Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is smaller necessarily better? A systematic review comparing the effects of minilaparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy on patient outcomes

  • Review
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

In recent years, minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC; total size of trocar incision <25 mm) has been increasingly advocated for the removal of the gallbladder, due to potentially better surgical outcomes (e.g., better cosmetic result, reduced pain, shorter hospital stay, quicker return to activity), but an evidence-based approach has been lacking. The current systematic review was undertaken to evaluate the importance of total size of trocar incision in improving surgical outcomes in adult laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

Methods

The literature was systematically reviewed using MEDLINE and EmBASE. Only randomized controlled trials in English, investigating minilaparoscopic versus conventional LC (total size of trocar incision ≥25 mm) and reporting pain scores were included. Quantitative analyses (meta-analyses) were performed on postoperative pain scores and other patient outcomes from more than one study where feasible and appropriate. Qualitative analyses consisted of assessing the number of studies showing a significant difference between the techniques.

Results

Thirteen trials met the inclusion criteria. There was a trend towards reduced pain with MLC compared with conventional LC, without reduction in opioid use. Patients in the MLC group had slightly reduced length of hospital stay, but there were no significant differences for return to activity. The two interventions were also similar in terms of operating times and adverse events, but MLC was associated with better cosmetic result (largely patient rated). There was a significantly greater likelihood of conversion to conventional LC or to open cholecystectomy in the MLC group than there was of conversion to open cholecystectomy in the conventional LC group [OR 4.71 (95% confidence interval 2.67–8.31), p < 0.00001].

Conclusions

The data included in this review suggest that reducing the size of trocar incision results in some limited improvements in surgical outcomes after LC. However, it carries a higher risk of conversion to conventional LC or open cholecystectomy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Novitsky YW, Kercher KW, Czerniach DR, Kaban GK, Khera S, Gallagher-Dorval KA, Callery MP, Litwin DE, Kelly JJ (2005) Advantages of mini-laparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg 140:1178–1183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gupta A, Shrivastava UK, Kumar P, Burman D (2005) Minilaparoscopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised controlled trial. Trop Gastroenterol 26:149–151

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Rosenberg J, Kehlet H (2001) Characteristics and prediction of early pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Pain 90:261–269

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Yuan RH, Lee WJ, Yu SC (1997) Mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a cosmetically better, almost scarless procedure. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 7:205–211

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kimura T, Sakuramachi S, Yoshida M, Kobayashi T, Takeuchi Y (1998) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using fine-caliber instruments. Surg Endosc 12:283–286

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ngoi SS, Goh P, Kok K, Kum CK, Cheah WK (1999) Needlescopic or minisite cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 13:303–305

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Reardon PR, Kamelgard JI, Applebaum BA, Brunicardi FC (1999) Mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: validating a new approach. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 9:227–232 discussion 232–233

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Unger SW, Paramo JC, Perez M (2000) Microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Less invasive gallbladder surgery. Surg Endosc 14:336–339

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Fischer HB, Simanski CJ (2005) A procedure-specific systematic review and consensus recommendations for analgesia after total hip replacement. Anaesthesia 60:1189–1202

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kehlet H, Wilkinson RC, Fischer HB, Camu F; on behalf of the PROSPECT Working Group (2007) PROSPECT: evidence-based, procedure-specific postoperative pain management. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 21:149–159

    Google Scholar 

  11. Neugebauer EA, Wilkinson RC, Kehlet H, Schug SA; on behalf of the PROSPECT Working Group (2007) PROSPECT: a practical method for formulating evidence-based expert recommendations for the management of postoperative pain. Surg Endosc 21:1047–1053

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jadad AR, Moore A, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay H (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D; CONSORT Group (2005) The CONSORT Statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials 2001. Explore (NY) 1:40–45

  14. The Cochrane Collaboration (2003) RevMan Analyses [Computer program]. Version 1.0 for Windows. In: Review Manager (RevMan) 4.2. Oxford, England

  15. Ainslie WG, Catton JA, Davides D, Dexter S, Gibson J, Larvin M, McMahon MJ, Moore M, Smith S, Vezakis A (2003) Micropuncture cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 175:766–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Alponat A, Cubukcu A, Gonullu N, Canturk Z, Ozbay O (2002) Is minisite cholecystectomy less traumatic? Prospective randomized study comparing minisite and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomies. World J Surg 2612:1437–1440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Trap R, Kehlet H, Rosenberg J (2000) Pain after microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy. A randomized double-blind controlled study. Surg Endosc 14:340–344

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Trap R, Kehlet H, Rosenberg J (2002) Microlaparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind trial. Surg Endosc 16:458–464

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bresadola F, Pasqualucci A, Donini A, Chiarandini P, Anania G, Terrosu G, Sistu MA, Pasetto A (1999) Elective transumbilical compared with standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Eur J Surg 165:29–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Cheah WK, Lenzi JE, So JB, Kum CK, Goh PM (2001) Randomized trial of needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 88:45–47

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Huang MT, Wang W, Wei PL, Chen RJ, Lee WJ (2003) Minilaparoscopic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study. Arch Surg 138:1017–1023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Leggett PL, Churchman-Winn R, Miller G (2000) Minimizing ports to improve laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 14:32–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Look M, Chew SP, Tan YC, Liew SE, Cheong DM, Tan JC, Wee SB, Teh CH, Low CH (2001) Post-operative pain in needlescopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomised trial. J R Coll Surg Edinb 463:138–142

    Google Scholar 

  24. Poon CM, Chan KW, Lee DW, Chan KC, Ko CW, Cheung HY, Lee KW (2003) Two-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 17:1624–1627

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Sarli L, Iusco D, Gobbi S, Porrini C, Ferro M, Roncoroni L (2003) Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed with mini-instruments. Br J Surg 90:1345–1348

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Schwenk W, Neudecker J, Mall J, Bohm B, Muller JM (2000) Prospective randomized blinded trial of pulmonary function, pain, and cosmetic results after laparoscopic vs microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 14:345–348

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Trichak S (2003) Three-port vs standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 17:1434–1436

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Singh P, Kaushik R, Sharma R (2006) Umbilical port hernia following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Min Access Surg 2:29–30

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lau H, Lo CY, Patil NG, Yuen WK (2006) Early versus delayed-interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a metaanalysis. Surg Endosc 20:82–87

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Berci G (1998) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using fine-caliber instruments. Smaller is not necessarily better. Surg Endosc 12:197

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Caroline Sharp (M.Sci, Medical Writer, Choice Pharma, Hitchin, UK) for her help with data extraction and entry; Emmanuel Marret (M.D., Departement d’Anesthesie-Reanimation, Hôpital Tenon, Paris, France) for his expert statistical input; Iradj Reza (Ph.D., Biomedical Information Scientist, Pfizer, Sandwich, UK) for his help and expertise in performing literature searches in EmBASE and MEDLINE; and Roseanne Wilkinson (Ph.D., Senior Medical Writer, Choice Pharma), Christine Drewienkiewicz (B.Sc., Scientific Services Director, Choice Pharma), Eva Leung (B.Sc., Account Executive, Choice Pharma), and James Pickford (B.Sc., Editorial Director, Choice Pharma) for editorial assistance.

Financial support: All authors are members or associates of the PROSPECT working group, which is supported by Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA. The PROSPECT working group members have been reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. for attending PROSPECT meetings to formulate the consensus recommendations. D.R. is employed by Choice Pharma, which has received funding from Pfizer Inc. to implement PROSPECT activities. This paper makes no specific recommendations about the use of any medical products, drugs or equipment manufactured by Pfizer Inc. or by any of its subsidiaries.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. North of England Wolfson Centre for Minimally Invasive Therapies, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Lancashire, UK

    Rory McCloy

  2. Choice Pharma, Hitchin, Hertfordshire, UK

    Delia Randall

  3. School of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia

    Stephan A. Schug

  4. Section for Surgical Pathophysiology, The Juliane Marie Centre, 4074, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Henrik Kehlet

  5. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery Cologne-Merheim, University of Witten/Herdecke, Cologne, Germany

    Christian Simanski

  6. Departement d’Anesthésie-Réanimation, Hôpital Tenon Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris and Université Pierre & Marie Curie, Paris, France

    Francis Bonnet

  7. Department of Anesthesiology, Flemish Free University of Brussels Medical Center, Brussels, Belgium

    Frederic Camu

  8. Department of Anaesthesia, Alexandra Hospital, Redditch, Worcestershire, UK

    Barrie Fischer

  9. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA

    Girish Joshi

  10. Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Örebro Medical Center Hospital, S-701 85, Orebro, Sweden

    Narinder Rawal

  11. Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, University of Witten/Herdecke, Cologne, Germany

    Edmund A. M. Neugebauer

Authors
  1. Rory McCloy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Delia Randall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephan A. Schug
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Henrik Kehlet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christian Simanski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Francis Bonnet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Frederic Camu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Barrie Fischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Girish Joshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Narinder Rawal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Edmund A. M. Neugebauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edmund A. M. Neugebauer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McCloy, R., Randall, D., Schug, S.A. et al. Is smaller necessarily better? A systematic review comparing the effects of minilaparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy on patient outcomes. Surg Endosc 22, 2541–2553 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0055-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0055-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation