Clinical efficacy of single-incision and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy: a Meta analysis
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-9752.2014.09.009
- VernacularTitle:单孔与传统三孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术临床疗效的Meta分析
- Author:
Jun GAO
;
Jiran ZHANG
;
Nianyuan YE
;
Qi LU
;
Gang NIU
;
Daorong WANG
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Appendicitis;
Appendectomy;
Laparoscopy,single-incision;
Randomized controlled trials;
Meta analysis
- From:
Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery
2014;13(9):709-715
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of single-incision and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy.Methods According to the Cochrane systematic review methods,literatures on the comparison of the effects of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (CTLA) were searched for in the PubMed,EMBASE,the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register,CNKI,CBM and VIP database.Data including the operation time,pain visual analogue scales scores,duration of postoperative hospital stay,incidence of postoperative complications,mean time of hospital stay and cost between the SILA and CTLA were compared by 2 reviewers.RevMan 4.2 software was used for Meta analysis,and the heterogeneity of the study was analyzed using the 12 test.Categorical variables were presented by odds ratio and 95％ confidence interval (95％ CI),and continuous variables were presented by weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95％C1.Results Eight randomized controlled trials including 1 444 patients were selected.All the patients were subdivided into the adults group (760 patients) and the children group (684 patients).A total of 721 patients received SILA (SILA group) and 723 received CTLA (CTLA group).The operation time of patients who received SILA in the adults group and the children group were significantly longer than those who received CTLA (WMD =4.40,7.39,95％ CI:2.14-6.66,2.16-12.61,P ＜0.05).There were no significant difference in the pain visual analogue scales scores,incidence of postoperative complications and duration of hospital stay between patients who received SILA and CTLA in the adults group and the children group (WMD =-0.34,95 ％ CI:-1.02-0.33,OR=0.97,95％CI:0.64-1.47; WMD=-0.19,95％CI:-1.14-0.76,P＞0.05).The cost of patients who received SILA was significantly higher than those who received CTLA in the children group (WMD =0.87,95 ％ CI:0.26-1.48,P ＜ 0.05).Conclusions There is no obvious advantages of SILA in perioperative and postoperative outcomes when compared with CTLA.Therefore,SILA is only a possible alternative to CTLA other than the preferred method.
