Scholarlink

Background <p>Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is widely regarded as the gold-standard for the management and treatment of gallbladder disease. Traditionally, LC has been performed using multiple small incisions to allow placement of trocars and instruments. However, single-incision laparoscopic surgery has emerged as a potential alternative, purportedly offering cosmetic and recovery benefits, though the evidence for these advantages remains inconsistent in the literature.</p> Methods <p>Nine studies published between 2010 and 2019, enrolling a total of 1,884 patients, were eligible for inclusion. A systematic review and meta-analysis methodology was employed adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Outcomes included conversion to open or additional-port surgery, operative time, postoperative hospital stay, biliary complications, postoperative wound infection, port-site (umbilical) hernia, and postoperative pain. Sensitivity analysis were performed using the leave-one-out method and restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCT-only analysis).</p> Results <p>There was no statistically significant difference between single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and three-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TILC) in terms of conversion rate (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.64–1.72; <i>P</i> = 0.84), postoperative hospital stay (MD − 0.05 days, 95% CI − 0.11 to 0.02; <i>P</i> = 0.14), wound infection (OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.58–3.16; <i>P</i> = 0.48), port-site umbilical hernia (OR 1.80, 95% CI 0.17–19.60; <i>P</i> = 0.63), biliary complications, or postoperative pain (MD − 0.07, 95% CI − 0.21 to 0.07; <i>P</i> = 0.32; I<sup>2</sup> = 24%). Operative time was significantly longer in the SILC group (MD + 17.45 min, 95% CI 8.28–26.62; <i>P</i> = 0.0002; I<sup>2</sup> = 97%).</p> Conclusion <p>In carefully selected low-risk patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy, SILC is technically feasible and is not associated with significantly higher rates of conversion, wound infection, biliary complications, port-site hernia, prolonged hospital stay, or pain compared with TILC. However, SILC is associated with a statistically significant increase in operative time. These findings support SILC as an acceptable alternative to TILC in elective, low-complexity settings at experienced centres. They should not be extrapolated to patients with acute cholecystitis, significant obesity, or prior abdominal surgery, for whom the evidence base remains insufficient. High-quality randomized controlled trials including these populations are warranted.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Outcomes and complications of three-incision versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月8日

查看全文
  • Mosab Said,
  • Ahmad Alzyoud,
  • Fadi Alkhawaja,
  • Mohammad AlElaimat,
  • Ahmad Yousef Alazzam

摘要

Background

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is widely regarded as the gold-standard for the management and treatment of gallbladder disease. Traditionally, LC has been performed using multiple small incisions to allow placement of trocars and instruments. However, single-incision laparoscopic surgery has emerged as a potential alternative, purportedly offering cosmetic and recovery benefits, though the evidence for these advantages remains inconsistent in the literature.

Methods

Nine studies published between 2010 and 2019, enrolling a total of 1,884 patients, were eligible for inclusion. A systematic review and meta-analysis methodology was employed adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Outcomes included conversion to open or additional-port surgery, operative time, postoperative hospital stay, biliary complications, postoperative wound infection, port-site (umbilical) hernia, and postoperative pain. Sensitivity analysis were performed using the leave-one-out method and restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCT-only analysis).

Results

There was no statistically significant difference between single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and three-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TILC) in terms of conversion rate (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.64–1.72; P = 0.84), postoperative hospital stay (MD − 0.05 days, 95% CI − 0.11 to 0.02; P = 0.14), wound infection (OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.58–3.16; P = 0.48), port-site umbilical hernia (OR 1.80, 95% CI 0.17–19.60; P = 0.63), biliary complications, or postoperative pain (MD − 0.07, 95% CI − 0.21 to 0.07; P = 0.32; I2 = 24%). Operative time was significantly longer in the SILC group (MD + 17.45 min, 95% CI 8.28–26.62; P = 0.0002; I2 = 97%).

Conclusion

In carefully selected low-risk patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy, SILC is technically feasible and is not associated with significantly higher rates of conversion, wound infection, biliary complications, port-site hernia, prolonged hospital stay, or pain compared with TILC. However, SILC is associated with a statistically significant increase in operative time. These findings support SILC as an acceptable alternative to TILC in elective, low-complexity settings at experienced centres. They should not be extrapolated to patients with acute cholecystitis, significant obesity, or prior abdominal surgery, for whom the evidence base remains insufficient. High-quality randomized controlled trials including these populations are warranted.