Literature DB >> 11136308

Randomized trial of needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

W K Cheah1, J E Lenzi, J B So, C K Kum, P M Goh.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported the feasibility of using 'needlescopic' instruments with a diameter less than 3 mm in minimally invasive surgery. This study reports a comparison of needlescopic cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
METHODS: Seventy-five patients with symptomatic chronic cholelithiasis were randomized to needlescopic (n = 37) or laparoscopic (n = 38) cholecystectomy.
RESULTS: The duration of surgery in the two groups was similar. Patients in the needlescopic group had less pain (mean visual analogue score 2.2 versus 3.6; P < 0.003) and had smaller scars (median length 17.0 versus 25.0 mm; P < 0.001). In addition, patients in the needlescopic group tended to require fewer intramuscular pethidine injections (P = 0.05). However, oral analgesic requirements in the two groups were similar. There were no complications in either group.
CONCLUSION: Needlescopic cholecystectomy resulted in less postoperative pain and a smaller surgical scar than laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with chronic cholecystitis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11136308     DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2001.01636.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Surg        ISSN: 0007-1323            Impact factor:   6.939


  22 in total

1.  Is there still any role for minilaparoscopic-cholecystectomy? A general surgeons' last five years experience over 932 cases.

Authors:  Ferdinando Agresta; Natalino Bedin
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2011-11-11

2.  Assessment of cosmetic outcome after laparoscopic cholecystectomy among women 4 years after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: is there a problem?

Authors:  Mark Bignell; Andrew Hindmarsh; Haritharan Nageswaran; Bhavani Mothe; Andrew Jenkinson; David Mahon; Michael Rhodes
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-03-18       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  A procedure-specific systematic review and consensus recommendations for postoperative analgesia following laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  H Kehlet; A W Gray; F Bonnet; F Camu; H B J Fischer; R F McCloy; E A M Neugebauer; M M Puig; N Rawal; C J P Simanski
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-08-11       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 4.  Emerging Techniques in Minimally Invasive Surgery. Pros and Cons.

Authors:  P Marco Fisichella; Steven R DeMeester; Eric Hungness; Silvana Perretta; Nathaniel J Soper; Alexander Rosemurgy; Alfonso Torquati; Ajit K Sachdeva; Marco G Patti
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2015-02-13       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 5.  [Minilaparoscopy with 5 mm optics and 3 mm trocars].

Authors:  J Schmidt
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 0.955

6.  Needlescopic surgery: what's in the toolbox?

Authors:  David M Krpata; Todd A Ponsky
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-10-06       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  A prospective, randomized, single-blind trial of 5-mm versus 3-mm ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: is smaller better?

Authors:  M Bignell; M P N Lewis; E C K Cheong; M Rhodes
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 8.  Minimally invasive donor nephrectomy: innovations.

Authors:  Jorge R Caso
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 9.  Is smaller necessarily better? A systematic review comparing the effects of minilaparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy on patient outcomes.

Authors:  Rory McCloy; Delia Randall; Stephan A Schug; Henrik Kehlet; Christian Simanski; Francis Bonnet; Frederic Camu; Barrie Fischer; Girish Joshi; Narinder Rawal; Edmund A M Neugebauer
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-09-20       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Needlescopic hysterectomy: incorporation of 3-mm instruments in total laparoscopic hysterectomy.

Authors:  Fabio Ghezzi; Antonella Cromi; Gabriele Siesto; Luigi Boni; Stefano Uccella; Valentino Bergamini; Pierfrancesco Bolis
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-07-12       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.