Laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis

F Keus, J A F de Jong, H G Gooszen, C J H M van Laarhoven, F Keus, J A F de Jong, H G Gooszen, C J H M van Laarhoven

Abstract

Background: Cholecystectomy is one of the most frequently performed operations. Open cholecystectomy has been the gold standard for over 100 years. Small-incision cholecystectomy is a less frequently used alternative. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was introduced in the 1980s.

Objectives: To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis.

Search strategy: We searched TheCochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (6 April 2004), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (1980 to January 2004), Web of Science (1988 to January 2004), and CINAHL (1982 to January 2004) for randomised trials.

Selection criteria: All published and unpublished randomised trials in patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis comparing any kind of laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus small-incision or other kind of minimal incision open cholecystectomy. No language limitations were applied.

Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently performed selection of trials and data extraction. The methodological quality of the generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up was evaluated to assess bias risk. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. Authors were requested additional information in case of missing data. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed if appropriate.

Main results: Thirteen trials randomised 2337 patients. Methodological quality was relatively high considering the four quality criteria. Total complications of laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy are high: 26.6% versus 22.9%. Total complications (risk difference, random-effects -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.07 to 0.05), hospital stay (weighted mean difference (WMD), random-effects -0.72 days, 95% CI -1.48 to 0.04), and convalescence were not significantly different. High-quality trials show a quicker operative time for small-incision cholecystectomy (WMD, high-quality trials 'blinding', random-effects 16.4 minutes, 95% CI 8.9 to 23.8) while low-quality trials show no significant difference.

Authors' conclusions: Laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy seem to be equivalent. No differences could be observed in mortality, complications, and postoperative recovery. Small-incision cholecystectomy has a significantly shorter operative time. Complications in elective cholecystectomy are prevalent.

Conflict of interest statement

We (FK, HG, CL) are the coordinating authors of an unpublished trial (Keus 2006), which will be published in the near future.

Figures

1
1
Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
2
2
Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
3
3
Funnel plot on laparoscopic versus small‐incision cholecystectomy regarding generation of the allocation sequence considering total complications, including 95% confidence interval lines. There is some suspicion of bias considering the absence (in the lower right part of the figure) of small trials favoring the small‐incision technique.
4
4
Funnel plot on laparoscopic versus small‐incision cholecystectomy regarding generation of the allocation sequence considering conversions, including 95% confidence interval lines. No arguments for bias.
5
5
Funnel plot on laparoscopic versus small‐incision cholecystectomy regarding generation of the allocation sequence considering operative time, including 95% confidence interval lines. No arguments for bias.
6
6
Funnel plot on laparoscopic versus small‐incision cholecystectomy regarding generation of the allocation sequence considering hospital stay, including 95% confidence interval lines. No arguments for bias.
1.1. Analysis
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding generation of the allocation sequence, Outcome 1 Mortality.
1.2. Analysis
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding generation of the allocation sequence, Outcome 2 Intra‐operative complications.
1.3. Analysis
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding generation of the allocation sequence, Outcome 3 Minor complications.
1.4. Analysis
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding generation of the allocation sequence, Outcome 4 Severe complications (without bile duct injuries).
1.5. Analysis
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding generation of the allocation sequence, Outcome 5 Bile duct injuries.
1.6. Analysis
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding generation of the allocation sequence, Outcome 6 Total complications.
1.7. Analysis
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding generation of the allocation sequence, Outcome 7 Conversions.
1.8. Analysis
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding generation of the allocation sequence, Outcome 8 Operative time (minutes).
1.9. Analysis
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding generation of the allocation sequence, Outcome 9 Hospital stay (days).
1.10. Analysis
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding generation of the allocation sequence, Outcome 10 Convalescence: work leave (days).
1.11. Analysis
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding generation of the allocation sequence, Outcome 11 Convalescence: normal activity (at home) (days).
2.1. Analysis
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding allocation concealment, Outcome 1 Mortality.
2.2. Analysis
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding allocation concealment, Outcome 2 Intra‐operative complications.
2.3. Analysis
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding allocation concealment, Outcome 3 Minor complications.
2.4. Analysis
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding allocation concealment, Outcome 4 Severe complications (without bile duct injuries).
2.5. Analysis
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding allocation concealment, Outcome 5 Bile duct injuries.
2.6. Analysis
2.6. Analysis
Comparison 2 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding allocation concealment, Outcome 6 Total complications.
2.7. Analysis
2.7. Analysis
Comparison 2 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding allocation concealment, Outcome 7 Conversions.
2.8. Analysis
2.8. Analysis
Comparison 2 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding allocation concealment, Outcome 8 Operative time (minutes).
2.9. Analysis
2.9. Analysis
Comparison 2 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding allocation concealment, Outcome 9 Hospital stay (days).
2.10. Analysis
2.10. Analysis
Comparison 2 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding allocation concealment, Outcome 10 Convalescence: work leave (days).
2.11. Analysis
2.11. Analysis
Comparison 2 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding allocation concealment, Outcome 11 Convalescence: normal activity (at home) (days).
3.1. Analysis
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding blinding, Outcome 1 Mortality.
3.2. Analysis
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding blinding, Outcome 2 Intra‐operative complications.
3.3. Analysis
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding blinding, Outcome 3 Minor complications.
3.4. Analysis
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding blinding, Outcome 4 Severe complications (without bile duct injuries).
3.5. Analysis
3.5. Analysis
Comparison 3 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding blinding, Outcome 5 Bile duct injuries.
3.6. Analysis
3.6. Analysis
Comparison 3 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding blinding, Outcome 6 Total complications.
3.8. Analysis
3.8. Analysis
Comparison 3 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding blinding, Outcome 8 Operative time (minutes).
3.9. Analysis
3.9. Analysis
Comparison 3 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding blinding, Outcome 9 Hospital stay (days).
3.10. Analysis
3.10. Analysis
Comparison 3 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding blinding, Outcome 10 Convalescence: work leave (days).
3.11. Analysis
3.11. Analysis
Comparison 3 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding blinding, Outcome 11 Convalescence: normal activity (at home) (days).
4.1. Analysis
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding follow‐up, Outcome 1 Mortality.
4.2. Analysis
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding follow‐up, Outcome 2 Intra‐operative complications.
4.3. Analysis
4.3. Analysis
Comparison 4 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding follow‐up, Outcome 3 Minor complications.
4.4. Analysis
4.4. Analysis
Comparison 4 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding follow‐up, Outcome 4 Severe complications (without bile duct injuries).
4.5. Analysis
4.5. Analysis
Comparison 4 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding follow‐up, Outcome 5 Bile duct injuries.
4.6. Analysis
4.6. Analysis
Comparison 4 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding follow‐up, Outcome 6 Total complications.
4.7. Analysis
4.7. Analysis
Comparison 4 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding follow‐up, Outcome 7 Conversions.
4.8. Analysis
4.8. Analysis
Comparison 4 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding follow‐up, Outcome 8 Operative time (minutes).
4.9. Analysis
4.9. Analysis
Comparison 4 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding follow‐up, Outcome 9 Hospital stay (days).
4.10. Analysis
4.10. Analysis
Comparison 4 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding follow‐up, Outcome 10 Convalescence: work leave (days).
4.11. Analysis
4.11. Analysis
Comparison 4 LC versus SIC ‐ high‐quality and low‐quality trials regarding follow‐up, Outcome 11 Convalescence: normal activity (at home) (days).
5.1. Analysis
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5 LC versus SIC ‐ sensitivity and subgroup analyses, Outcome 1 Sensitivity analysis 1: Assuming zero mortality in nonreporting trials.
5.2. Analysis
5.2. Analysis
Comparison 5 LC versus SIC ‐ sensitivity and subgroup analyses, Outcome 2 Sensitivity analysis 2: Assuming zero conversions in nonreporting trials.
5.3. Analysis
5.3. Analysis
Comparison 5 LC versus SIC ‐ sensitivity and subgroup analyses, Outcome 3 Sensitivity analysis 3: Imputing medians and standard deviations for missing data in operative time (minutes).
5.4. Analysis
5.4. Analysis
Comparison 5 LC versus SIC ‐ sensitivity and subgroup analyses, Outcome 4 Sensitivity analysis 4: Imputing medians and standard deviations for missing data in hospital stay (days).
5.5. Analysis
5.5. Analysis
Comparison 5 LC versus SIC ‐ sensitivity and subgroup analyses, Outcome 5 Sensitivity analysis 5: Imputing medians and standard deviations for missing data in convalescence: work leave.
5.6. Analysis
5.6. Analysis
Comparison 5 LC versus SIC ‐ sensitivity and subgroup analyses, Outcome 6 Sensitivity analysis 6: Imputing medians and standard deviations for missing data in normal activity.
5.7. Analysis
5.7. Analysis
Comparison 5 LC versus SIC ‐ sensitivity and subgroup analyses, Outcome 7 Sensitivity analysis 7: Omitting outlier Srivastava in minor complications.
5.8. Analysis
5.8. Analysis
Comparison 5 LC versus SIC ‐ sensitivity and subgroup analyses, Outcome 8 Sensitivity analysis 8: Omitting outlier Srivastava in total complications.
5.9. Analysis
5.9. Analysis
Comparison 5 LC versus SIC ‐ sensitivity and subgroup analyses, Outcome 9 Sensitivity analysis 9: Omitting outlier Grande in hospital stay (days).
5.10. Analysis
5.10. Analysis
Comparison 5 LC versus SIC ‐ sensitivity and subgroup analyses, Outcome 10 Sensitivity analysis 10: Total complications including Redmond.
5.11. Analysis
5.11. Analysis
Comparison 5 LC versus SIC ‐ sensitivity and subgroup analyses, Outcome 11 Sensitivity analysis 11: Operative time (minutes) including Redmond.
5.12. Analysis
5.12. Analysis
Comparison 5 LC versus SIC ‐ sensitivity and subgroup analyses, Outcome 12 Subgroup analysis 1: Influence antibiotic prophylaxis on total complications.
5.13. Analysis
5.13. Analysis
Comparison 5 LC versus SIC ‐ sensitivity and subgroup analyses, Outcome 13 Subgroup analysis 2: Influence surgical experience on total complications.
5.14. Analysis
5.14. Analysis
Comparison 5 LC versus SIC ‐ sensitivity and subgroup analyses, Outcome 14 Subgroup analysis 3: Influence cholangiography on operative time (minutes).
5.15. Analysis
5.15. Analysis
Comparison 5 LC versus SIC ‐ sensitivity and subgroup analyses, Outcome 15 Subgroup analysis 4: Influence surgical experience on operative time (minutes).
5.16. Analysis
5.16. Analysis
Comparison 5 LC versus SIC ‐ sensitivity and subgroup analyses, Outcome 16 Subgroup analysis 5: Influence antibiotic prophylaxis on hospital stay (days).
5.17. Analysis
5.17. Analysis
Comparison 5 LC versus SIC ‐ sensitivity and subgroup analyses, Outcome 17 Subgroup analysis 6: Influence surgical experience on hospital stay (days).
5.18. Analysis
5.18. Analysis
Comparison 5 LC versus SIC ‐ sensitivity and subgroup analyses, Outcome 18 Subgroup analysis 7: Influence cholangiography on bile duct injuries.

Source: PubMed

3
订阅