Literature DB >> 21695591

Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC)-a matched pair analysis.

Odo Gangl1, Wolfgang Hofer, Florian Tomaselli, Thomas Sautner, Reinhold Függer.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The aim of our study was to compare single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with respect to complications, operating time, postoperative pain, use of analgesics, length of stay, return to work, rate of incisional hernia, and cosmetic outcome.
METHODS: Sixty-seven patients underwent SILC. Of a cohort of 163 LC operated in the same time period, 67 patients were chosen for a matched pair analysis. Pairs were matched for age, gender, ASA, BMI, acuity, and previous abdominal surgery. In the SILC group, patient characteristics (gender, age, BMI, comorbidities, ASA, previous abdominal surgery, symptomatic cholecystolithiasis, cholecystitis) and perioperative data (surgeon, operation time, conversion rate and cause, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, reoperation rate, VAS at 24 h, VAS at 48 h, use of analgesics according to WHO class, and length of stay) were collected prospectively.
RESULTS: Follow-up in the SILC and LC group was completed with a minimum of 17 and a maximum of 26 months; data acquired were recovery time the patients needed until they were able to get back into the working process, long-term incidence of postoperative hernias, and satisfaction with cosmetic outcome. Operating time was longer for SILC (median 75 min, range 39-168 vs. 63, range 23-164, p = 0.039). There were no significant differences for SILC and LC with regard to postoperative pain measured by VAS at 24 h (median 3, range 0-8 vs. 2, range 0-8, p = 0.224), at 48 h (median 2, range 0-6 vs. 2, range 0-8, p = 0.571), use of analgesics, and length of stay (median 2 days, range 1-9 vs. 2, range 1-11, p = 0.098). There was no major complication in either group. The completion rate of SILC was 85.1% (57 of 67). Although there was a trend towards an earlier return to the working process in patients of the SILC group, this was not significant. The rate of incisional hernias was 1.9% (1/53) in the SILC and 2.1% (1/48) in the LC group indicating no significant difference. Self-assessment of satisfaction with the cosmetic outcome was not judged different by patients in both groups.
CONCLUSION: SILC is associated with longer operating time, but equals LC with respect to safety, postoperative pain, use of analgesics, length of stay, return to work, rate of incisional hernia, and cosmetic outcome.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21695591     DOI: 10.1007/s00423-011-0817-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg        ISSN: 1435-2443            Impact factor:   3.445


  20 in total

1.  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

2.  Laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Steven E Hodgett; Jonathan M Hernandez; Connor A Morton; Sharona B Ross; Michael Albrink; Alexander S Rosemurgy
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2008-11-22       Impact factor: 3.452

3.  The national mortality burden and significant factors associated with open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy: 1997-2006.

Authors:  James P Dolan; Brian S Diggs; Brett C Sheppard; John G Hunter
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2009-09-02       Impact factor: 3.452

4.  Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy using conventional instruments: early experience in comparison with the gold standard.

Authors:  Scott R Philipp; Brent W Miedema; Klaus Thaler
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2009-09-11       Impact factor: 6.113

5.  One-wound laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  G Navarra; E Pozza; S Occhionorelli; P Carcoforo; I Donini
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 6.939

6.  The learning curve of laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) cholecystectomy: definable, short, and safe.

Authors:  Jonathan Hernandez; Sharona Ross; Connor Morton; Kellie McFarlin; Sujat Dahal; Farhaad Golkar; Michael Albrink; Alexander Rosemurgy
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2010-09-18       Impact factor: 6.113

7.  Single-port cholecystectomy: small scar, short learning curve.

Authors:  Daniel Solomon; Robert L Bell; Andrew J Duffy; Kurt E Roberts
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-04-17       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 8.  Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Stavros A Antoniou; Rudolph Pointner; Frank A Granderath
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-07-07       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Pediatric single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: lessons learned in the first 25 cases.

Authors:  Claudia N Emami; Deiadra Garrett; Dean Anselmo; Nam X Nguyen
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2011-02-19       Impact factor: 1.827

10.  Laparoendoscopic single site cholecystectomy: the first 100 patients.

Authors:  Jonathan M Hernandez; Connor A Morton; Sharona Ross; Michael Albrink; Alexander S Rosemurgy
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 0.688

View more
  34 in total

1.  Single-port cholecystectomy versus multi-port cholecystectomy: a prospective cohort study with 222 patients.

Authors:  Markus J Wagner; Hans Kern; Alexander Hapfelmeier; Jan Mehler; Michael H Schoenberg
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Tripartite comparison of single-incision and conventional laparoscopy in cholecystectomy: A multicenter trial.

Authors:  Guo-Lin He; Ze-Sheng Jiang; Yuan Cheng; Qing-Bo Lai; Chen-Jie Zhou; Hai-Yan Liu; Yi Gao; Ming-Xin Pan; Zhi-Xiang Jian
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-05-16

3.  Analysis of perioperative factors and cost comparison of single-incision and traditional multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Catherine Beck; Jeffrey Eakin; Rebecca Dettorre; David Renton
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-07-18       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholecystitis requiring percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage.

Authors:  Tsuyoshi Igami; Taro Aoba; Tomoki Ebata; Yukihiro Yokoyama; Gen Sugawara; Masato Nagino
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2014-08-21       Impact factor: 2.549

Review 5.  Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review of methodology and outcomes.

Authors:  Masato Yamazaki; Hideki Yasuda; Keiji Koda
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2014-05-22       Impact factor: 2.549

6.  Single-port and multi-port laparoscopic left lateral liver sectionectomy for treating benign liver diseases: a prospective, randomized, controlled study.

Authors:  Minggen Hu; Guodong Zhao; Fei Wang; Dabin Xu; Rong Liu
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 3.352

7.  Higher cost of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy due to longer operating time. A study of opportunity cost based on meta-analysis.

Authors:  F Fuertes-Guirò; M Girabent-Farrés
Journal:  G Chir       Date:  2018 Jan-Feb

8.  Initial experience of single-port laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid colon cancer.

Authors:  Sun Jin Park; Kil Yeon Lee; Byung Mo Kang; Sung Il Choi; Suk Hwan Lee
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 3.352

9.  Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A non-randomized, age-matched single center trial.

Authors:  Yoen Tk van der Linden; Koop Bosscha; Hubert A Prins; Daniel J Lips
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2015-08-27

10.  Single-incision vs three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Ming-Xin Pan; Ze-Sheng Jiang; Yuan Cheng; Xiao-Ping Xu; Zhi Zhang; Jia-Sheng Qin; Guo-Lin He; Ting-Cheng Xu; Chen-Jie Zhou; Hai-Yan Liu; Yi Gao
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-01-21       Impact factor: 5.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.