Minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. An endless debate

Background: Our systematic review and meta-analysis examine the impact of minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). Some authors previously compared these surgical approaches without reaching any clear conclusion, since then, further trials have been performed, but an update was needed. Materials and Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and the CENTRAL were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing MLC versus CLC up to August 2019. The outcome measures used for comparison were operative time (OT), overall morbidity, intra- and postoperative complications, conversion and reintervention rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), postoperative pain (POP), and cosmetic results. A meta-analysis of relevant studies was performed using RevMan 5.3. Results: Fifteen studies, including 863 patients, were considered eligible to collect data and entered the meta-analysis. A total of 415 patients in the MLC group versus 448 in the CLC group were compared. No statistical difference as for overall morbidity, intra- and postoperative complications, conversion and reintervention rate, LOS, and cosmetic results were retrieved among the groups. CLC results faster and MLC shows to be the least painful. Conclusions: According to the available high-level evidence, both surgical approaches resulted substantially equivalent to perform LC, with some advantages of CLC as for OT and of MLC concerning POP. As a consequence, we can conclude that either procedure is superior or inferior to the other one; actually, we are not able to suggest the adoption of any of the two on a routine basis.