BACKGROUND: Advocates of single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) claim that improved cosmetic outcome is one of its main benefits over conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). However, the published data quantifying the cosmetic outcome after CLC is sparse. This study aimed to determine the cosmetic outcome after CLC using a validated scar assessment tool. METHODS: The patient scar assessment questionnaire was sent to all women ages 20-50 years who had undergone CLC at the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital (Norwich), the Homerton Hospital (London), and the Musgrove Park Hospital (Taunton) in 2005 (n = 380). In all cases, the operation had been performed using a four-port technique. The patients were asked to give scores related to the appearance and symptoms associated with the scars at the time the questionnaire was completed. RESULTS: Of the 380 patients, 195 responded to the questionnaire, giving a response rate of 51%. The median age of the responders was 39 years, and 63 (32%) of them had undergone previous surgery. The mean score for each section was low, indicating a favorable cosmetic outcome. This correlated with the global question answered with "excellent" for 4 of 5 categories and "good" for the remaining category. Nine patients highlighted dissatisfaction with the umbilical incision. CONCLUSIONS: Patients perceive the cosmetic results after CLC as excellent. Therefore, SPLC seems to have a limited role in terms of improving cosmesis for patients undergoing cholecystectomy. Anecdotal evidence from the questionnaire suggests that the umbilical port may be the site of problems for some patients. Further investigation is needed to determine whether this is significant, especially because it may be exaggerated after SPLC.
BACKGROUND: Advocates of single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) claim that improved cosmetic outcome is one of its main benefits over conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). However, the published data quantifying the cosmetic outcome after CLC is sparse. This study aimed to determine the cosmetic outcome after CLC using a validated scar assessment tool. METHODS: The patient scar assessment questionnaire was sent to all women ages 20-50 years who had undergone CLC at the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital (Norwich), the Homerton Hospital (London), and the Musgrove Park Hospital (Taunton) in 2005 (n = 380). In all cases, the operation had been performed using a four-port technique. The patients were asked to give scores related to the appearance and symptoms associated with the scars at the time the questionnaire was completed. RESULTS: Of the 380 patients, 195 responded to the questionnaire, giving a response rate of 51%. The median age of the responders was 39 years, and 63 (32%) of them had undergone previous surgery. The mean score for each section was low, indicating a favorable cosmetic outcome. This correlated with the global question answered with "excellent" for 4 of 5 categories and "good" for the remaining category. Nine patients highlighted dissatisfaction with the umbilical incision. CONCLUSIONS:Patients perceive the cosmetic results after CLC as excellent. Therefore, SPLC seems to have a limited role in terms of improving cosmesis for patients undergoing cholecystectomy. Anecdotal evidence from the questionnaire suggests that the umbilical port may be the site of problems for some patients. Further investigation is needed to determine whether this is significant, especially because it may be exaggerated after SPLC.
Authors: Chris Edwards; Alan Bradshaw; Paul Ahearne; Pierre Dematos; Ted Humble; Randy Johnson; David Mauterer; Peeter Soosaar Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 4.584
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
Authors: Peter B van den Boezem; Simone Velthuis; Harm J Lourens; Miguel A Cuesta; Colin Sietses Journal: World J Surg Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 3.352