Department of Medicine and Surgery, S. Maria Hospital, University of Perugia, Terni, Italy.
Department of Neonatal and Paediatric Surgery, Meyer Children's Hospital, IRCCS, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Surg Endosc. 2024 Apr;38(4):1667-1684. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10659-w. Epub 2024 Feb 8.
Conventional three-access laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) is currently the gold standard treatment, however, Single-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy (SILA) has been proposed as an alternative. The aim of this systematic review/meta-analysis was to evaluate safety and efficacy of SILA compared with conventional approach.
Per PRISMA guidelines, we systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CLA vs SILA for acute appendicitis. The randomised Mantel-Haenszel method was used for the meta-analysis. Statistical data analysis was performed with the Review Manager software and the risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane "Risk of Bias" assessment tool.
Twenty-one studies (RCTs) were selected (2646 patients). The operative time was significantly longer in the SILA group (MD = 7,32), confirmed in both paediatric (MD = 9,80), (Q = 1,47) and adult subgroups (MD = 5,92), (Q = 55,85). Overall postoperative morbidity was higher in patients who underwent SILA, but the result was not statistically significant. In SILA group were assessed shorter hospital stays, fewer wound infections and higher conversion rate, but the results were not statistically significant. Meta-analysis was not performed about cosmetics of skin scars and postoperative pain because different scales were used in each study.
This analysis show that SILA, although associated with fewer postoperative wound infection, has a significantly longer operative time. Furthermore, the risk of postoperative general complications is still present. Further studies will be required to analyse outcomes related to postoperative pain and the cosmetics of the surgical scar.
传统的三孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术(CLA)目前是金标准治疗方法,但单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术(SILA)已被提出作为替代方法。本系统评价/荟萃分析的目的是评估 SILA 与传统方法相比的安全性和疗效。
根据 PRISMA 指南,我们系统地回顾了比较 CLA 与 SILA 治疗急性阑尾炎的随机对照试验(RCT)。使用随机曼-惠特尼方法进行荟萃分析。使用 Review Manager 软件进行统计数据分析,并使用 Cochrane“风险偏倚”评估工具评估风险偏倚。
选择了 21 项研究(RCT)(2646 名患者)。SILA 组的手术时间明显更长(MD=7.32),在儿科(MD=9.80)和成人亚组(MD=5.92)中得到证实(Q=1.47)和(Q=55.85)。SILA 组患者的总体术后发病率较高,但结果无统计学意义。SILA 组的住院时间较短,伤口感染较少,转换率较高,但结果无统计学意义。由于每个研究中使用的量表不同,因此未对皮肤疤痕和术后疼痛的美容效果进行荟萃分析。
本分析表明,SILA 虽然与较少的术后伤口感染相关,但手术时间明显更长。此外,术后一般并发症的风险仍然存在。需要进一步的研究来分析与术后疼痛和手术疤痕美容效果相关的结果。