4 years ago

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Laura Evers, Nicole Bouvy, Andrea Peeters, Dion Branje



Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) might maximize the advantages of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) by reducing postoperative pain and improving cosmesis. However, the safety and feasibility of SILC has not yet been established. This study assesses safety, patient reported outcome measures and feasibility of SILC versus conventional LC.


Literature search for RCT’s comparing SILC with conventional LC in gallstone-related disease was performed in PubMed and Embase. The conventional LC was defined as two 10-mm and two 5-mm ports. Study selection was done according to predefined criteria. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias. Pooled outcomes were calculated for adverse events, pain, cosmesis, quality of life and feasibility using fixed-effect and random-effects models.


Nine RCT’s were included with total of 860 patients. No mortality was observed. More mild adverse events (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.99–2.42) and significantly more serious adverse events (RR 3.00; 95% CI 1.05–8.58) occurred in the SILC group. Postoperative pain (MD -0.46; 95% CI -0.74 to -0.18) and cosmesis (SMD 2.38; 95% CI 1.50–3.26) showed significantly better results for the SILC group, but no differences were observed in quality of life. Operating time (MD 23.12; 95% CI 11.59–34.65) and the need for additional ports (RR 11.43; 95% CI 3.48–37.50) were significantly higher in the SILC group. No difference was observed in conversion to open cholecystectomy or hospital stay longer than 24 h.


SILC does not provide any clear advantages over conventional LC except for less postoperative pain and improved cosmesis. It is questionable whether these advantages outweigh the higher occurrence of adverse events and shortcomings in feasibility. Considering considerable heterogeneity and low methodological quality of the studies it is advisable to perform well-designed RCT’s in the future to address the safety and clinical benefits of SILC.

Publisher URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00464-016-5381-0

DOI: 10.1007/s00464-016-5381-0

You might also like
Discover & Discuss Important Research

Keeping up-to-date with research can feel impossible, with papers being published faster than you'll ever be able to read them. That's where Researcher comes in: we're simplifying discovery and making important discussions happen. With over 19,000 sources, including peer-reviewed journals, preprints, blogs, universities, podcasts and Live events across 10 research areas, you'll never miss what's important to you. It's like social media, but better. Oh, and we should mention - it's free.

  • Download from Google Play
  • Download from App Store
  • Download from AppInChina

Researcher displays publicly available abstracts and doesn’t host any full article content. If the content is open access, we will direct clicks from the abstracts to the publisher website and display the PDF copy on our platform. Clicks to view the full text will be directed to the publisher website, where only users with subscriptions or access through their institution are able to view the full article.