AIM: To review current applications of the laparoscopic surgery while highlighting the standard procedures across different fields.

METHODS: A comprehensive search was undertaken using the PubMed Advanced Search Builder. A total of 321 articles were found in this search. The following criteria had to be met for the publication to be selected: Review article, randomized controlled trials, or meta-analyses discussing the subject of laparoscopic surgery. In addition, publications were hand-searched in the Cochrane database and the high-impact journals. A total of 82 of the findings were included according to matching the inclusion criteria. Overall, 403 full-text articles were reviewed. Of these, 218 were excluded due to not matching the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS: A total of 185 relevant articles were identified matching the search criteria for an overview of the current literature on the laparoscopic surgery. Articles covered the period from the first laparoscopic application through its tremendous advancement over the last several years. Overall, the biggest advantage of the procedure has been minimizing trauma to the abdominal wall compared with open surgery. In the case of cholecystectomy, fundoplication, and adrenalectomy, the procedure has become the gold standard without being proven as a superior technique over the open surgery in randomized controlled trials. Faster recovery, reduced hospital stay, and a quicker return to normal activities are the most evident advantages of the laparoscopic surgery. Positive outcomes, efficiency, a lower rate of wound infections, and reduction in the perioperative morbidity of minimally invasive procedures have been shown in most indications.

CONCLUSION: Improvements in surgical training and developments in instruments, imaging, and surgical techniques have greatly increased safety and feasibility of the laparoscopic surgical procedures.

Laparoscopic surgery: A qualified systematic review.

Robotic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A meta-analysis.

Primary closure following laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been widely adopted because of the efficacy and safety in treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, the risk factors for bile leakage, the most common complication after primary closure, has not been clarified yet. A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent LCBDE with primary closure after choledochotomy between Feb. 2012 and Jun. 2016 was performed. Risk factors for bile leakage were identified by logistic regression inculding demographic factors, preoperative condition and surgical details. Between Feb. 2012 and Jun. 2016, a total of 265 LCBDE procedures were applied in our hospital and 141 patients with primary closure were included in this study. Bile leakage occurred in 11.3% (16/141) of these patients, and happened more frequently in patients with slender CBD (<1 vs ≥1 cm, 31.6% vs 7.0%, p = 0.04) and those managed by inexperienced surgeons (initial 70 cases vs later cases, 17.1% vs 5.6%, p = 0.04). After multivariable regression, the diameter of CBD [OR 95% CI, 3.799 (1.081–13.349), p = 0.04] and experience of surgeons [OR 95% CI, 4.228 (1.330–13.438), p = 0.03] were significantly related to bile leakage. Slender CBD and inexperienced surgeons were the high risk factors for bile leakage after primary closure following LCBDE.

/pdf/risk-factors-for-bile-leakage-after-primary-closure-310wi8agjy.pdf

Risk factors for bile leakage after primary closure following laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a retrospective cohort study

Although laparoscopy has the potential to reduce peritoneal trauma and post-operative peritoneal adhesion formation, only one randomized controlled trial and a few comparative retrospective clinical studies have addressed this issue Laparoscopy reduces de novo adhesion formation but has no efficacy in reducing adhesion reformation after adhesiolysis Moreover, several studies have suggested that the reduction of de novo post-operative adhesions does not seem to have a significant clinical impact Experimental data in animal models have suggested that CO2 pneumoperitoneum can cause acute peritoneal inflammation during laparoscopy depending on the insufflation pressure and the surgery duration Broad peritoneal cavity protection by the insufflation of a low-temperature humidified gas mixture of CO2, N2O and O2 seems to represent the best approach for reducing peritoneal inflammation due to pneumoperitoneum However, these experimental data have not had a significant impact on the modification of laparoscopic instrumentation In contrast, surgeons should train themselves to perform laparoscopy quickly, and they should complete their learning curves before testing chemical anti-adhesive agents and anti-adhesion barriers Chemical anti-adhesive agents have the potential to exert broad peritoneal cavity protection against adhesion formation, but when these agents are used alone, the concentrations needed to prevent adhesions are too high and could cause major post-operative side effects Anti-adhesion barriers have been used mainly in open surgery, but some clinical data from laparoscopic surgeries are already available Sprays, gels, and fluid barriers are easier to apply in laparoscopic surgery than solid barriers Results have been encouraging with solid barriers, spray barriers, and gel barriers, but they have been ambiguous with fluid barriers Moreover, when barriers have been used alone, the maximum protection against adhesion formation has been no greater than 60% A recent small, randomized clinical trial suggested that the combination of broad peritoneal cavity protection with local application of a barrier could be almost 100% effective in preventing post-operative adhesion formation Future studies should confirm the efficacy of this global strategy in preventing adhesion formation after laparoscopy by focusing on clinical end points, such as reduced incidences of bowel obstruction and abdominal pain and increased fertility

Peritoneal adhesions after laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery.

Robotic surgery, an emerging technology, has some potential advantages in many complicated endoscopic procedures compared with laparoscopic surgery. But robot-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) is still a controversial issue on its comparative merit compared with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RAC compared with LC for benign gallbladder disease. A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases (from their inception to December 2017) to obtain comparative studies assessing the safety and efficacy between RAC and LC. The quality of the literature was assessed, and the data analyzed using R software, random effects models were applied. Twenty-six studies, including 5 RCTs and 21 NRCSs (3 prospective plus 18 retrospective), were included. A total of 4004 patients were included, of which 1833 patients (46%) underwent RAC and 2171 patients (54%) underwent LC. No significant differences were found in intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, readmission rate, hospital stay, estimated blood loss, and conversion rate between RAC and LC groups. However, RAC was related to longer operative time compared with LC (MD = 12.04 min, 95% CI 7.26–16.82) in RCT group, which was consistent with NRCS group; RAC also had a higher rate of incisional hernia in NRCS group (RR = 3.06, 95% CI 1.42–6.57), and one RCT reported that RAC was similar to LC (RR = 7.00, 95% CI 0.38–129.84). The RAC was not found to be more effective or safer than LC for benign gallbladder diseases, which indicated that RAC is a developing procedure instead of replacing LC at once. Given the higher costs, the current evidence is in favor of LC in cholecystectomy.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Although current guidelines recommend performing cholecystectomy via laparoscopy, consensus on the application of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for cholecystectomy is still lacking. The aim of the current study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized comparative studies (NRCSs), comparing single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) and conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CMLC) for benign gallbladder diseases. Subjects and Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies published between January 1997 and December 2012 comparing SPLC and CMLC. Operative outcomes, postoperative parameters, complications, cosmetic results, and quality of life were evaluated. Results: Forty studies were included in the analyses (16 RCTs, 24 NRCSs) that included 3711 patients (1865 SPLCs, 1846 CMLCs). SPLC had higher conversion rates (odds ratio [OR], 4.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.71–6.56; P<...

Single-port versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies.

BACKGROUND Although laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has become the standard procedure for most choledocholithiasis patients, the application of this procedure to liver cirrhosis is still in debate. The aim of current study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of LCBDE in choledocholithiasis patients with compensated liver cirrhosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS From January 2006 to December 2012, 346 LCBDE performed in our hospital. According to previous defined liver condition, the patients were divided into group A (liver cirrhosis, n=132) and group B (without cirrhosis, n=214). The perioperative data for the 2 groups were retrospectively reviewed and compared. RESULTS LCBDE was successfully completed in 326 patients. Conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery was necessary for 20 patients (5.7%) mainly because of hemorrhage (5, 25%) and severe adhesions (8, 40%); a T-tube was placed in 211 patients (64.7%), and primary closure was done in 115 (35.3%). There was significant difference for groups A and B in term of intraoperative blood loss (85 vs. 35 mL; P<0.01). However, the 2 groups showed no significant differences with respect to mean operation time (2.1 vs. 1.9 h; P=0.07), complication rates (10.6% vs. 8.8%; P=0.6), and mean hospital stay (4.2 vs. 4.0 d; P=0.6), conversion rate (5.3% vs. 6.1%; P=0.77), and retained choledocholithiasis rate (8.3% vs. 7.1%; P=0.65). There was no mortality in both the groups. CONCLUSION LCBDE is a feasible, effective, and safe surgical procedure for choledocholithiasis patients with compensated cirrhosis.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in cirrhotic patients with choledocholithiasis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS Although laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has become the standard procedure for most choledocholithiasis patients, the application of this procedure to liver cirrhosis is still in debate. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of LCBDE in choledocholithiasis patients with compensated liver cirrhosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS From January 2006 to December 2012, 346 LCBDEs were performed in our hospital. According to the previously defined liver condition, the patients were divided into group A (liver cirrhosis, n=132) and group B (without cirrhosis, n=214). The perioperative data for the 2 groups were retrospectively reviewed and compared. RESULTS LCBDE was successfully completed in 326 patients. Conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery was necessary for 20 patients (5.7%) mainly because of hemorrhage (5, 25%) and severe adhesions (8, 40%). A T-tube was placed in 211 patients (64.7%), and primary closure was performed in 115 (35.3%) patients. There was a significant difference for groups A and B in terms of intraoperative blood loss (85 vs. 35 mL; P<0.01). However, the 2 groups showed no significant differences with respect to the mean operation time (2.1 vs. 1.9 h; P=0.07), complication rates (10.6% vs. 8.8%; P=0.6), mean hospital stay (4.2 vs. 4.0 d; P=0.6), conversion rate (5.3% vs. 6.1%; P=0.77), and retained choledocholithiasis rate (8.3% vs. 7.1%; P=0.65). There was no mortality in both groups. CONCLUSIONS LCBDE is a feasible, effective, and safe surgical procedure for choledocholithiasis patients with compensated cirrhosis.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Hong Wu

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Single-port versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in cirrhotic patients with choledocholithiasis.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in cirrhotic patients with choledocholithiasis.