Estudio comparativo prospectivo aleatorizado entre apendicectomía laparoscópica por puerto único y apendicectomía laparoscópica convencional

Mori, Rafael Villalobos; Rufino, Jordi Escoll; González, Fernando Herrerías; Carballal, M. Carmen Mias; Escartín, Alfredo; Kissler, Jorge Juan Olsina

doi:10.1016/j.ciresp.2013.12.013

Cited by 20 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…12 RCTs in which patients were randomized to receive either SIEA or conventional LA were eligible for the review [59–70]. Trials in which extra sutures, trocars or K-wires were used were excluded.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundLaparoscopic surgery changed the management of numerous surgical conditions. It was associated with many advantages over open surgery, such as decreased postoperative pain, faster recovery, shorter hospital stay and excellent cosmesis. Since two decades single-incision endoscopic surgery (SIES) was introduced to the surgical community. SIES could possibly result in even better postoperative outcomes than multi-port laparoscopic surgery, especially concerning cosmetic outcomes and pain. However, the single-incision surgical procedure is associated with quite some challenges.MethodsAn expert panel of surgeons has been selected and invited to participate in the preparation of the material for a consensus meeting on the topic SIES, which was held during the EAES congress in Frankfurt, June 16, 2017. The material presented during the consensus meeting was based on evidence identified through a systematic search of literature according to a pre-specified protocol. Three main topics with respect to SIES have been identified by the panel: (1) General, (2) Organ specific, (3) New development. Within each of these topics, subcategories have been defined. Evidence was graded according to the Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Recommendations were made according to the GRADE criteria.ResultsIn general, there is a lack of high level evidence and a lack of long-term follow-up in the field of single-incision endoscopic surgery. In selected patients, the single-incision approach seems to be safe and effective in terms of perioperative morbidity. Satisfaction with cosmesis has been established to be the main advantage of the single-incision approach. Less pain after single-incision approach compared to conventional laparoscopy seems to be considered an advantage, although it has not been consistently demonstrated across studies.ConclusionsConsidering the increased direct costs (devices, instruments and operating time) of the SIES procedure and the prolonged learning curve, wider acceptance of the procedure should be supported only after demonstration of clear benefits.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the SIEA group, significantly more additional ports were used compared to the LA group, namely 22 to 2, respectively (seven studies, n = 801). One study found significantly higher costs for the single-port procedure compared to conventional LA (n = 120) [70]. No further information on costs could be retrieved.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among them, one study that applied a laparoscopic-assisted extracorporeal appendectomy technique was excluded [10]. Finally, 11 RCTs comparing SILA and CMLA were included [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. Overall, 1,216 patients were operated on 611 cases by SILA versus 605 cases by CMLA.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3). Only one RCT evaluated the costs of SILA and CMLA [21]. Costs were significantly higher for SILA, due to the high price of specialized single-port apparatus and roticulator endograsp instruments.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Single Incision versus Conventional Multiport Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Zhou

Jin²,

Zhang³

et al. 2014

Dig Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The efficacy of single incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) in comparison with conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (CMLA) has not been conclusively determined. Methods: A systematic literature review (Medline, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) was performed. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SILA with CMLA were carried out by RevMan 5.0 software. Results: Eleven RCTs comparing SILA and CMLA were included. Overall, 1,216 patients were operated on: 611 cases by SILA versus 605 cases by CMLA. Compared with CMLA, SILA was associated with increased procedural difficulty, prolonged procedural duration, shorter length of hospital stay, earlier return to normal activity and better cosmesis. There were no significant differences in postoperative pain scores and complication rates between SILA and CMLA. Conclusion: The current best evidence shows SILA holds the promise of improving postoperative recovery and cosmetic result with equal efficacy and safety, whereas it is associated with higher surgical difficulty with longer surgical time when compared with CMLA.

show abstract

Laparoscopic entry techniques

Ahmad

Gent

Henderson

et al. 2015

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

192

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Overall, there is insufficient evidence to recommend one laparoscopic entry technique over another.An open-entry technique is associated with a reduction in failed entry when compared to a closed-entry technique, with no evidence of a difference in the incidence of visceral or vascular injury.An advantage of direct trocar entry over Veress needle entry was noted for failed entry and vascular injury. The evidence was generally of very low quality with small numbers of participants in most studies; our findings should be interpreted with caution.

show abstract

Estudio comparativo prospectivo aleatorizado entre apendicectomía laparoscópica por puerto único y apendicectomía laparoscópica convencional

Cited by 20 publications

References 25 publications

European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery

European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery

Single Incision versus Conventional Multiport Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Laparoscopic entry techniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About