Literature DB >> 16365239

Advantages of mini-laparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a prospective randomized trial.

Yuri W Novitsky1, Kent W Kercher, Donald R Czerniach, Gordie K Kaban, Samira Khera, Karen A Gallagher-Dorval, Mark P Callery, Demetrius E M Litwin, John J Kelly.   

Abstract

HYPOTHESIS: The use of smaller instruments during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has been proposed to reduce postoperative pain and improve cosmesis. However, despite several recent trials, the effects of the use of miniaturized instruments for LC are not well established. We hypothesized that LC using miniports (M-LC) is safe and produces less incisional pain and better cosmetic results than LC performed conventionally (C-LC).
DESIGN: A patient- and observer-blinded, randomized, prospective clinical trial.
SETTING: A tertiary care, university-based hospital. PATIENTS: Seventy-nine patients scheduled for an elective LC who agreed to participate in this trial were randomized to undergo surgery using 1 of the 2 instrument sets. The criteria for exclusion were American Society of Anesthesiologists class III or IV, age older than 70 years, liver or coagulation disorders, previous major abdominal surgical procedures, and acute cholecystitis or acute choledocholithiasis. INTERVENTION: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed with either conventional or miniaturized instruments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' age, sex, operative time, operative blood loss, intraoperative complications, early and late postoperative incisional pain, and cosmetic results.
RESULTS: Thirty-three C-LCs and 34 M-LCs were performed and analyzed. There were 8 conversions (24%) to the standard technique in the M-LC group. No intraoperative or major postoperative complications occurred in either group. The average incisional pain score on the first postoperative day was significantly less in the M-LC group (3.9 vs 4.9; P = .04). No significant differences occurred in the mean scores for pain on postoperative days 3, 7, and 28. However, 90% of patients in the M-LC group and only 74% of patients in the C-LC group had no pain (visual analog scale score of 0) at 28 days postoperatively (P = .05). Cosmetic results were superior in the M-LC group according to both the study nurse's and the patients' assessments (38.9 vs 28.9; P<.001, and 38.8 vs 33.4; P = .001, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be safely performed using 10-mm umbilical, 5-mm epigastric, 2-mm subcostal, and 2-mm lateral ports. The use of mini-laparoscopic techniques resulted in decreased early postoperative incisional pain, avoided late incisional discomfort, and produced superior cosmetic results. Although improved instrument durability and better optics are needed for widespread use of miniport techniques, this approach can be routinely offered to many properly selected patients undergoing elective LC.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16365239     DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.140.12.1178

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Surg        ISSN: 0004-0010


  37 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

Review 2.  Delayed assessment and eager adoption of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: implications for developing surgical technologies.

Authors:  Alexander C Allori; I Michael Leitman; Elizabeth Heitman
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-09-07       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  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

4.  Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery for the treatment of benign adnexal diseases: a pilot study.

Authors:  Anna Fagotti; Francesco Fanfani; Francesco Marocco; Cristiano Rossitto; Valerio Gallotta; Elisabetta Marana; Giovanni Scambia
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-09-25       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Single port access laparoscopic cholecystectomy (with video).

Authors:  Pascal Bucher; François Pugin; Nicolas Buchs; Sandrine Ostermann; Fadi Charara; Philippe Morel
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  Micro-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: an alternative to single-port surgery.

Authors:  Denise McCormack; Pierre Saldinger; Andrei Cocieru; Suzanne House; Keith Zuccala
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2011-02-20       Impact factor: 3.452

7.  Three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  Shaoliang Sun; Kehu Yang; Mingtai Gao; Xiaodong He; Jinhui Tian; Bin Ma
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 8.  [Minilaparoscopy with 5 mm optics and 3 mm trocars].

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

9.  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

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.