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