Single-Incision Surgery Has Higher Cost with Equivalent Pain and Quality-of-Life Scores Compared with Multiple-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Prospective Randomized Blinded Comparison
ABSTRACT Since the development of single-incision surgery, several retrospective studies have demonstrated its feasibility; however, randomized prospective trials are still lacking. We report a prospective randomized single-blinded trial with a cost analysis of single-incision (SI) to multi-incision (MI) laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
After obtaining IRB approval, patients with chronic cholecystitis, acute cholecystitis, or biliary dyskinesia were offered participation in this multihospital, multisurgeon trial. Consenting patients were computer randomized into either a transumbilical SI or standard MI group; patient data were then entered into a prospective database.
We report 79 patients that were prospectively enrolled and analyzed. Total hospital charges were found to be significantly different between SI and MI groups (MI $15,717 ± $14,231 vs SI $17,817 ± $5,358; p < 0.0001). Broken down further, the following subcharges were found to also be significant: operating room charges (MI $4,445 ± $1,078 vs SI $5,358 ± 893; p < 0.0001); medical/surgical supplies (MI $3,312 ± $6,526 vs SI $5,102 ± $1,529; p < 0.0001); and anesthesia costs (MI $579 ± $7,616 vs SI $820 ± $23,957; p < 0.0001). A validated survey (ie, Surgical Outcomes Measurement System) was used to evaluate various patient quality-of-life parameters at set visits after surgery; scores were statistically equivalent for fatigue, physical function, and satisfaction with results. No difference was found between visual analogue scale scores or inpatient and outpatient pain-medication use.
We show SI surgery to have higher costs than MI surgery with equivalent quality-of-life scores, pain analogue scores, and pain-medication use.
- SourceAvailable from: PubMed Central
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "No withdrawals or dropouts were reported in the majority of articles, and Jadad’s revised rating scale for the RCTs was low (Table 1). In addition, complicated cases such as acute cholecystitis were excluded from most of studies except that of Vilallonga, Leung and Bucher et al [28,33,40]. We attempted to avoid sampling bias by requesting missing data from all the RCTs. "
ABSTRACT: Previous meta-analyses that compared the outcome of SILC and CLC have not presented consistent conclusions. This meta-analysis was performed after adding many recent RCTs, to clarify this issue. Relevant articles published in English were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register from January 1997 to February 2013. Reference lists of the retrieved articles were reviewed to identify additional articles. Primary outcomes (postoperative pain scores, cosmetic score, and length of incision) and secondary outcomes (operating time, blood loss, conversion rates, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, time to initial oral intake, and time to resume work) were pooled. Quantitative variables were calculated using the weighted mean difference (WMD), and qualitative variables were pooled using odds ratios (OR). 25 appropriate RCTs were identified from 2128 published articles. 1841 patients were treated, 944 with SILC and 897 with CLC. SILC was superior to CLC in cosmetic score (WMD = 1.155, P<0.001), shorter length of incision (WMD = -3.285, P = 0.029), and postoperative pain within 12 h (VAS in 3-4 h, WMD = -0.704, P = 0.026; VAS in 6-8 h, WMD = -0.613, P = 0.010). CLC was superior to SILC in operating time (OT) (WMD = 13.613, P<0.001) and need of additional instruments (OR = 7.448, P<0.001). Other secondary outcomes were similar. SILC offered a better cosmetic result and less postoperative pain for patients with uncomplicated cholelithiasis or polypoid lesions of the gallbladder. However, SILC was associated with a longer OT and required additional instruments.PLoS ONE 10/2013; 8(10):e76530. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0076530 · 3.23 Impact Factor
- Der Chirurg 02/2013; 84(2). DOI:10.1007/s00104-012-2462-z · 0.52 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: AIM: To assess the cosmetic outcome after single umbilical incision laparoscopic cholecystectomies (SILC) performed by the surgeons of the Coelio Club. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Multicenter prospective study concerning 105 consecutive patients operated between December 2009 and February 2011 by SILC for non-complicated gallstones. Perioperative and postoperative parameters were analyzed with a systematic follow-up at 1 and 6months postoperative. RESULTS: Conversion to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) was required for six patients (5.7%). Conversion rate is higher in case of acute cholecystitis (25%, P<0.001). Cosmetic outcome is found excellent by the patient (in 86% of the cases at 6months) and by the surgeon (in 90% of the cases at 6months) using an EVA scale. An incisional hernia was found in two cases (1.9%) and a superficial wound infection in four cases (3.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The cosmetic outcome after SILC is found excellent. SILC has its place in the surgical management of the non-complicated gallstone. We did not notice higher level of peroperative complications (biliary tract injury) during SILC than during CLC. Postoperative higher level of abdominal wall complications than after a CLC makes the surgeon caution to a careful abdominal wall closure.Journal of Visceral Surgery 11/2012; 149(6). DOI:10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2012.10.017 · 1.32 Impact Factor