Background: Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) may offer advantages over conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Conclusion: SILC has a higher procedure failure rate with more blood loss and takes longer than LC. No trial was adequately powered to assess safety.

IntroductionThe goal of non-operative management (NOM) for blunt splenic trauma (BST) is to preserve the spleen. The advantages of NOM for minor splenic trauma have been extensively reported, whereas its value for the more severe splenic injuries is still debated. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available published evidence on NOM in patients with splenic trauma and to compare it with the operative management (OM) in terms of mortality, morbidity and duration of hospital stay.MethodsFor this systematic review we followed the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses" statement. A systematic search was performed on PubMed for studies published from January 2000 to December 2011, without language restrictions, which compared NOM vs. OM for splenic trauma injuries and which at least 10 patients with BST.ResultsWe identified 21 non randomized studies: 1 Clinical Controlled Trial and 20 retrospective cohort studies analyzing a total of 16,940 patients with BST. NOM represents the gold standard treatment for minor splenic trauma and is associated with decreased mortality in severe splenic trauma (4.78% vs. 13.5% in NOM and OM, respectively), according to the literature. Of note, in BST treated operatively, concurrent injuries accounted for the higher mortality. In addition, it was not possible to determine post-treatment morbidity in major splenic trauma. The definition of hemodynamic stability varied greatly in the literature depending on the surgeon and the trauma team, representing a further bias. Moreover, data on the remaining analyzed outcomes (hospital stay, number of blood transfusions, abdominal abscesses, overwhelming post-splenectomy infection) were not reported in all included studies or were not comparable, precluding the possibility to perform a meaningful cumulative analysis and comparison.ConclusionsNOM of BST, preserving the spleen, is the treatment of choice for the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grades I and II. Conclusions are more difficult to outline for higher grades of splenic injury, because of the substantial heterogeneity of expertise among different hospitals, and potentially inappropriate comparison groups.

BackgroundWe conducted a systematic review to evaluate the role of Ultrasonic dissector (UAS) versus conventional clamp and tie in thyroidectomy.Materials and methodsWe searched for all published RCT in into electronic databases. To be included in the analysis, the studies had to compare thyroidectomy with UAS versus conventional vessel ligation and tight (conventional technique = CT). The following outcomes were used to compare the total thyroidectomy group with UAS versus CT group: operative duration, operative blood loss, overall drainage volume during the first 24 hours, transiet laryngeal nerve palsy, permanent laryngeal nerve palsy, transiet hypocalcaemia and permanent hypocalcaemia.ResultsThere are currently 7 RCT on this issue to compare thyroidectomy with UAS versus CT. From the analysis of these studies it was possible to confront 608 cases: 303 undergoing to thyroidectomy with UAS versus 305 that were treated with CT. Actually, it was shown a relevant advantage of cost-effectiveness in patients treated with UAS; there is a statistically significant reduction of the operative duration (weighted mean difference [WMD], -18.74 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], (-26.97 to -10.52 minutes) (P = 0.00001), intraoperative blood loss (WMD, -60.10 mL; 95% CI, -117.04 to 3.16 mL) (P = 0.04) and overall drainage volume (WMD, -35.30 mL; 95% CI, -49.24 to 21.36 mL) (P = 0.00001) in the patients underwent thyroidectomy with UAS. Although the analysis showed that the patients who were treated with USA presented more favourable results in incidence of post-operative complications (transient laryngeal nerve palsy: P = 0.11; permanent laryngeal nerve palsy: not estimable; transient hypocalcaemia: P = 0.24; permanent hypocalcaemia: P = 0.45), these data didn't present statistical relevance.ConclusionThis meta-analysis shown a relevant advantage only in terms of cost-effectiveness in patients treated with UAS; it is subsequent to statistically significant reduction of operation duration, intraoperative blood loss and of overall drainage volume during the first 24 hours. Although the analysis showed that the patients who were treated with UAS presented more favourable results in incidence of post-operative complications (transiet laryngeal nerve palsy; transiet hypocalcaemia and permanent hypocalcaemia), these data didn't present statistical relevance.

BackgroundWe conducted an observational multicentric clinical study on a cohort of patients undergoing thyroidectomy for thyroid carcinoma. The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefits of the use of ultrasonic dissector (UAS) vs. the use of a conventional technique (vessel clamp and tie) in patients undergoing thyroid surgery for cancer.MethodsFrom June 2009 to May 2010 we evaluated 321 consecutive patients electively admitted to undergo total thyroidectomy for thyroid carcinoma. The first 201 patients (89 males, 112 females) presenting to our Department underwent thyroidectomy with the use of UAS while the following 120 patients (54 males, 66 females) underwent thyroidectomy performed with a conventional technique (CT): vessel clamp and tie.ResultsThe operative time (mean: 75 min in UAS vs. 113 min in CT, range: 54 to 120 min in UAS vs. 68 to 173 min in CT) was much shorter in the group of thyroidectomies performed with UAS. The incidence of transient laryngeal nerve palsy (UAS 3/201 patients (1.49%); CT 1/120 patients (0.83%)) was higher in the group of UAS; the incidence of permanent laryngeal nerve palsy was similar in the two groups (UAS 2/201 patients (0.99%) vs. CT 2/120 patients (1.66%)). The incidence of transient hypocalcaemia (UAS 17/201 patients (8.4%) vs. CT 9/120 patients (7.5%)) was higher in the UAS group; no relevant differences were reported in the incidence of permanent hypocalcaemia in the two groups (UAS 5/201 patients (2.48%) vs. 2/120 patients (1.66%)). Also the average postoperative length of stay was similar in two groups (2 days).ConclusionThe only significant advantage proved by this study is represented by the cost-effectiveness (reduction of the usage of operating room) for patients treated with UAS, secondary to the significant reduction of the operative time. The analysis failed to show any advantages in terms of postoperative transient complications in the group of patients treated with ultrasonic dissector: transient laryngeal nerve palsy (1.49% in UAS vs. 0.83% in CT) and transient hypocalcaemia (8.4% in UAS vs. 7.5%in CT). No significant differences in the incidence of permanent laryngeal nerve palsy (0.8% in UAS vs. 1.04% in CT) and permanent hypocalcaemia (2.6% in UAS vs. 2.04% in CT) were demonstrated. The level of surgeons’ expertise is a central factor, which can influence the complications rate; the use of UAS can only help surgical action but cannot replace the experience of the operator.