Skip to main content
Log in

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: does it work? A systematic review

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has been widely introduced into the clinical practice, but the real clinical benefits for patients still remain a matter of debate. We conducted a systematic review, according to the PRISMA guidelines comparing clinical and peri-operative outcomes of SILC and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC).

Method

A literature search, including only randomised controlled trials (RCTs), was performed via PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library and Embase database. The reviewers extracted data from the manuscripts of selected articles including patient demographics, operative time, morbidity rate, post-operative length of stay, conversion rate, cost data, pain and satisfaction with cosmetic results.

Result

Seventeen RCTs matching the inclusion criteria were finally selected for the analysis. A total of 1293 patients were involved in the review, including 663 (51.3 %) patients who have undergone SILC and 630 (48.7 %) patients who have undergone CLC. Post-operative pain was significantly worse in SILC patients in four studies, in CLC patients in four studies, while in the remnants seven studies, no differences in pain scores were found. Data on satisfaction for post-operative cosmetics were significantly better for SILC patients in all studies but two. Operating time was significantly longer in SILC group while there is no statistically significant difference in conversion rate. Morbidity rate was similar in both groups, as was the incidence of bile duct injuries. Costs were significantly higher in SILC group. SILC was considered a more challenging procedure in all studies.

Conclusion

The role of SILC is still controversial. Until now, no real significant benefit has been proven: overall satisfaction is the only clear advantage of SILC, and this is mainly related to cosmetic results. Indications to SILC are mainly limited to patients with uncomplicated disease, with BMI ≤ 30 kg/m2, whose surgery is unlikely to be converted to an open or multiport approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lirici MM, Califano AD, Angelini P, Corcione F (2011) Laparo-endoscopic single site cholecystectomy versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a pilot randomized trial. Am J Surg 202:45–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Connor S (2009) Single-port-access cholecystectomy: history should not be allowed to repeat. World J Surg 33:1020–1021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nassar AHM, Ashkar KA, Mohamed AY, Hafiz AA (1995) Is laparoscopic cholecystectomy possible without video technology? Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 4:63–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lirici MM, Califano A (2010) Management of complicated gallstones: results of an alternative approach to difficult cholecystectomies. Minim Invasive Ther 19:304–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bagloo MB, Dakin GF, Mormino LP, Pomp A (2011) Single-access laparoscopic cholecystectomy with routine intraoperative cholangiogram. Surg Endosc 25(5):1683–1688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Allemann P, Schafer M, Demartines N (2010) Critical appraisal of single port access cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 97:1476–1480

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rodhes M (2010) Commentary on critical appraisal of single port access cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 97:1481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) The PRISMA group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Strasberg SM, Hertl M, Soper NJ (1995) An analysis of the problem of biliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am college Surg 18:279–285

    Google Scholar 

  10. Yamashita Y, Kimura T, Matsumoto S (2010) A safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy depends upon the establishment of a critical view of safety. Surg Today 40:507–513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Michalowski K, Borman PC, Krige JEJ, Gallagher PJ, Terblanche J (1998) Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy in patients with complicated acute cholecystitis or fibrosis. Br J Surg 85:904–906

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tian Y, Wu SD, Su Y, Kong J, Yu H, Fan Y (2009) Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy as an alternative procedure designed to prevent bile duct injury: experience of a hospital in northern china. Surg Today 39:510–513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kia MA, Lee C, Martinez JM, Zundel N (2011) Single port cholecystectomy: the pathway back to a standard technique. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 21:314–317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schlager A, Khalaileh A, Shussman N, Elazary R, Keidar A, Pikarsky AJ, Ben-Shushan A, Shibolet O, Horgan S, Talamini M, Zamir G, Rivkind AI, Mintz Y (2010) Providing more through less: current methods of retraction in SIMIS and NOTES cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 24:1542–1546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Leung D, Yetasook AK, Carbray J, Butt Z, Hoeger Y, Denham W, Barrera E, Ujiki MB (2012) 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. J Am Coll Surg 215:702–708

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Zheng M, Qin M, Zhao H (2012) Laparoendoscopic single-site cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled study. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 21:113–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Aprea G, Coppola Bottazzi E, Guida F, Masone S, Persico G (2011) Laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) versus classic video-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized prospective study. J Surg Res 166:e109–e112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cao ZG, Cai W, Qin MF, Zhao HZ, Yue P, Li Y (2011) Randomized clinical trial of single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: short-term operative outcomes. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 21:311–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tsimoyannis EC, Tsimogiannis KE, Pappas-Gogos G, Farantos C, Benetatos N, Mavridou P, Manataki A (2010) Different pain scores in single transumbilical incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 24:1842–1848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Luna RA, Nogueira DB, Varela PS, Rodrigues Neto E, Norton MJR, Ribeiro LB, Peixoto AM, Mendonca YL, Bendet I, Fiorelli RA, Dolan JP (2013) A prospective, randomized comparison of pain, inflammatory response, and short-term outcomes between single port and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 27:1254–1259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jorgensen LN, Rosenberg J, Al-Tayar H, Assaadzadeh S, Helgstrand F, Bisgaard T (2014) Randomized clinical trial of single-versus multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 101:347–355

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sinan H, Demirbas S, Ozer MT, Sucullu I, Akyol M (2012) Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 22:12–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ma J, Cassera MA, Spaun GO, Hammil CW, Hansen PD, Aliabadi-Wahle S (2011) Randomized controlled trial comparing single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 254:22–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee PC, Lo C, Lai PS, Chang JJ, Haung SJ, Lin MT, Lee PH (2010) Randomized clinical trial of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 97:1007–1012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Marks JM, Phillips MS, Tacchino R, Roberts K, Onders R, DeNoto G, Gecelter G, Rubach E, Rivas H, Islam A, Soper N, Paraskeva P, Rosemurgy A, Ross S, Shah S (2013) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with improved cosmesis scoring at the cost of significantly higher hernia rates: 1-year results of a prospective randomized, multicenter, single-blinded trial of traditional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 216:1037–1047

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bucher P, Pugin F, Buchs NC, Ostermann S, Morel P (2011) Randomized clinical trial of laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 98:1695–1702

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lai ECH, Yang GPC, Tang CN, Yih PCL, Chan OCY, Li MKW (2011) Prospective randomized comparative study of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 202:254–258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Asakuma M, Hayashi M, Komeda K, Shimizu T, Hirokawa F, Miyamoto Y, Okuda J, Tanigawa N (2011) Impact of single-port cholecystectomy on postoperative pain. Br J Surg 98:991–995

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Chang SKY, Wang YL, Shen L, Iyer SG, Madhavan K (2014) A randomized controlled trial comparing post-operative pain in single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. World J Surg 39:897–904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ostlie DJ, Jaung AD, Iqbal CW, Sharp SW, Snyder CL, Andrews WS, Sharp RJ, Holcomb GW III, St Peter SD (2013) Single incision versus standard 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomize trial. J Pediatr Surg 48:209–214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Weiss HG, Brunner W, Biebl MO, Schirnhofer J, Pimpl K, Mittermair C, Obrist C, Brunner E, Hell T (2014) Wound complications in 1145 consecutive transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic procedures. Ann Surg 259:89–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Garg P, Thakur JD, Garg M, Menon GR (2012) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs. conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gastrointest Surg 16:1618–1628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hao L, Liu M, Zhu H, Li Z (2012) Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with uncomplicated gallbladder disease: a meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 22:487–497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rattner DW (2013) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. J Am Coll Surg 216:1048–1077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Blinman T (2010) Incision do not simply sum. Surg Endosc 24:1746–1751

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Zehetner J, Pelipad D, Darehzereshki A, Mason R, Lipham JC, Katkhouda N (2013) Single access laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 23:235–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Pisanu A, Reccia I, Porceddu G, Uccheddu A (2012) Meta-analysis of prospective randomized studies comparing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CMLC). J Gastrointest Surg 16:1790–1801

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang D, Wang Y, Ji ZL (2012) Laparoendoscopic single-site cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. ANZ J Surg 82:303–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hey J, Roberts KJ, Morris-Stiff GJ, Toogood GJ (2012) Patients views through the keyhole: new perspectives on single-incision vs. multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy. HPB 14:242–246

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Pietrabissa A, Sbrana F, Morelli L, Badessi F, Pugliese L, Vinci A, Klersy C, Spinoglio G (2012) Overcoming the challenges of single-incision cholecystectomy with robotic single-site technology. Arch Surg 147:709–714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Joseph S, Moore BT, Sorensen GB, Earley JW, Tang F, Jones P, Brown KM (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecysteomy: a comparison with the gold standard. Surg Endosc 25:3008–3015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Love KM, Durham CA, Meara MP, Mays AC, Bower CE (2011) Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a cost comparison. Surg Endosc 25:1153–1158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Beninato T, Kleiman DA, Soni A, Nissan DA, Filicori F, Servais EL, Fahey TJ III, Zarnegar R (2015) Expanding the indications for single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy to all patients with biliary disease: is it safe? Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 25:10–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Maria Lirici.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Drs. Marco Maria Lirici, Simone Maria Tierno and Cecilia Ponzano have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lirici, M.M., Tierno, S.M. & Ponzano, C. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: does it work? A systematic review. Surg Endosc 30, 4389–4399 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4757-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4757-5

Keywords

Navigation