus multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Meta-analysis

Kaixin Zheng1, Ruirui Xu1, Hui Han1, Chengliang Wu1, Gengzhen Chen,1   

  1. 1. The Second Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou 515041, China
  • Received:2016-03-07 Published:2016-06-30
  • Corresponding author: Gengzhen Chen
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Chen Gengzhen, Email:
全文 ( 1 ) 下载PDF ( 0 ) 导出引用
引用本文：

郑凯欣, 许锐锐, 韩慧, 吴成亮, 陈耿臻. 单孔与多孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术的安全性Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2016, 09(03): 146-151.

Kaixin Zheng, Ruirui Xu, Hui Han, Chengliang Wu, Gengzhen Chen. Single incision versus multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Meta-analysis[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2016, 09(03): 146-151.

目的

系统评价经脐单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术(SILC)与传统多孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术(CMLC)的有效性和安全性。

方法

计算机检索CBM、CNKI、PubMed、EMbase、The Cochrane Library数据库，筛选截至2015年7月关于比较SILC与CMLC的随机对照试验(RCT)，采用RevMan 5.3软件进行Meta分析。

结果

本研究共纳入34篇RCT文献，合计2 951例患者(SICL组1 502例，CMLC组1 449例)。SILC组的手术时间长于CMLC组，差异有统计学意义[MD＝11.56，95%CI(8.97，14.16)，Z＝8.75，P<0.000 01]。相比CMLC组，SILC组的手术转换率更高，差异有统计学意义[RR＝4.01，95%CI(2.56，6.29)，Z＝6.06，P<0.000 01]。SILC组患者切口美容评分高于CMLC组，差异有统计学意义[SMD＝1.34，95%CI(0.74，1.94)，Z＝4.39，P<0.000 1]。两组术中出血量、术后并发症、术后24 h疼痛评分、住院时间及恢复工作时间比较，差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论

SILC是一项安全有效的手术操作方式，具有更好的美容效果，但手术时间长、术中转换率高，对术者经验和手术技巧要求更高，需综合考虑选择。

关键词: 胆囊切除术, 经脐单孔, 腹腔镜, Meta分析
Objective

To systematically evaluate the availability and safety of single incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods

Electronical search CBM, CNKI, PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, screened for randomized controlled trials(RCT) comparing single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy(SILC) and conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy(CMLC) until Jul. 2015.The RevMan5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.

Results

We included 34 trials involving 2 951 patients: 1 502 to SILC versus 1 449 to CMLC.Meta-analysis revealed that the operative time in SILC group was longer than that in CMLC group[MD=11.56, 95%CI(8.97, 14.16), Z=8.75, P<0.000 01]. Compared with CMLC group, SILC group was higher in conversion rate[RR=4.01, 95%CI(2.56, 6.29), Z=6.06, P<0.000 01]. Furthermore, wound satisfaction score was [SMD=1.34, 95%CI(0.74, 1.94), Z=4.39, P<0.000 1.There was no significant difference between SILC group and CMLC group for blood loss, postoperative complications, 24 h postoperative pain score, hospital stay and time to return to work(P> 0.05).

Conclusions

SILC is a safe and effective surgical procedure with the advantage of a better cosmetic result.However, SILC requires surgeon’s skill and experience to reduce operative time and conversion rate.

Key words: Cholecystectomy, Single incision, Laparoscopic, Meta-analysis
图1 纳入文献的偏倚风险百分图
图2 纳入文献的偏倚风险评估一览
图3 纳入文献的手术时间比较Meta分析森林图
图4 纳入文献的术中出血量比较Meta分析森林图
图5 纳入文献的手术转换率比较Meta分析森林图
图6 纳入文献的术后并发症比较Meta分析森林图
图7 纳入文献的术后24 h疼痛评分比较Meta分析森林图
图8 纳入文献的切口美容评分比较Meta分析森林图
图9 纳入文献的住院时间比较Meta分析森林图
图10 纳入文献的术后并发症发生率倒漏斗图分析
图11 纳入文献的恢复工作时间比较Meta分析森林图
1
Osborne DA, Alexander G, Boe B, et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: past, present, and future[J]. Surg Technol Int, 2006, 15(1): 81-85.
2
Navarra G, Pozza E, Occhionorelli S, et al. One-wound laparoscopic cholecystectomy[J]. Br J Surg, 1997, 84(5): 695.
3
Allemann P, Schafer M, Demartines N. Critical appraisal of single port access cholecystectomy[J]. Br J Surg, 2010, 97(10): 1476-1480.
4
Joseph M, Phillips MR, Farrell TM, et al. Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with a higher bile duct injury rate: a review and a word of caution[J]. Ann Surg, 2012, 256(1): 1-6.
5
Sajid MS, Ladwa N, Kalra L, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials[J]. World J Surg, 2012, 36(11): 2644-2653.
6
Trastulli S, Cirocchi R, Desiderio J, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy[J]. Br J Surg, 2013, 100(2): 191-208.
7
Solomon D, Bell RL, Duffy AJ, et al. Single-port cholecystectomy: small scar, short learning curve[J]. Surg Endosc, 2010, 24(12): 2954-2957.
8
Mehmood Z, Subhan A, Ali N, et al. Four port versus single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy[J]. J Surg Pak(Int), 2010, 50(15): 122-125.
9
Lee PC, Lo C, Lai PS, et al. Randomized clinical trial of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy[J]. Br J Surg, 2010, 97(7): 1007-1012.
10
Rasic Z, Schwarz D, Nesek VA, et al. Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy-a new advantage of gallbladder surgery[J]. Coll Antropol, 2010, 34(2): 595-598.
11
Tsimoyiannis EC, Tsimogiannis KE, Pappas-Gogos G, et al. Different pain scores in single transumbilical incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial[J]. Surg Endosc, 2010, 24(8): 1842-1848.
12
Aprea G, Coppola Bottazzi E, Guida F, et al. Laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) versus classic video-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized prospective study[J]. J Surg Res, 2011, 166(2): 109-112.
13
Bucher P, Pugin F, Buchs NC, et al. Randomized clinical trial of laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy[J]. Br J Surg, 2011, 98(12): 1695-1702.
14
Cao ZG, Cai W, Qin MF, et al. Randomized clinical trial of single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: short-term operative outcomes[J]. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2011, 21(5): 311-313.
15
Lai EC, Yang GP, Tang CN, et al. Prospective randomized comparative study of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy[J]. Am J Surg, 2011, 202(3): 254-258.
16
Lirici MM, Califano AD, Angelini P, et al. Laparo-endoscopic single site cholecystectomy versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a pilot randomized trial[J]. Am J Surg, 2011, 202(1): 45-52.
17
Ma J, Cassera MA, Spaun GO, et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy[J]. Ann Surg, 2011, 254(1): 22-27.
18
Marks J, Tacchino R, Roberts K, et al. Prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: report of preliminary data[J]. Am J Surg, 2011, 201(3): 369-373.
19
Leung D, Yetasook AK, Carbray J, et al. Single-incision surgery has higher cost with equivalent pain and quality-of-life scores compared with multiple-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized blinded comparison[J]. J Am Coll Surg, 2012, 215(5): 702-708.
20
Sasaki A, Ogawa M, Tono C, et al. Single-port versus multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized clinical trial[J]. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2012, 22(5): 396-399.
21
Sinan H, Demirbas S, Ozer MT, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study[J]. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2012, 22(1): 12-16.
22
Solomon D, Shariff AH, Silasi DA, et al. Transvaginal cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective cohort study[J]. Surg Endosc, 2012, 26(10): 2823-2827.
23
Vilallonga R, Barbaros U, Sumer A, et al. Single-port transumbilical laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomised comparison of clinical results of 140 cases[J]. J Minim Access Surg, 2012, 8(3): 74-78.
24
Zheng M, Qin M, Zhao H. Laparoendoscopic single-site cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled study[J]. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol, 2012, 21(2): 113-117.
25
Ellatif ME, Askar WA, Abbas AE, et al. Quality-of-life measures after single-access versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study[J]. Surg Endosc, 2013, 27(6): 1896-1906.
26
Brown KM, Moore BT, Sorensen GB, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after single-incision versus traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized prospective trial[J]. Surg Endosc, 2013, 27(9): 3108-3115.
27
Chang SK, Wang YL, Shen L, et al. Interim report: a randomized controlled trial comparing postoperative pain in single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy[J]. Asian J Endosc Surg, 2013, 6(1): 14-20.
28
Deveci U, Barbaros U, Kapakli MS, et al. The comparison of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and three port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective randomized study[J]. J Korean Surg Soc, 2013, 85(6): 275-282.
29
Luna RA, Nogueira DB, Varela PS, et al. A prospective, randomized comparison of pain, inflammatory response, and short-term outcomes between single port and laparoscopic cholecystectomy[J]. Surg Endosc, 2013, 27(4): 1254-1259.
30
Madureira FA, Manso JE, Madureira FD, et al. Randomized clinical study for assessment of incision characteristics and pain associated with less versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy[J]. Surg Endosc, 2013, 27(3): 1009-1015.
31
Marks JM, Phillips MS, Tacchino R, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with improved cosmesis scoring at the cost of significantly higher hernia rates: 1-year results of a prospective randomized, multicenter, single-blinded trial of traditional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy[J]. J Am Coll Surg, 2013, 216(6): 1037-1048.
32
Noguera J, Tejada S, Tortajada C, et al. Prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing the use of a single-port device with that of a flexible endoscope with no other device for transumbilical cholecystectomy: llatzer-fsis pilot study[J]. Surg Endosc, 2013, 27(11): 4284-4290.
33
Pan MX, Jiang ZS, Cheng Y, et al. Single-incision vs three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective randomized study[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2013, 19(3): 394-398.
34
Saad S, Strassel V, Sauerland S. Randomized clinical trial of single-port, minilaparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy[J]. Br J Surg, 2013, 100(3): 339-349.
35
Yilmaz H, Arun O, Apiliogullari S, et al. Effect of laparoscopic cholecystectomy techniques on postoperative pain: a prospective randomized study[J]. J Korean Surg Soc, 2013, 85(4): 149-153.
36
Zapf M, Yetasook A, Leung D, et al. Single-incision results in similar pain and quality of life scores compared with multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A blinded prospective randomized trial of 100 patients[J]. Surgery, 2013, 154(4): 662-671.
37
Jorgensen LN, Rosenberg J, Al-Tayar H, et al. Randomized clinical trial of single- versus multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy[J]. Br J Surg, 2014, 101(4): 347-355.
38
Khorgami Z, Shoar S, Anbara T, et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing 4-port, 3-port, and single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy[J]. J Invest Surg, 2014, 27(3): 147-154.
39
Chang SK, Wang YL, Shen L, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing post-operative pain in single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy[J]. World J Surg, 2015, 39(4): 897-904.
40
Bingener J, Skaran P, McConico A, et al. A double-blinded randomized trial to compare the effectiveness of minimally invasive procedures using patient-reported outcomes[J]. J Am Coll Surg, 2015, 221(1): 111-121.
41
Ye G, Qin Y, Xu S, et al. Comparison of transumbilical single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and fourth-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy[J]. Int J Clin Exp Med, 2015, 8(5): 7746-7753.
42
Lirici MM, Arezzo A. Surgery without scars: the new frontier of minimally invasive surgery controversies, concerns and expectations in advanced operative endoscopy[J]. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol, 2006, 15(6): 323-324.
43
Khambaty F, Brody F, Vaziri K, et al. Laparoscopic versus single-incision cholecystectomy[J]. World J Surg, 2011, 35(5): 967-972.
44
Geng L, Sun C, Bai J. Single incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy outcomes: a meta－analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. PloS One, 2013, 8(10): 76530.
[1] 燕速, 霍博文. 腹腔镜食管胃结合部腺癌根治性切除术[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 13-13.
[2] 母德安, 李凯, 张志远, 张伟. 超微创器械辅助单孔腹腔镜下脾部分切除术[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 14-14.
[3] 李国新, 陈新华. 全腹腔镜下全胃切除术食管空肠吻合的临床研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 1-4.
[4] 李子禹, 卢信星, 李双喜, 陕飞. 食管胃结合部腺癌腹腔镜手术重建方式的选择[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 5-8.
[5] 李乐平, 张荣华, 商亮. 腹腔镜食管胃结合部腺癌根治淋巴结清扫策略[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 9-12.
[6] 陈方鹏, 杨大伟, 金从稳. 腹腔镜近端胃癌切除术联合改良食管胃吻合术重建His角对术后反流性食管炎的效果研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 15-18.
[7] 许杰, 李亚俊, 韩军伟. 两种入路下腹腔镜根治性全胃切除术治疗超重胃癌的效果比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 19-22.
[8] 李刘庆, 陈小翔, 吕成余. 全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 23-26.
[9] 任佳, 马胜辉, 王馨, 石秀霞, 蔡淑云. 腹腔镜全胃切除、间置空肠代胃术的临床观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 31-34.
[10] 王庆亮, 党兮, 师凯, 刘波. 腹腔镜联合胆道子镜经胆囊管胆总管探查取石术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 313-313.
[11] 杨建辉, 段文斌, 马忠志, 卿宇豪. 腹腔镜下脾部分切除术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 314-314.
[12] 叶劲松, 刘驳强, 柳胜君, 吴浩然. 腹腔镜肝Ⅶ+Ⅷ段背侧段切除[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 315-315.
[13] 郭兵, 王万里, 何凯, 黄汉生. 腹腔镜下肝门部胆管癌根治术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(01): 143-143.
[14] 李凯, 陈淋, 苏怀东, 向涵, 张伟. 超微创器械在改良单孔腹腔镜巨大肝囊肿开窗引流及胆囊切除中的应用[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(01): 144-144.
[15] 魏丽霞, 张安澜, 周宝勇, 李明. 腹腔镜下Ⅲb型肝门部胆管癌根治术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(01): 145-145.
阅读次数
全文
1
HTML PDF
最新录用 在线预览 正式出版 最新录用 在线预览 正式出版
0 0 1 0 0 0

  来源 本网站 其他网站
  次数 1 0
  比例 100% 0%

摘要
35
最新录用 在线预览 正式出版
0 0 35
  来源 本网站 其他网站
  次数 12 23
  比例 34% 66%

版权所有 中华医学会 中华医学电子音像出版社有限责任公司  京ICP备14006079号-1  网络出版服务许可证：(署)网出证(京)字第075号