INTRODUCTION: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) offers the potential advantages of reduced postoperative pain and a lower incidence of port-site complications. Moreover, careful attention to closure can reduce the scarring after surgery. Consequently, this method is a promising technique for reducing postoperative pain, decreasing complications, and improving cosmesis. We have performed cholecystectomy in eight patients by SILS. The umbilicus was the point of entry to the abdomen in all patients. METHODS: Between May 2009 and October 2009, 31 patients underwent cholecystectomy at our hospital. The umbilicus was the point of entry to the abdomen in all patients. Three SILSs were performed using a new SILS port, and five SILSs were performed by the conventional method in which three ports are inserted into the umbilicus; the remaining ten patients underwent multiple-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (standard cholecystectomy). The results for the patients who underwent standard cholecystectomy, conventional SILS, and SILS using the new port were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. The data are expressed as mean +/- standard deviation. RESULT: Of the eight cholecystectomies carried out, three were performed by SILS using the new port. No complications or mortalities were associated with this technique. The mean operating times for conventional SILS, SILS with the new port, and standard cholecystectomy were 154 +/- 57, 120 +/- 11, and 100 +/- 51 min, respectively; these inter-group differences are not significant. The blood loss in conventional SILS, SILS with the new port, and standard cholecystectomy was 9 +/- 16, 1, and 6.1 +/- 11 g, respectively; these inter-group differences are not significant. All umbilical incisions were concealed within the umbilicus. CONCLUSION: Cholecystectomy performed using SILS with the new port is a safe and feasible approach with reasonable operation times.
INTRODUCTION: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) offers the potential advantages of reduced postoperative pain and a lower incidence of port-site complications. Moreover, careful attention to closure can reduce the scarring after surgery. Consequently, this method is a promising technique for reducing postoperative pain, decreasing complications, and improving cosmesis. We have performed cholecystectomy in eight patients by SILS. The umbilicus was the point of entry to the abdomen in all patients. METHODS: Between May 2009 and October 2009, 31 patients underwent cholecystectomy at our hospital. The umbilicus was the point of entry to the abdomen in all patients. Three SILSs were performed using a new SILS port, and five SILSs were performed by the conventional method in which three ports are inserted into the umbilicus; the remaining ten patients underwent multiple-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (standard cholecystectomy). The results for the patients who underwent standard cholecystectomy, conventional SILS, and SILS using the new port were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. The data are expressed as mean +/- standard deviation. RESULT: Of the eight cholecystectomies carried out, three were performed by SILS using the new port. No complications or mortalities were associated with this technique. The mean operating times for conventional SILS, SILS with the new port, and standard cholecystectomy were 154 +/- 57, 120 +/- 11, and 100 +/- 51 min, respectively; these inter-group differences are not significant. The blood loss in conventional SILS, SILS with the new port, and standard cholecystectomy was 9 +/- 16, 1, and 6.1 +/- 11 g, respectively; these inter-group differences are not significant. All umbilical incisions were concealed within the umbilicus. CONCLUSION: Cholecystectomy performed using SILS with the new port is a safe and feasible approach with reasonable operation times.