De Angelis F

Meta-Analysis of Drainage Versus No Drainage After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Background and Objectives: Routine drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy is still controversial. This meta-analysis was performed to assess the role of drains in reducing complications in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods: An electronic search of Medline, Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library database from January 1990 to June 2013 was performed to identify randomized clinical trials that compare prophylactic drainage with no drainage in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The odds ratio for qualitative variables and standardized mean difference for continuous variables were calculated. Results: Twelve randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis, involving 1939 patients randomized to a drain (960) versus no drain (979). The morbidity rate was lower in the no drain group (odds ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.26 to 3.10; P = .003). The wound infection rate was lower in the no drain group (odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.22 to 4.51; P = .01). Abdominal pain 24 hours after surgery was less severe in the no drain group (standardized mean difference, 2.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.27 to 3.34; P < .0001). No significant difference was present with respect to the presence and quantity of subhepatic fluid collection, shoulder tip pain, parenteral ketorolac consumption, nausea, vomiting, and hospital stay. Conclusion: This study was unable to prove that drains were useful in reducing complications in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy is comparable to conventional laparoscopic and laparotomic appendectomy: our single center single surgeon experience.

Several studies have demonstrated the clinical and technical benefits of the laparoscopic surgery for complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis. Our retrospective study included 12 patient who underwent SILS appendectomy (SILS-A), 14 who received conventional laparoscopic surgery (VL-A), and 12 who received laparotomic appendectomy (OA); performed in all cases by the same surgeon (C.F.). The aim of this study was the comparison between this three different surgical techniques on same features: post operative leukocytosis, post operative pain, need abdominal drainage, esthetic viewpoint, incidence of complication, hospital stay. The results showed no significant differences between SILS-A and VLS-A, while an evident improvement shows versus O-A, even though not statistically significative. SILS was more effective in decreasing the risk of postoperative wound infection.