Gasless laparoscopy versus conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy: A systematic review on the safety and efficiency

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundGasless laparoscopy (GL) emerged to overcome the clinical and financial challenges of pneumoperitoneum and is often seen as a viable option for use in resource‐limited settings as a means of saving costs and resources. This study aims to systematically review the evidence available on the safety and efficiency of GL compared with conventional laparoscopy (CL) and laparotomy.MethodsFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane databases were searched. Variables of interest were determined a priori and Covidence software was used to screen studies for inclusion without demographic preference. The quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk Assessment tool.ResultsOf the 1080 studies screened, a total of 43 studies were included. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was by far the most studied intervention in randomised studies. In these, the mean setup time for gasless and CL was 13.14 (95% CI −0.16 to 26.44) and 12.8 (95% CI −10.86 to 36.47) minutes, respectively. The mean duration of surgery for gasless and CL was 89.39 (95% CI 77.44 to 101.34) and 72.59 (95% CI 63.44 to 81.74) minutes, respectively, and the mean length of stay was 4.25 (95% CI 2.02 to 6.48) and 4.04 (95% CI 1.72 to 6.36) days, respectively. Most reported complications were haemorrhage and infection with no assessable statistical difference.ConclusionsAlthough GL seems to be a feasible approach for many general surgery interventions, the observed outcomes based on safety and efficiency are not sufficient to recommend GL as an alternative to CL or laparotomy. Larger randomised trials with a low risk of bias are warranted.