Search

To compare the outcomes of three-port and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In compliance with PRISMA statement standards, electronic databases were searched to identify all comparative studies investigating outcomes of three-port vs four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Two techniques were compared using direct comparison meta-analysis model. The risks of type 1 or type 2 error in the meta-analysis model were assessed using trial sequential analysis model. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE system. Random effects modelling was applied to calculate pooled outcome data. Analysis of 2524 patients from 17 studies showed that both techniques were comparable in terms of operative time (MD:− 0.13, P = 0.88), conversion to open operation (OR:0.80, P = 0.43), gallbladder perforation (OR: 1.43, P = 0.13), bleeding from gallbladder bed (OR:0.81, P = 0.34), bile duct injury (RD: 0.00, P = 0.97), iatrogenic visceral injury (RD: − 0.00, P = 0.81), bile or stone spillage (OR:1.67, P = 0.08), port site infection (OR: 0.90, P = 0.76), port site hernia (RD: 0.00, P = 0.89), port site haematoma (RD: − 0.01, P = 0.23), port site seroma (RD: 0.00, P = 1.00), and need for reoperation (RD: − 0.00, P = 0.94). However, the three-port technique was associated with lower VAS pain score at 12 h (MD: − 0.66, P

To evaluate comparative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for malignant liver tumours in elderly patients. A systematic online search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane database, The Virtual Health Library, Clinical trials.gov, and Science Direct. Comparative studies comparing laparoscopic (LH) versus open hepatectomy (OH) for both primary and metastatic malignant liver tumours in the elderly were included. Total operative time (minutes), need to perform Pringle’s manoeuvre, blood loss (ml), the requirement for blood transfusion intra-operatively/post-operatively, post-operative complications, r0 resection rate, specimen resection margin (mm), re-operation rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), and 90-day mortality were the evaluated outcome parameters. Twelve studies reporting a total number of 1762 patients who underwent laparoscopic (n = 831) or open (n = 931) hepatectomy were included. OH group was associated with a significantly higher overall number of post-operative complications compared to LH (P = 0.00001). Complications such as post-operative liver failure (P = 0.02), ascites formation (P = 0.002), surgical site infection (P = 0.02), blood loss (P = 0.03), blood transfusion rate (P = 0.05), and LOS (P = 0.00001) were significantly higher in the OH group when compared to LH. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of total operative time (P = 0.53), bile leak (P = 0.12), r0 resection rate (P = 0.36), re-operation (P = 0.70), and 90-day mortality (P = 0.11). Laparoscopic liver resections are safe with at least equal or superior peri-operative outcomes in the elderly population, although available data regards mainly the results of minor resections. Laparoscopic major resections in the elderly population should be carefully evaluated and preferably performed in expert centres.

To compare the outcomes of three-port and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In compliance with PRISMA statement standards, electronic databases were searched to identify all comparative studies investigating outcomes of three-port vs four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Two techniques were compared using direct comparison meta-analysis model. The risks of type 1 or type 2 error in the meta-analysis model were assessed using trial sequential analysis model. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE system. Random effects modelling was applied to calculate pooled outcome data. Analysis of 2524 patients from 17 studies showed that both techniques were comparable in terms of operative time (MD:- 0.13, P = 0.88), conversion to open operation (OR:0.80, P = 0.43), gallbladder perforation (OR: 1.43, P = 0.13), bleeding from gallbladder bed (OR:0.81, P = 0.34), bile duct injury (RD: 0.00, P = 0.97), iatrogenic visceral injury (RD: - 0.00, P = 0.81), bile or stone spillage (OR:1.67, P = 0.08), port site infection (OR: 0.90, P = 0.76), port site hernia (RD: 0.00, P = 0.89), port site haematoma (RD: - 0.01, P = 0.23), port site seroma (RD: 0.00, P = 1.00), and need for reoperation (RD: - 0.00, P = 0.94). However, the three-port technique was associated with lower VAS pain score at 12 h (MD: - 0.66, P 0.00001) and 24 h (MD: - 0.54, P 0.00001) postoperatively, shorter length of hospital stay (MD:-0.09, P = 0.41), and shorter time to return to normal activities (MD: - 0.79, P = 0.02). Trial sequential analysis confirmed that the meta-analysis was conclusive with no significant risks of type 1 or type 2 error. Robust evidence (level 1 with high certainty) suggests that in an elective setting with uncomplicated cholelithiasis as indication for cholecystectomy, three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy is comparable with the four-port technique in terms of procedural and morbidity outcomes and may be associated with less postoperative pain, shorter length of hospital stay and shorter time to return to normal activities.