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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |