Journal of Minimal Access Surgery

REVIEW ARTICLE
[View FULLTEXT] [Download PDF]
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 14  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 1--8

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

Shike Wu1, Hao Lai3, Jiangyang Zhao2, Xin Deng3, Jianbao Wei3, Jian Liang3, Xianwei Mo5, Jiansi Chen5, Yuan Lin5 
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 Clinical Laboratory, Children's Hospital, Maternal and Child Health Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning 530003, Guangxi, China
3 Department of Gastrointestinal and Anal Surgery, Rui Kang Hospital, Guangxi Traditional Chinese Medical University, Nanning 530001, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Jianbao Wei
Department of Gastrointestinal and Anal Surgery, Rui Kang Hospital, Guangxi Traditional Chinese Medical University, Nanning 530001, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region
China
Dr. Yuan Lin
Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University Nanning 530021, Guangxi Autonomous Region
China

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.


How to cite this article:
Wu S, Lai H, Zhao J, Deng X, Wei J, Liang J, Mo X, Chen J, Lin Y. Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic splenectomy.J Min Access Surg 2018;14:1-8


How to cite this URL:
Wu S, Lai H, Zhao J, Deng X, Wei J, Liang J, Mo X, Chen J, Lin Y. Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic splenectomy. J Min Access Surg [serial online] 2018 [cited 2018 Jul 22 ];14:1-8
Available from: http://www.journalofmas.com/article.asp?issn=0972-9941;year=2018;volume=14;issue=1;spage=1;epage=8;aulast=Wu;type=0