INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to compare laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with that performed using single umbilical incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) in a major outpatient surgery (MOS) unit. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 50 patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis were prospectively randomised between October 2009 and June 2011, with 26 of them subjected to SILS, and 24 to CL. The variables analysed were, postoperative pain, analgesia requirements, presence of nausea/vomiting, operation time, complications, outpatient success rate, and aesthetic results. RESULTS: There were no differences as regards postoperative pain, analgesia rescue, nausea/vomiting, or operation time (SILS 54 ± 21 min, CL 48.5 ± 17 min, P=.29). There was one case of morbidity in the SILS group which required further surgery. The outpatient surgical procedure was completed in 77% of patients of the SILS group, and in 83% of the CL group. Six patients (23%) from the SILS group, and 4 (17%) from the CL group remained in the unit for more than 24h (P=.58). The aesthetic results were subjectively assessed as "very good" in the SILS group, and "good" in the CL group. CONCLUSION:SILS cholecystectomy is feasible and safe when comparing it with laparoscopic cholecystectomy in selected patients, and obtains similar results when performed in a MOS unit. Larger studies are needed to determine the real benefits of this approach before recommending it as a routine technique. With more experienced surgical teams and greater awareness of the patients could possibly increase the number of candidates for outpatient cholecystectomy.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to compare laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with that performed using single umbilical incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) in a major outpatient surgery (MOS) unit. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 50 patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis were prospectively randomised between October 2009 and June 2011, with 26 of them subjected to SILS, and 24 to CL. The variables analysed were, postoperative pain, analgesia requirements, presence of nausea/vomiting, operation time, complications, outpatient success rate, and aesthetic results. RESULTS: There were no differences as regards postoperative pain, analgesia rescue, nausea/vomiting, or operation time (SILS 54 ± 21 min, CL 48.5 ± 17 min, P=.29). There was one case of morbidity in the SILS group which required further surgery. The outpatient surgical procedure was completed in 77% of patients of the SILS group, and in 83% of the CL group. Six patients (23%) from the SILS group, and 4 (17%) from the CL group remained in the unit for more than 24h (P=.58). The aesthetic results were subjectively assessed as "very good" in the SILS group, and "good" in the CL group. CONCLUSION: SILS cholecystectomy is feasible and safe when comparing it with laparoscopic cholecystectomy in selected patients, and obtains similar results when performed in a MOS unit. Larger studies are needed to determine the real benefits of this approach before recommending it as a routine technique. With more experienced surgical teams and greater awareness of the patients could possibly increase the number of candidates for outpatient cholecystectomy.
Authors: Anthony Michael Gonzalez; Jorge Rafael Rabaza; Charan Donkor; Rey Jesús Romero; Radomir Kosanovic; Juan Carlos Verdeja Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-08-13 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Stavros A Antoniou; Josep M García-Alamino; Shahab Hajibandeh; Shahin Hajibandeh; Michael Weitzendorfer; Filip E Muysoms; Frank A Granderath; George E Chalkiadakis; Klaus Emmanuel; George A Antoniou; Meropi Gioumidou; Styliani Iliopoulou-Kosmadaki; Maria Mathioudaki; Kyriakos Souliotis Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Helena Subirana; Francisco Javier Rey; Joan Barri; Joaquim Robres; Lourdes Parra; Montserrat Martín; Robert Memba; Josep Maria Mullerat; Rosa Jorba Journal: J Minim Access Surg Date: 2021 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 1.407