Cargando…

Single-incision versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an ambulatory surgery setting: A prospective randomised double-blind controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) can be done as a day-case procedure and may have advantages over conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). We present the results of our study looking at post-operative pain and post-operative recovery time. METHODS: This was a si...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Subirana, Helena, Rey, Francisco Javier, Barri, Joan, Robres, Joaquim, Parra, Lourdes, Martín, Montserrat, Memba, Robert, Mullerat, Josep Maria, Jorba, Rosa
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8270025/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32964868
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jmas.JMAS_97_20
_version_ 1783720712094089216
author Subirana, Helena
Rey, Francisco Javier
Barri, Joan
Robres, Joaquim
Parra, Lourdes
Martín, Montserrat
Memba, Robert
Mullerat, Josep Maria
Jorba, Rosa
author_facet Subirana, Helena
Rey, Francisco Javier
Barri, Joan
Robres, Joaquim
Parra, Lourdes
Martín, Montserrat
Memba, Robert
Mullerat, Josep Maria
Jorba, Rosa
author_sort Subirana, Helena
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) can be done as a day-case procedure and may have advantages over conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). We present the results of our study looking at post-operative pain and post-operative recovery time. METHODS: This was a single-institution randomised double-blind controlled trial. Seventy-three patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis were randomized to SILC (n = 37) or LC (n = 36). The primary endpoint was to compare post-operative pain. We also compared surgical time, procedural difficulty, adverse events, additional ports used and conversion rate, success of day surgery process, return to work, aesthetic satisfaction, quality of life and 4-year incisional hernia rate. RESULTS: In the SILC group, post-operative analgesic requirements were lower on day 7, there was an earlier return to work and cosmetic satisfaction was significantly higher. The SILC procedure presented a higher technical difficulty. Operative time, surgical complications, post-operative pain, success of the day-case process, return to normal activity, quality of life scores and incisional hernia rates were similar for both the procedures. CONCLUSIONS: SILC has advantages over LC in terms of late post-operative analgesic requirements and aesthetic results; however, it is technically harder to perform. There was no benefit in terms of day surgery outcomes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8270025
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82700252021-07-27 Single-incision versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an ambulatory surgery setting: A prospective randomised double-blind controlled trial Subirana, Helena Rey, Francisco Javier Barri, Joan Robres, Joaquim Parra, Lourdes Martín, Montserrat Memba, Robert Mullerat, Josep Maria Jorba, Rosa J Minim Access Surg Original Article BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) can be done as a day-case procedure and may have advantages over conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). We present the results of our study looking at post-operative pain and post-operative recovery time. METHODS: This was a single-institution randomised double-blind controlled trial. Seventy-three patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis were randomized to SILC (n = 37) or LC (n = 36). The primary endpoint was to compare post-operative pain. We also compared surgical time, procedural difficulty, adverse events, additional ports used and conversion rate, success of day surgery process, return to work, aesthetic satisfaction, quality of life and 4-year incisional hernia rate. RESULTS: In the SILC group, post-operative analgesic requirements were lower on day 7, there was an earlier return to work and cosmetic satisfaction was significantly higher. The SILC procedure presented a higher technical difficulty. Operative time, surgical complications, post-operative pain, success of the day-case process, return to normal activity, quality of life scores and incisional hernia rates were similar for both the procedures. CONCLUSIONS: SILC has advantages over LC in terms of late post-operative analgesic requirements and aesthetic results; however, it is technically harder to perform. There was no benefit in terms of day surgery outcomes. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021 2020-09-05 /pmc/articles/PMC8270025/ /pubmed/32964868 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jmas.JMAS_97_20 Text en Copyright: © 2020 Journal of Minimal Access Surgery https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Subirana, Helena
Rey, Francisco Javier
Barri, Joan
Robres, Joaquim
Parra, Lourdes
Martín, Montserrat
Memba, Robert
Mullerat, Josep Maria
Jorba, Rosa
Single-incision versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an ambulatory surgery setting: A prospective randomised double-blind controlled trial
title Single-incision versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an ambulatory surgery setting: A prospective randomised double-blind controlled trial
title_full Single-incision versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an ambulatory surgery setting: A prospective randomised double-blind controlled trial
title_fullStr Single-incision versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an ambulatory surgery setting: A prospective randomised double-blind controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Single-incision versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an ambulatory surgery setting: A prospective randomised double-blind controlled trial
title_short Single-incision versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an ambulatory surgery setting: A prospective randomised double-blind controlled trial
title_sort single-incision versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an ambulatory surgery setting: a prospective randomised double-blind controlled trial
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8270025/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32964868
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jmas.JMAS_97_20
work_keys_str_mv AT subiranahelena singleincisionversusfourportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyinanambulatorysurgerysettingaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindcontrolledtrial
AT reyfranciscojavier singleincisionversusfourportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyinanambulatorysurgerysettingaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindcontrolledtrial
AT barrijoan singleincisionversusfourportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyinanambulatorysurgerysettingaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindcontrolledtrial
AT robresjoaquim singleincisionversusfourportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyinanambulatorysurgerysettingaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindcontrolledtrial
AT parralourdes singleincisionversusfourportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyinanambulatorysurgerysettingaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindcontrolledtrial
AT martinmontserrat singleincisionversusfourportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyinanambulatorysurgerysettingaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindcontrolledtrial
AT membarobert singleincisionversusfourportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyinanambulatorysurgerysettingaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindcontrolledtrial
AT mulleratjosepmaria singleincisionversusfourportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyinanambulatorysurgerysettingaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindcontrolledtrial
AT jorbarosa singleincisionversusfourportlaparoscopiccholecystectomyinanambulatorysurgerysettingaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindcontrolledtrial