Literature DB >> 23435700

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

Markus J Wagner1, Hans Kern, Alexander Hapfelmeier, Jan Mehler, Michael H Schoenberg.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare single-port access cholecystectomy (SPA) with the standard laparoscopic technique (LC) regarding the duration of the operation, complications, learning curve, late postoperative quality of life (QoL) and the incidence of incisional hernias.
METHODS: Between June 2009 and December 2011, a total of 122 SPA cholecystectomies were performed in our hospital. Simultaneously, 310 patients were operated on with the LC technique. In the LC group, 100 patients met the same criteria defined for SPA surgery. The two groups (SPA and LC) were compared by multivariable regression analysis. Endpoints of this study were quality of life (QoL) after 6 months by the EQ-5D questionnaire 5L and the incidence of incisional hernia 1 year after surgery. Operating time, hospital stay, and perioperative complications were also measured and compared. The median follow-up was 9.2 months (3-25 months).
RESULTS: The patients in the SPA group were younger and more often female. The mean operating time for group SPA was 73 min (35-136 min)-significantly longer than that for group LC with 60 min (33-190 min) (p < 0.001). Additional trocars were used in 8 of 122 (6.5 %) SPA patients. A conversion to open cholecystectomy was not necessary in SPA patients. The conversion rate in the LC group to open cholecystectomy was 2 % (2/100). The perioperative and postoperative complications and incisional hernia (5.5 %) were the same in both groups. QoL was significantly better in the SPA group in terms of mobility (p = 0,002), usual activity (p = 0.036), and overall anxiety (p = 0.026).
CONCLUSIONS: SPA cholecystectomy is safe, although the operation is significantly longer. No differences in terms of major complications or the incidence of incisional hernia were seen after 1 year. QoL was significantly better in patients operated on with the SPA technique.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23435700     DOI: 10.1007/s00268-013-1946-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.352


  50 in total

1.  Randomized controlled trial comparing single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Jun Ma; Maria A Cassera; Georg O Spaun; Chet W Hammill; Paul D Hansen; Shaghayegh Aliabadi-Wahle
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 12.969

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.  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

4.  Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs. conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Pankaj Garg; Jai Deep Thakur; Mahak Garg; Geetha R Menon
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2012-05-12       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 5.  [Reduced port surgery : Developing a safe pathway to single port access surgery].

Authors:  P G Curcillo; A S Wu; E R Podolsky; S A King
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 0.955

6.  Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy: the Canadian experience. The McGill Gallstone Treatment Group.

Authors:  J S Barkun; A N Barkun; J L Meakins
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 2.565

7.  Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the first 100 outpatients.

Authors:  Jose Erbella; Gary M Bunch
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-01-29       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a national survey.

Authors:  S B Archer; D W Brown; C D Smith; G D Branum; J G Hunter
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Impact of body image on patients' attitude towards conventional, minimal invasive, and natural orifice surgery.

Authors:  Wolfram Lamadé; Colin Friedrich; Christoph Ulmer; Tarkan Basar; Heinz Weiss; Klaus-Peter Thon
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2010-07-04       Impact factor: 3.445

10.  Single port access (SPA) cholecystectomy: a completely transumbilical approach.

Authors:  Erica R Podolsky; Steven J Rottman; Honesto Poblete; Stephanie A King; Paul G Curcillo
Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 1.878

View more
  18 in total

1.  Prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing the use of a single-port device with that of a flexible endoscope with no other device for transumbilical cholecystectomy: LLATZER-FSIS pilot study.

Authors:  José Noguera; Silvia Tejada; Carmen Tortajada; Anna Sánchez; José Muñoz
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-06-29       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Single-port cholecystectomy and quality of life.

Authors:  Michael Cotton
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using a novel single-incision surgical platform through a standard 15 mm trocar: initial experience and technical details.

Authors:  Ryan C Broderick; Pablo Omelanczuk; Cristina R Harnsberger; Hans F Fuchs; Martin Berducci; Jorge Nefa; Javier Nicolia; Moneer Almadani; Garth R Jacobsen; Bryan J Sandler; Santiago Horgan
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-08-23       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 4.  Transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: primary experience and review of the English literature.

Authors:  Dianbo Yao; Shuodong Wu; Yu Tian; Ying Fan; Jing Kong; Yongnan Li
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  Phase II clinical experience and long-term follow-up using the next-generation single-incision platform FMX314.

Authors:  Martin Berducci; Hans F Fuchs; Pablo Omelanczuk; Ryan C Broderick; Cristina R Harnsberger; Joshua Langert; Jorge Nefa; Pablo Jaureguiberry; Pablo Gomez; Laura Miranda; Garth R Jacobsen; Bryan J Sandler; Santiago Horgan
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-06-27       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 6.  [Quality of life and visceral surgery].

Authors:  E Bollschweiler; C Baltin; F Berlth; S P Mönig; A H Hölscher
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 0.955

7.  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

Review 8.  Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for biliary tract disease.

Authors:  Shu-Hung Chuang; Chih-Sheng Lin
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-01-14       Impact factor: 5.742

9.  True single-port cholecystectomy with ICG cholangiography through a single 15-mm trocar using the new surgical platform "symphonX": first human case study with a commercially available device.

Authors:  Rabi R Datta; Georg Dieplinger; Roger Wahba; Robert Kleinert; Michael Thomas; Florian Gebauer; Lars Schiffmann; Dirk L Stippel; Christiane J Bruns; Hans F Fuchs
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-10-28       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 10.  A systematic review of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and quality of life reporting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Prita Daliya; Elizabeth H Gemmill; Dileep N Lobo; Simon L Parsons
Journal:  Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 7.293

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.