title: Laparoendoscopic single-site cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery is a revolution in minimally invasive surgery in recent years, and cholecystectomy is the most common intervention. However, laparoendoscopic single-site cholecystectomy (LESSC) is a controversial procedure. Its safety, cosmetic results, complications, post-operative pain and post-operative stay are not confirmed by multi-centre randomized controlled studies.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  This review examined the impact of LESSC versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). The primary outcomes were conversional rate and intraoperative and post-operative complications, and other outcomes were cosmetic results, operative time, post-operative pain and post-operative stay.
  
  
  METHODS
  Pubmed, EMbase, Web of Science, Ovid, clinical trials of the US National Institutes of Health and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Controlled Trials Register were searched to identify all possible randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
  
  
  METHODS
  Two reviewers completed article search, and eligible data were entered into a computerized spreadsheet for analysis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Nine studies were obtained using the search strategy. Patients accepting LESSC had a higher conversion rate than those having CLC (7.17 (3.00, 17.11) (P < 0.01)). There was no significant difference for total complications between the two groups (1.17 (0.76, 1.80) (P = 0.46)), but incidence of incisional hernia and haemorrhage (seroma) in the LESSC group was obviously higher than that in the CLC group. Operative time was much longer in the LESSC group (mean difference: 10.69 (3.14, 18.24) (P = 0.006)). Cosmetic results favoured LESSC; however, post-operative abdominal pain and post-operative stay were not significantly different between the two groups in most of the nine studies.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  LESSC can be safely performed with better cosmetic results; however, it carries a higher conversion rate and a longer operative time, and offers no benefit in terms of post-operative abdominal pain and post-operative stay. Further RCTs, according to the CONSORT statement, are advocated to validate its objective benefits.
authors.affiliation: Department of General Surgery, Institute for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Zhongda Hospital, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
authors.forename: Dong
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Wang
authors.forename: Yan
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Wang
authors.forename: Zhen-Ling
authors.initials: ZL
authors.lastname: Ji
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D017081:Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D002764:Cholecystitis / Q000601:surgery*; D005260:Female; D005704:Gallbladder / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic