Single incision laparoscopic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim A meta‐analysis was performed to compare the outcome of single incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with standard multiport laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. Method A systematic search of databases was carried out to extract comparative studies (randomized and non‐randomized, prospective an...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inColorectal disease Vol. 16; no. 4; pp. O123 - O132
Main Authors Vettoretto, N., Cirocchi, R., Randolph, J., Parisi, A., Farinella, E., Romano, G.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.04.2014
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Aim A meta‐analysis was performed to compare the outcome of single incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with standard multiport laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. Method A systematic search of databases was carried out to extract comparative studies (randomized and non‐randomized, prospective and retrospective). Data were analysed according to Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. A meta‐analysis was performed when the data permitted this form of analysis. Results Nine comparative studies were retrieved comprising 241 patients with single incision and standard laparoscopy. None of these was randomized. There was no significant difference between the two methods for the primary end‐points of mortality, morbidity and cancer‐specific parameters and for the secondary end‐points of operation time, blood loss, ileus, hospital stay and conversion. It was not possible to analyse pain and cosmetics data owing to insufficient information. Conclusion Single incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy is comparable with standard multiport laparoscopic right hemicolectomy in primary and secondary outcomes. Given current information it is justified to use single incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, but there is a need for a prospective randomized study.
Bibliography:ArticleID:CODI12526
istex:FF97C27CC6609B98C1A005183AA4E81656B321F0
ark:/67375/WNG-VRRH1K33-W
ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
ObjectType-Review-4
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-3
ISSN:1462-8910
1463-1318
DOI:10.1111/codi.12526