Cargando…

The comparison of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and three port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective randomized study

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic techniques have allowed surgeons to perform complicated intra-abdominal surgery with minimal trauma. Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) was developed with the aim of reducing the invasiveness of conventional laparoscopy. In this study we aimed to compare results of SIL...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Deveci, Ugur, Barbaros, Umut, Kapakli, Mahmut Sertan, Manukyan, Manuk Norayk, Şimşek, Selçuk, Kebudi, Abut, Mercan, Selçuk
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Surgical Society 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3868679/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24368985
http://dx.doi.org/10.4174/jkss.2013.85.6.275
_version_ 1782296490160422912
author Deveci, Ugur
Barbaros, Umut
Kapakli, Mahmut Sertan
Manukyan, Manuk Norayk
Şimşek, Selçuk
Kebudi, Abut
Mercan, Selçuk
author_facet Deveci, Ugur
Barbaros, Umut
Kapakli, Mahmut Sertan
Manukyan, Manuk Norayk
Şimşek, Selçuk
Kebudi, Abut
Mercan, Selçuk
author_sort Deveci, Ugur
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Laparoscopic techniques have allowed surgeons to perform complicated intra-abdominal surgery with minimal trauma. Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) was developed with the aim of reducing the invasiveness of conventional laparoscopy. In this study we aimed to compare results of SILS cholecystectomy and three port conventional laparoscopic (TPCL) cholecystectomy prospectively. METHODS: In this prospective study, 100 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallbladder disease were randomly allocated to SILS cholecystectomy (group 1) or TPCL cholecystectomy (group 2). Demographics, pathologic diagnosis, operating time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, complications, pain score, conversion rate, and satisfaction of cosmetic outcome were recorded. RESULTS: Forty-four SILS cholesystectomies (88%) and 42 TPCL cholecystectomies (84%) were completed successfully. Conversion to open surgery was required for 4 cases in group 1 and 6 cases in group 2. Operating time was significantly longer in group 1 compared with group 2 (73 minutes vs. 48 minutes; P < 0.05). Higher pain scores were observed in group 1 versus group 2 in postoperative day 1 (P < 0.05). There was higher cosmetic satisfaction in group 1 (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: SILS cholecystectomy performed by experienced surgeons is at least as successful, feasible, effective and safe as a TPCL cholecystectomy. Surgeons performing SILS should have a firm foundation of advanced minimal access surgical skills and a cautious, gradated approach to attempt the various procedures. Prospective randomized studies comparing single access versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy, with large volumes and long-term follow-up, are needed to confirm our initial experience. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01772745.)
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3868679
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher The Korean Surgical Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38686792013-12-24 The comparison of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and three port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective randomized study Deveci, Ugur Barbaros, Umut Kapakli, Mahmut Sertan Manukyan, Manuk Norayk Şimşek, Selçuk Kebudi, Abut Mercan, Selçuk J Korean Surg Soc Original Article PURPOSE: Laparoscopic techniques have allowed surgeons to perform complicated intra-abdominal surgery with minimal trauma. Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) was developed with the aim of reducing the invasiveness of conventional laparoscopy. In this study we aimed to compare results of SILS cholecystectomy and three port conventional laparoscopic (TPCL) cholecystectomy prospectively. METHODS: In this prospective study, 100 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallbladder disease were randomly allocated to SILS cholecystectomy (group 1) or TPCL cholecystectomy (group 2). Demographics, pathologic diagnosis, operating time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, complications, pain score, conversion rate, and satisfaction of cosmetic outcome were recorded. RESULTS: Forty-four SILS cholesystectomies (88%) and 42 TPCL cholecystectomies (84%) were completed successfully. Conversion to open surgery was required for 4 cases in group 1 and 6 cases in group 2. Operating time was significantly longer in group 1 compared with group 2 (73 minutes vs. 48 minutes; P < 0.05). Higher pain scores were observed in group 1 versus group 2 in postoperative day 1 (P < 0.05). There was higher cosmetic satisfaction in group 1 (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: SILS cholecystectomy performed by experienced surgeons is at least as successful, feasible, effective and safe as a TPCL cholecystectomy. Surgeons performing SILS should have a firm foundation of advanced minimal access surgical skills and a cautious, gradated approach to attempt the various procedures. Prospective randomized studies comparing single access versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy, with large volumes and long-term follow-up, are needed to confirm our initial experience. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01772745.) The Korean Surgical Society 2013-12 2013-11-26 /pmc/articles/PMC3868679/ /pubmed/24368985 http://dx.doi.org/10.4174/jkss.2013.85.6.275 Text en Copyright © 2013, the Korean Surgical Society http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ Journal of the Korean Surgical Society is an Open Access Journal. All articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Deveci, Ugur
Barbaros, Umut
Kapakli, Mahmut Sertan
Manukyan, Manuk Norayk
Şimşek, Selçuk
Kebudi, Abut
Mercan, Selçuk
The comparison of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and three port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective randomized study
title The comparison of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and three port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective randomized study
title_full The comparison of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and three port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective randomized study
title_fullStr The comparison of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and three port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective randomized study
title_full_unstemmed The comparison of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and three port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective randomized study
title_short The comparison of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and three port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective randomized study
title_sort comparison of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and three port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective randomized study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3868679/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24368985
http://dx.doi.org/10.4174/jkss.2013.85.6.275
work_keys_str_mv AT deveciugur thecomparisonofsingleincisionlaparoscopiccholecystectomyandthreeportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyprospectiverandomizedstudy
AT barbarosumut thecomparisonofsingleincisionlaparoscopiccholecystectomyandthreeportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyprospectiverandomizedstudy
AT kapaklimahmutsertan thecomparisonofsingleincisionlaparoscopiccholecystectomyandthreeportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyprospectiverandomizedstudy
AT manukyanmanuknorayk thecomparisonofsingleincisionlaparoscopiccholecystectomyandthreeportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyprospectiverandomizedstudy
AT simsekselcuk thecomparisonofsingleincisionlaparoscopiccholecystectomyandthreeportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyprospectiverandomizedstudy
AT kebudiabut thecomparisonofsingleincisionlaparoscopiccholecystectomyandthreeportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyprospectiverandomizedstudy
AT mercanselcuk thecomparisonofsingleincisionlaparoscopiccholecystectomyandthreeportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyprospectiverandomizedstudy
AT deveciugur comparisonofsingleincisionlaparoscopiccholecystectomyandthreeportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyprospectiverandomizedstudy
AT barbarosumut comparisonofsingleincisionlaparoscopiccholecystectomyandthreeportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyprospectiverandomizedstudy
AT kapaklimahmutsertan comparisonofsingleincisionlaparoscopiccholecystectomyandthreeportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyprospectiverandomizedstudy
AT manukyanmanuknorayk comparisonofsingleincisionlaparoscopiccholecystectomyandthreeportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyprospectiverandomizedstudy
AT simsekselcuk comparisonofsingleincisionlaparoscopiccholecystectomyandthreeportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyprospectiverandomizedstudy
AT kebudiabut comparisonofsingleincisionlaparoscopiccholecystectomyandthreeportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyprospectiverandomizedstudy
AT mercanselcuk comparisonofsingleincisionlaparoscopiccholecystectomyandthreeportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyprospectiverandomizedstudy