Table 1 list of studies published to june 30, 2011 regarding SPA
From: Single port laparoscopic appendectomy: are we pursuing real advantages?
Author | Year | Type of study | Cases | Complications | Operative time (min) | Additional trocars used |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Barbaros[26] | 2010 | Case series | 3 | none | none | |
Bhatia[2] | 2011 | Case series | 17 | none | 63 | none |
Budzynski[27] | 2011 | Case series | 2 | none | 25 | y |
Chiu[15] | 2011 | Case series | 22 | none | 58 | none |
Cho[28] | 2011 | Case comparison with LA | 23 (vs 20) | = | = | none |
Chow[29] | 2010 | Case comparison with LA | 40 (vs 33) | < (p < 0.05) | ||
Chouillard[30] | 2010 | Case series | 41 | 3 | 39 | none |
Dapri[14] | 2011 | Case series | 30 | 5 | 57 | none |
Feinberg[31] | 2011 | Case series | 25 | none | 56 | none |
Frutos[32] | 2011 | Case series | 73 | none | 40 | none |
Hayashi[19] | 2010 | Case series | 1 | none | none | |
Hong[33] | 2009 | Case series | 31 | 3 (2 abscess, 1 omphalitis) | 41 | none |
Kim[20] | 2010 | Case series | 43 | 5 | 61 | none |
Kang[34] | 2010 | Case comparison with LA in complicated appendicitis | 15 | = | y | |
Lee JA[35] | 2010 | Case comparison with LA | 35 (vs 37) | 3 (2 wound infections, 1 abscess) | 76 | none |
Lee YS[36] | 2009 | Case comparison with LA | 72 (vs 108) | 6 | 41 | |
Nguyen[37] | 2009 | Case series | 1 | none | 40 | none |
Raakow[38] | 2011 | Case comparison with LA | 20 (vs 20) | none | 48 | none |
Saber[39] | 2010 | Case series | 26 | 1 (omphalitis) | 46 | y |
Roberts[40] | 2009 | Case series | 13 | none | 87 | none |
Teoh[16] | 2011 | Case comparison with LA | 30 (vs 60) | 2 (1 abscess, 1 ileus) | = | |
Vidal[17] | 2011 | Case series suprapubic approach | 20 | none | 40 | none |
Yu[41] | 2011 | Case series suprapubic approach | 6 | none | 48 | none |
Total | 589 | 28 (4.8%) | 51 |