Cargando…

Feasibility and Safety of Three-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Compared to Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Background The standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard procedure. The various clinical trials and reports in the literature have suggested that the three-port technique LC can be done safely with acceptable results. Still, that the three-port LC offers any added ben...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shah, Mohd Yunus, Somasundaram, Umeshraj, Wilkinson, TRVRaju, Wasnik, Nitin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cureus 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8714047/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34984137
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.19979
_version_ 1784623837259759616
author Shah, Mohd Yunus
Somasundaram, Umeshraj
Wilkinson, TRVRaju
Wasnik, Nitin
author_facet Shah, Mohd Yunus
Somasundaram, Umeshraj
Wilkinson, TRVRaju
Wasnik, Nitin
author_sort Shah, Mohd Yunus
collection PubMed
description Background The standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard procedure. The various clinical trials and reports in the literature have suggested that the three-port technique LC can be done safely with acceptable results. Still, that the three-port LC offers any added benefits to the patient is a controversial issue especially in view of safety and feasibility. In this study, we report the experience of three-port LC compared to four-port LC technique, its safety, feasibility and outcomes. Materials and methods A prospective randomized study was conducted between two groups which included 165 cases - 93 patients were included in three-port LC (Group A) and 72 patients in four-port LC (Group B). Operative time, intraoperative complications, postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, analgesics requirement, conversion to open and return to normal activities were parameters of evaluation. Results Demographic data was comparable in both the groups. Three-port LC Group A had lesser post-operative pain and analgesics requirements. The mean postoperative pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score on day 1 was (4.16 and 6.24), on day 7 was (1.26 and 1.81) in three-port group and in four-port LC group, respectively. The mean days of analgesics requirement were 2.56 days and 4.21 days among three-port group and four-port group, respectively Length of hospital stay was less and returning to work was early in three-port group. There was no statistical difference in operative time. The mean operative time among three-port LC group A and four-port LC group B was 36+/-8.6 minutes (30-68) and 39+/-7 minutes (30-90), respectively. The overall outcomes were comparable to four-port LC. Conclusion Three-port LC is a feasible and safe procedure for LC with satisfactory outcomes like lesser postoperative pain, postoperative stay and less scars, when performed by experienced hands, especially in acute cholecystitis. The use of fourth port should be done when required in a difficult situation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8714047
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Cureus
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87140472022-01-03 Feasibility and Safety of Three-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Compared to Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Shah, Mohd Yunus Somasundaram, Umeshraj Wilkinson, TRVRaju Wasnik, Nitin Cureus Gastroenterology Background The standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard procedure. The various clinical trials and reports in the literature have suggested that the three-port technique LC can be done safely with acceptable results. Still, that the three-port LC offers any added benefits to the patient is a controversial issue especially in view of safety and feasibility. In this study, we report the experience of three-port LC compared to four-port LC technique, its safety, feasibility and outcomes. Materials and methods A prospective randomized study was conducted between two groups which included 165 cases - 93 patients were included in three-port LC (Group A) and 72 patients in four-port LC (Group B). Operative time, intraoperative complications, postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, analgesics requirement, conversion to open and return to normal activities were parameters of evaluation. Results Demographic data was comparable in both the groups. Three-port LC Group A had lesser post-operative pain and analgesics requirements. The mean postoperative pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score on day 1 was (4.16 and 6.24), on day 7 was (1.26 and 1.81) in three-port group and in four-port LC group, respectively. The mean days of analgesics requirement were 2.56 days and 4.21 days among three-port group and four-port group, respectively Length of hospital stay was less and returning to work was early in three-port group. There was no statistical difference in operative time. The mean operative time among three-port LC group A and four-port LC group B was 36+/-8.6 minutes (30-68) and 39+/-7 minutes (30-90), respectively. The overall outcomes were comparable to four-port LC. Conclusion Three-port LC is a feasible and safe procedure for LC with satisfactory outcomes like lesser postoperative pain, postoperative stay and less scars, when performed by experienced hands, especially in acute cholecystitis. The use of fourth port should be done when required in a difficult situation. Cureus 2021-11-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8714047/ /pubmed/34984137 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.19979 Text en Copyright © 2021, Shah et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Gastroenterology
Shah, Mohd Yunus
Somasundaram, Umeshraj
Wilkinson, TRVRaju
Wasnik, Nitin
Feasibility and Safety of Three-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Compared to Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
title Feasibility and Safety of Three-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Compared to Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
title_full Feasibility and Safety of Three-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Compared to Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
title_fullStr Feasibility and Safety of Three-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Compared to Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
title_full_unstemmed Feasibility and Safety of Three-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Compared to Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
title_short Feasibility and Safety of Three-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Compared to Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
title_sort feasibility and safety of three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared to four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy
topic Gastroenterology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8714047/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34984137
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.19979
work_keys_str_mv AT shahmohdyunus feasibilityandsafetyofthreeportlaparoscopiccholecystectomycomparedtofourportlaparoscopiccholecystectomy
AT somasundaramumeshraj feasibilityandsafetyofthreeportlaparoscopiccholecystectomycomparedtofourportlaparoscopiccholecystectomy
AT wilkinsontrvraju feasibilityandsafetyofthreeportlaparoscopiccholecystectomycomparedtofourportlaparoscopiccholecystectomy
AT wasniknitin feasibilityandsafetyofthreeportlaparoscopiccholecystectomycomparedtofourportlaparoscopiccholecystectomy