当前位置： SCI文献检索 > Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews期刊下所有文献 > Miniport versus standard ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Miniport versus standard ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Abstract：

BACKGROUND:In conventional (standard) laparoscopic cholecystectomy, four abdominal ports (two of 10 mm diameter and two of 5 mm diameter) are used. Recently, use of smaller ports have been reported. OBJECTIVES:To assess the benefits and harms of miniport (defined as ports smaller than conventional ports) laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. SEARCH STRATEGY:We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until September 2009 for identifying the randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA:Only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing miniport versus standard ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy were considered for the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS:We included thirteen trials with 803 patients randomised to miniport (n = 416) versus standard ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 387). In twelve trials, four ports were used. In one trial, three ports were used. The bias risk of all trials was high. Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy could be completed successfully in 87% of patients. The remaining patients were mostly converted to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy but some were also converted to open cholecystectomy. Further information about these patients who underwent conversion to open cholecystectomy was not available in most trials. In the patients on whom information was available, there was no mortality reported; and there was no significant difference in the surgery-related morbidity or conversion to open cholecystectomy. Most trials excluded the patients who were converted to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In patients who underwent successful miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the pain was significantly lower in the miniport group than in the standard port at various time points. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be completed successfully in more than 85% of patients. Patients, in whom elective miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy was completed successfully, had lower pain than those who underwent standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, because of the lack of information on its safety, miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy cannot be recommended outside well-designed, randomised clinical trials.

journal_name

Cochrane Database Syst Rev

journal_title

The Cochrane database of systematic reviews

authors

Gurusamy KS,Samraj K,Ramamoorthy R,Farouk M,Fusai G,Davidson BR

doi

10.1002/14651858.CD006804.pub2

subject

Has Abstract

pub_date

2010-03-17 00:00:00

pages

CD006804

issue

issn

1469-493X

pub_type

杂志文章,meta分析,评审

在线工具

Miniport versus standard ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.