Literature DB >> 24202712

A prospective, randomized, controlled, trial comparing occult-scar incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and classic three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Lei Zhang1, Bijay Sah, Jing Ma, Changzhen Shang, Zejian Huang, Yajin Chen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to evaluate the outcome of laparoscopic cholecystectomy by comparing a new technique using occult-scar incision for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (OSLC) with classic three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). In the occult-scar incision, we moved the subcostal and subxiphoid trocar insertion sites to the suprapubic area so that operative scars were hidden in the pubic hairs and below umbilicus.
METHODS: Between July 2009 and 2012, patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized to the OSLC or CLC approach after obtaining informed consent. Outcome was measured by operative time, operative complications, hospital length of stay, cost, analgesia required after surgery, and cosmetic outcomes. The patient satisfaction score (PSS) and visual analog score (VAS) also were used to evaluated the level of cosmetic result and postoperative pain.
RESULTS: A total of 75 patients were randomized into CLC (n = 35) and OSLC (n = 40) groups. No patient was converted to an open procedure in either the CLC or OSLC group. No operative complications were reported within 30 days in either group. The PSS of 7 and 30 days after surgery were both significantly higher in the OSLC group than in the CLC group (5.8 ± 1.5 vs. 8.0 ± 1.1, P = 0.03; 6.5 ± 1.2 vs. 9.2 ± 0.8, P = 0.02). The VAS for pain was significantly lower in the OSLC group on postoperative day 3 compared with the CLC group (2.6 ± 1.2 vs. 6.3 ± 0.9, P = 0.01). There was no significant difference in operative time, hospital stay, and cost between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The OSLC is a safe and feasible alternative compared with CLC in experienced hands, and it is superior for outcomes regarding pain control and cosmesis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24202712     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-013-3289-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  13 in total

1.  Minimizing ports to improve laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  P L Leggett; R Churchman-Winn; G Miller
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Randomized clinical trial of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  P-C Lee; C Lo; P-S Lai; J-J Chang; S-J Huang; M-T Lin; P-H Lee
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 6.939

Review 3.  Minilaparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Varsha Thakur; Christopher M Schlachta; Shiva Jayaraman
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 4.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Demetrius E M Litwin; Mitchell A Cahan
Journal:  Surg Clin North Am       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 2.741

Review 5.  Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES(®)): a technical review.

Authors:  Edward D Auyang; Byron F Santos; Daniel H Enter; Eric S Hungness; Nathaniel J Soper
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-05-07       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 6.  Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with uncomplicated gallbladder disease: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lixiao Hao; Moyan Liu; Hanyu Zhu; Zuoxiang Li
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 1.719

7.  Transumbilical multiple-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TUMP-LC): a prospective analysis of 50 initial patients.

Authors:  Prabal Roy; Anushtup De
Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 1.878

8.  The German registry for natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery: report of the first 551 patients.

Authors:  Kai S Lehmann; Jörg P Ritz; Andreas Wibmer; Klaus Gellert; Carsten Zornig; Jens Burghardt; Martin Büsing; Norbert Runkel; Kay Kohlhaw; Roland Albrecht; Tom G Kirchner; Georg Arlt; Julian W Mall; Michael Butters; Dirk R Bulian; Jörgen Bretschneider; Christoph Holmer; Heinz J Buhr
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  A prospective controlled trial comparing single-incision and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: caution before damage control.

Authors:  Pankaj Garg; Jai Deep Thakur; Iqbal Singh; Nikhilesh Nain; Garima Mittal; Vikas Gupta
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.719

10.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The new 'gold standard'?

Authors:  N J Soper; P T Stockmann; D L Dunnegan; S W Ashley
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1992-08
View more
  3 in total

1.  High secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine expression in peritumoral fibroblasts predicts better prognosis in patients with resectable gastric cancer.

Authors:  Masao Nakajima; Shigefumi Yoshino; Shinsuke Kanekiyo; Noriko Maeda; Kazuhiko Sakamoto; Ryoichi Tsunedomi; Nobuaki Suzuki; Shigeru Takeda; Shigeru Yamamoto; Shoichi Hazama; Yoshinobu Hoshii; Atsunori Oga; Hiroshi Itoh; Tomio Ueno; Hiroaki Nagano
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2017-11-15       Impact factor: 2.967

2.  Suprapubic Cholecystectomy Improves Cosmetic Outcome Compared to Classic Cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Anas Taha; Stephanie Taha-Mehlitz; Ulrich Sternkopf; Elena Sorba; Bassey Enodien; Stephan Vorburger
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-08-05       Impact factor: 4.964

3.  Living donor liver transplantation indicated for compensated liver cirrhosis with symptomatic gallstone diseases: report of two cases.

Authors:  Yuki Bekki; Toru Ikegami; Yoshihiro Yoshida; Takashi Motomura; Shinji Itoh; Noboru Harada; Norifumi Harimoto; Hideaki Uchiyama; Tomoharu Yoshizumi; Yoshihiko Maehara
Journal:  Surg Case Rep       Date:  2016-05-23
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.