title: Miniports versus standard ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  In conventional (standard) port laparoscopic cholecystectomy, four abdominal ports (two of 10 mm diameter and two of 5 mm diameter) are used. Recently, use of smaller ports, miniports, have been reported.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To assess the benefits and harms of miniport (defined as ports smaller than the standard ports) laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2013 to identify randomised clinical trials of relevance to this review.
  
  
  METHODS
  Only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing miniport versus standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy were considered for the review.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two review authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects models using RevMan analysis. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
  
  
  RESULTS
  We included 12 trials with 734 patients randomised to miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (380 patients) versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy (351 patients). Only one trial which included 70 patients was of low risk of bias. Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy could be completed successfully in more than 80% of patients in most trials. The remaining patients were mostly converted to standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy but some were also converted to open cholecystectomy. These patients were included for the outcome conversion to open cholecystectomy but excluded from other outcomes. Accordingly, the results of the other outcomes are on 343 patients in the miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy group and 351 patients in the standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy group, and therefore the results have to be interpreted with extreme caution.There was no mortality in the seven trials that reported mortality (0/194 patients in miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus 0/203 patients in standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy). There were no significant differences between miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy and standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the proportion of patients who developed serious adverse events (eight trials; 460 patients; RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.04 to 3.08) (miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: 1/226 (adjusted proportion 0.4%) versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: 3/234 (1.3%); quality of life at 10 days after surgery (one trial; 70 patients; SMD -0.20; 95% CI -0.68 to 0.27); or in whom the laparoscopic operation had to be converted to open cholecystectomy (11 trials; 670 patients; RR 1.23; 95% CI 0.44 to 3.45) (miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: 8/351 (adjusted proportion 2.3%) versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy 6/319 (1.9%)). Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy took five minutes longer to complete than standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy (12 trials; 695 patients; MD 4.91 minutes; 95% CI 2.38 to 7.44). There were no significant differences between miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy and standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the length of hospital stay (six trials; 351 patients; MD -0.00 days; 95% CI -0.12 to 0.11); the time taken to return to activity (one trial; 52 patients; MD 0.00 days; 95% CI -0.31 to 0.31); or in the time taken for the patient to return to work (two trials; 187 patients; MD 0.28 days; 95% CI -0.44 to 0.99) between the groups. There was no significant difference in the cosmesis scores at six months to 12 months after surgery between the two groups (two trials; 152 patients; SMD 0.13; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.46).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be completed successfully in more than 80% of patients. There appears to be no advantage of miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy in terms of decreasing mortality, morbidity, hospital stay, return to activity, return to work, or improving cosmesis. On the other hand, there is a modest increase in operating time after miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared with standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the safety of miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy is yet to be established. Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy cannot be recommended routinely outside well-designed randomised clinical trials. Further trials of low risks of bias and low risks of random errors are necessary.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, Royal Free Campus, UCL Medical School, Royal Free Hospital,, Rowland Hill Street, London, UK, NW3 2PF.
authors.forename: Kurinchi Selvan
authors.initials: KS
authors.lastname: Gurusamy
authors.forename: Jessica
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Vaughan
authors.forename: Rajarajan
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Ramamoorthy
authors.forename: Giuseppe
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Fusai
authors.forename: Brian R
authors.initials: BR
authors.lastname: Davidson
mesh_terms: D002763:Cholecystectomy / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D017081:Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards; D006801:Humans; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
references.citation: Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1539-58
references.pmid: 12111919
references.citation: Gut. 1994 Aug;35(8):1121-6
references.pmid: 7926918
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Jan;61(1):64-75
references.pmid: 18083463
references.citation: Stat Med. 2001 Feb 28;20(4):641-54
references.pmid: 11223905
references.citation: Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003 Fall;19(4):591-603
references.pmid: 15095765
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 2012 Sep 18;157(6):429-38
references.pmid: 22945832
references.citation: JAMA. 1995 Feb 1;273(5):408-12
references.pmid: 7823387
references.citation: Am J Epidemiol. 1987 Nov;126(5):912-21
references.pmid: 3310613
references.citation: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2007 Apr;17(2):191-9
references.pmid: 17484646
references.citation: Lancet. 1998 Aug 22;352(9128):609-13
references.pmid: 9746022
references.citation: Int J Epidemiol. 2009 Feb;38(1):287-98
references.pmid: 18824466
references.citation: BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009 Dec 30;9:86
references.pmid: 20042080
references.citation: Br J Surg. 2004 Jun;91(6):734-8
references.pmid: 15164444
references.citation: Surg Endosc. 2003 May;17(5):766-72
references.pmid: 12618946
references.citation: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2013 Feb;23(2):109-16
references.pmid: 23276249
references.citation: Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
references.pmid: 3802833
references.citation: Br J Surg. 2003 Nov;90(11):1345-8
references.pmid: 14598412
references.citation: Surg Endosc. 2000 Apr;14(4):345-8
references.pmid: 10790552
references.citation: Acta Cir Bras. 2008 Nov-Dec;23(6):543-50
references.pmid: 19030754
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Mar 17;(3):CD006804
references.pmid: 20238350
references.citation: Stat Med. 1987 Apr-May;6(3):341-50
references.pmid: 3616287
references.citation: Br J Surg. 2008 Apr;95(4):472-6
references.pmid: 17968981
references.citation: Arch Surg. 2005 Dec;140(12):1178-83
references.pmid: 16365239
references.citation: J R Coll Surg Edinb. 2001 Jun;46(3):138-42
references.pmid: 11478009
references.citation: Nature. 2008 May 15;453(7193):314-21
references.pmid: 18480812
references.citation: Ann Surg. 2011 Feb;253(2):244-58
references.pmid: 21183848
references.citation: Scand J Gastroenterol. 1995 Nov;30(11):1125-8
references.pmid: 8578175
references.citation: Br J Surg. 2001 Jan;88(1):45-7
references.pmid: 11136308
references.citation: Surg Endosc. 2002 Mar;16(3):458-64
references.pmid: 11928028
references.citation: Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2004 Sep 23;124(18):2376-8
references.pmid: 15467805
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Oct 18;(4):CD006231
references.pmid: 17054285
references.citation: Surg Endosc. 2000 Apr;14(4):340-4
references.pmid: 10790551
references.citation: World J Surg. 2002 Dec;26(12):1437-40
references.pmid: 12297935
references.citation: BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34
references.pmid: 9310563
references.citation: Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2009 Dec;19(6):442-8
references.pmid: 20027086
references.citation: Int J Epidemiol. 1992 Oct;21(5):837-41
references.pmid: 1468842
references.citation: Surg Endosc. 2000 Jan;14(1):32-6
references.pmid: 10653232
references.citation: Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Aug 09;2:57-66
references.pmid: 20865104
references.citation: Surg Endosc. 2002 Mar;16(3):476-80
references.pmid: 11928032
references.citation: Health Technol Assess. 2012 Sep;16(35):1-82
references.pmid: 22989478
references.citation: Am J Surg. 2003 Apr;185(4):344-8
references.pmid: 12657387
references.citation: Br J Surg. 2011 Mar;98(3):391-6
references.pmid: 21254014
references.citation: Arch Surg. 2003 Sep;138(9):1017-23
references.pmid: 12963662
references.citation: Int J Epidemiol. 2009 Feb;38(1):276-86
references.pmid: 18824467
references.citation: Br J Surg. 2009 Apr;96(4):342-9
references.pmid: 19283747
references.citation: BMJ. 2008 Mar 15;336(7644):601-5
references.pmid: 18316340
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Aug;61(8):763-9
references.pmid: 18411040
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Dec 12;12:MR000033
references.pmid: 23235689
references.citation: Surg Endosc. 1998 Dec;12(12):1386-9
references.pmid: 9822462
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 2001 Dec 4;135(11):982-9
references.pmid: 11730399
references.citation: Trop Gastroenterol. 2005 Jul-Sep;26(3):149-51
references.pmid: 16512468
references.citation: Br J Surg. 2013 Feb;100(3):339-49
references.pmid: 23188563
references.citation: Am J Surg. 2004 Sep;188(3):205-11
references.pmid: 15450821
references.citation: Surg Endosc. 2008 Dec;22(12):2541-53
references.pmid: 18810546