Users Online : 196 About us |  Subscribe |  e-Alerts  | Feedback | Login   
Journal of Minimal Access Surgery Current Issue | Archives | Ahead Of Print Journal of Minimal Access Surgery
           Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
 
REVIEW ARTICLE
Ahead of Print

Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic splenectomy


1 Department of Gastrointestinal and Anal Surgery, Rui Kang Hospital, Guangxi Traditional Chinese Medical University, Nanning 530001, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region; Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University Nanning 530021, Guangxi Autonomous Region, China
2 Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University Nanning 530021, Guangxi Autonomous Region, China
3 Department of Clinical Laboratory, Children's Hospital, Maternal and Child Health Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning 530003, Guangxi, China
4 Department of Gastrointestinal and Anal Surgery, Rui Kang Hospital, Guangxi Traditional Chinese Medical University, Nanning 530001, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China

Correspondence Address:
Jianbao Wei,
Department of Gastrointestinal and Anal Surgery, Rui Kang Hospital, Guangxi Traditional Chinese Medical University, Nanning 530001, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region
China
Yuan Lin,
Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University Nanning 530021, Guangxi Autonomous Region
China
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

Background: There is no consensus that single-incision laparoscopic surgery splenectomy (SILS-SP) is on a par with conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery splenectomy (CMLS-SP). Aims: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess feasibility and safety of SILS-SP when compared with CMLS-SP. Materials and Methods: Eligible articles were identified by searching several databases including PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI (China) and the Cochrane Library, up until February 2016. Studies were reviewed independently and rated by Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Evaluated outcomes were complications, operative time, post-operative hospital stay, blood loss, starting diet, post-operative pain scores, conversion and analgesic requirements. Results: Ten retrospective studies met the eligibility criteria. Overall, there was no significant difference between SILS-SP and CMLS-SP in complications, operative time, post-operative hospital stay, blood loss, starting diet, post-operative pain scores, conversion and analgesic requirements. Conclusions: SILS-SP is feasible and safe in certain patients, with no obvious advantages over CMLS-SP. Therefore, it may be considered an alternative to CMLS-SP. We await high-quality, double-blind RCTs. These should include clear statements on standard scores of post-operative pain and cosmetic results, longer follow-up assessment and cost-benefit analysis.


Print this article
Search
 Back
 
  Search Pubmed for
 
    -  Wu S
    -  Lai H
    -  Zhao J
    -  Deng X
    -  Wei J
    -  Liang J
    -  Mo X
    -  Chen J
    -  Lin Y
 Citation Manager
 Article Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed442    
    PDF Downloaded5    

Recommend this journal

2004 Journal of Minimal Access Surgery
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
Online since 15th August '04