Article

Two-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Department of Surgery, North District Hospital, Sheung Shui, N. T., Hong Kong SAR, China.
Surgical Endoscopy (Impact Factor: 3.43). 11/2003; 17(10):1624-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-002-8718-9
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Two-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been reported to be safe and feasible. However, whether it offers any additional advantages remains controversial. This study reports a randomized trial that compared the clinical outcomes of two-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
One hundred and twenty consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized to receive either the two-port or the four-port technique. All patients were blinded to the type of operation they underwent. Four surgical tapes were applied to standard four-port sites in both groups at the end of the operation. All dressings were kept intact until the first follow-up 1 week after surgery. Postoperative pain at the four sites was assessed on the first day after surgery using a 10-cm unscaled visual analog scale (VAS). Other outcome measures included analgesia requirements, length and difficulty of the operation, postoperative stay, and patient satisfaction score on surgery and scars.
Demographic data were comparable for both groups. Patients in the two-port group had shorter mean operative time (54.6 +/- 24.7 min vs 66.9 +/- 33.1 min for the four-post group; p = 0.03) and less pain at individual subcostal port sites [mean score using 10-cm unscaled VAS: 1.5 vs 2.8 ( p = 0.01) at the midsubcostal port site and 1.3 vs 2.3 ( p = 0.02) at the lateral subcostal port site]. Overall pain score, analgesia requirements, hospital stay, and patient satisfaction score on surgery and scars were similar between the two groups.
Two-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy resulted in less individual port-site pain and similar clinical outcomes but fewer surgical scars compared to four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Thus, it can be recommended as a routine procedure in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
78 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to analyze systematically the randomized, controlled trials that compared single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). The meta-analysis was conducted according to the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUORUM) standards. The included studies were analyzed systematically using the statistical software package RevMan. The summated outcomes were expressed as the risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous variables and standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous variables. Eleven randomized trials encompassing 858 patients were retrieved from the electronic databases. In the random effects model, postoperative pain, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, cosmesis score, conversion rate, and time to return to normal activities were statistically comparable between the two cholecystectomy techniques. SILC was associated with a longer operating time [SMD 0.71; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.38, 1.05; z = 4.18; p < 0.0001) and an increased requirement for additional port insertion (RR 6.54; 95 % CI 2.19, 19.57; z = 3.36; p < 0008). However, there was significant heterogeneity among the trials. SILC does not offer any advantage over CLC for treating benign gallbladder disorders. CLC may be used assiduously for this purpose.
    World Journal of Surgery 08/2012; 36(11):2644-53. · 2.23 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although transumbilical single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has been demonstrated to be superior cosmetic, it is only limited to simple cases at present. In complex cases, the standard four- or three-port LC is still the treatment of choice. To summarize the clinical effect of a modified technique in two-port LC. A consecutive series of patients with benign gallbladder diseases admitted to the provincial teaching hospital who underwent LC in the past 4 years were included. A modified two-port LC was the first choice except for those requiring laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). The operation was done with suture retraction of the fundus by a needle-like retractor. The patients' data, including the operative time, time consumed by gallbladder retraction, operative bleeding, conversion rate, rate of adding trocars, and postoperative complications were recorded. Data were expressed as percentage and mean with standard deviation. Total 107 patients with chronic calculous cholecystitis (N = 61), acute calculous cholecystitis (N = 43), and cholecystic polyps (N = 3) received two-port LC. The procedure was successful in 99 out of 107 cases (success rate, 92.5%), and a third trocar was added in the remaining 8 cases (7.5%) due to severe pathological changes. The operative time was 47.2 (±13.21) min. There was no conversion to open surgery. Two-port LC using a needle-like retractor for suture retraction of the gallbladder fundus is a practical approach when considering the safety, convenience, and indications as well as relatively minimal invasion.
    Journal of Minimal Access Surgery 07/2013; 9(3):122-5.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We conducted a network meta analysis (NMA) to compare different kinds of laparoscopic cholecystectomy [LC] (single port [SPLC], two ports [2PLC], three ports [3PLC], and four ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy [4PLC], and four ports mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy [mini-4PLC]). PubMed, the Cochrane library, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Knowledge were searched to find randomized controlled trials [RCTs]. Direct pair-wise meta analysis (DMA), indirect treatment comparison meta analysis (ITC) and NMA were conducted to compare different kinds of LC. We included 43 RCTs. The risk of bias of included studies was high. DMA showed that SPLC was associated with more postoperative complications, longer operative time, and higher cosmetic score than 4PLC, longer operative time and higher cosmetic score than 3PLC, more postoperative complications than mini-4PLC. Mini-4PLC was associated with longer operative time than 4PLC. ITC showed that 3PLC was associated with shorter operative time than mini-4PLC, and lower postoperative pain level than 2PLC. 2PLC was associated with fewer postoperative complications and longer hospital stay than SPLC. NMA showed that SPLC was associated with more postoperative complications than mini-4PLC, and longer operative time than 4PLC. The rank probability plot suggested 4PLC might be the worst due to the highest level of postoperative pain, longest hospital stay, and lowest level of cosmetic score. The best one might be mini-4PLC because of highest level of cosmetic score, and fewest postoperative complications, or SPLC because of lowest level of postoperative pain and shortest hospital stay. But more studies are needed to determine which will be better between mini-4PLC and SPLC.
    PLoS ONE 01/2014; 9(2):e90313. · 3.73 Impact Factor