Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
JCR Impact Factor (IF) – 1.736
5-Year Impact Factor – 2.135
Index Copernicus  – 168.52
MEiN – 70 pts

ISSN 1899–5276 (print)
ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

2016, vol. 25, nr 1, January-February, p. 101–109

doi: 10.17219/acem/26237

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

The Comparison of Four-Port, Two-Port Without Suspension Suture and Single Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Results

Barlas Sulu1,A,B,C,D,E,F, Tulay D. Allahverdi1,B,E, Hasan Altun1,A,B,C, Neset Koksal1,B,D

1 Department of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Kafkas University, Turkey

Abstract

Background. Single-port surgery has recently become popular, however, many surgeons have to use additional ports during the surgery due to difficulties.
Objectives. We performed two-port MCAP (with an additional port using a multi-channel device through the umbilicus) without a suspension suture in a group of patients. We compared the results of this technique to the LC and SILC techniques.
Material and Methods. A total of 90 patients with gallbladder disease were included in the study. LC (n = 30) and SILC (n = 30) were performed in two groups. The other group underwent cholecystectomy (MCAP) by using an additional 5 mm port through the subxiphoid region with a multi-channel port through the transumblical. A transabdominal suspension suture was not used for the patients in this group. The surgery duration, estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, visual analogue scale (VAS) score in the postoperative 1st and 7th day, need for analgesia in the postoperative period and complications, and the conversion rate were compared between the three methods.
Results. A total of 62 females (68.9%) and 28 males (31.1%) participated in the study. MCAP duration was significantly shorter than LC and SILC (38.1 ± 16.6, 49.4 ± 15.8, 77.8 ± 26.7 min respectively) (p < 0.05). The conversion rate was similar in all three groups. Hernia developed in the port area in two patients after SILC (6.7%). No significant difference was found between the groups for the other data we compared.
Conclusion. MCAP seems to be an easier technique with a shorter operation time compared to the other two techniques. However, there is a need for other studies to evaluate the cosmetic results.

Key words

single port, laparoscopic, cholecystectomy

References (28)

  1. Pelosi MA, Pelosi MA 3rd: Laparoscopic appendectomy using a single umbilical puncture (minilaparoscopy). J Reprod Med 1992, 37, 588–594.
  2. Yim GW, Jung YW, Paek J: Transumbilical single-port access vs. conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy: surgical outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010, 203, 26, e1–6.
  3. Garg S, Gundeti M, Mushtaq I: The single instrument port laparoscopic (SIMPL) nephrectomy. J Pediatr Urol 2006, 2, 194–196.
  4. Remzi FH, Kirat HT, Kaouk JH, Geisler DP: Single-port laparoscopy in colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 2008, 10, 823–826.
  5. Alptekin H, Yilmaz H, Acar F, Kafali ME, Sahin M: Incisional hernia rate may increase after single-port cholecystectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2012, 22, 731–737.
  6. Baik SM, Hong KS, Kim YI: A comparison of transumbilical single-port laparoscopic appendectomy and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy: from the diagnosis to the hospital cost. J Korean Surg Soc 2013, 85, 68–74.
  7. Ma J, Cassera MA, Spaun GO, Hammill CW, Hansen PD, Aliabadi-Wahle S: Randomized controlled trial comparing single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 2011, 254, 22–27.
  8. Hirano Y, Hattori M, Douden K: Single-incision plus one port laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer as a reduced portsurgery. Scand J Surg 2012, 101, 283–286.
  9. Yilmaz H, Alptekin H, Acar F, Ciftci I, Tekin A, Sahin M: Experiences of single incision cholecystectomy. Int J Med Sci 2013, 10, 73–78.
  10. Brunt LM: Commentary on “Incisional hernia rate may increase after single-port cholecystectomy”. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2012, 22, 738–739.
  11. Zehetner J, Pelipad D, Darehzereshki A, Mason RJ, Lipham JC, Katkhouda N: Single-access laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs. classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2013, 23, 235–243.
  12. Trastulli S, Cirocchi R, Desiderio J: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing single-incision vs. conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 2013, 100, 191–208.
  13. Wang Z, Huang X, Zheng Q: Single-incision vs. conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg 2012, 82, 885–889.
  14. Cheng Y, Jiang ZS, Xu XP: Laparoendoscopic single-site cholecystectomy vs. three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a large-scale retrospective study. World J Gastroenterol 2013, 19, 4209–4213.
  15. Tian MG, Zhang PJ, Yang Y, Shang FJ, Zhan J: Two-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy with modified suture retraction of the fundus: A practical approach. J Minim Access Surg 2013, 9, 122–125.
  16. Tay CW, Shen L, Hartman M, Iyer SG, Madhavan K, Chang SK, SILC for SILC: Single Institution Learning Curve for Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. Minim Invasive Surg 2013, 2013, 381628.
  17. Yasir M, Mehta KS, Banday VH, Aiman A, Masood I, Iqbal B: Evaluation of post operative shoulder tip pain in low pressure vs. standard pressure pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgeon 2012, 10, 71–74.
  18. Tsimoyiannis EC, Tsimogiannis KE, Pappas-Gogos G: Different pain scores in single transumbilical incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs. classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 2010, 24, 1842–1848.
  19. Silva MB, de Melo PR, de Oliveira NM, Crema E, Fernandes LF: Analgesic effect of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2012, 91, 652–657.
  20. Mehmood Z, Subhan A, Ali N: Four port vs. single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Surg Pakistan 2010, 15, 122–125.
  21. Asakuma M, Hayashi M, Komeda K: Impact of single-port cholecystectomy on postoperative pain. Br J Surg 2011, 98, 991–995.
  22. Comajuncosas J, Vallverdú H, Orbeal R, Parés D: Trocar site incisional hernia in laparoscopic surgery. Cir Esp 2011, 89, 72–76.
  23. Bunting DM: Port-site hernia following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS 2010, 14, 490–497.
  24. Gunderson CC, Knight J, Ybanez-Morano J: The risk of umbilical hernia and other complications with laparoendoscopic single-site surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2012, 19, 40–45.
  25. Hao L, Liu M, Zhu H, Li Z: Single-incision vs. conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with uncomplicated gallbladder disease: a meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2012, 22, 487–497.
  26. Pavlidis TE, Marakis GN, Ballas K: Risk factors influencing conversion of laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2007, 17, 414–418.
  27. Kurpiewski W, Pesta W, Kowalczyk M: The outcomes of SILS cholecystectomy in comparison with classic four-trocar laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Wideochir Inne Tech Malo Inwazyjne 2012, 7, 286–293.
  28. Culp BL, Cedillo VE, Arnold DT: Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs. traditional four-port cholecystectomy. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) 2012, 25, 319–323.
© Wroclaw Medical University