Literature DB >> 25931927

A comparison of single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and an alternative technique without a suspension suture.

Barlas Sülü1, Tülay Diken1, Hasan Altun1, Turgut Anuk1, Bülent Güvendi1, Elif İlingi1, Musa Sinan Eren1, Yusuf Günerhan1, Neşet Köksal1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Many surgeons face difficulties during single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) surgery and are forced to use an additional port. We compared the results of a technique that we developed with SILC.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty-four patients who were diagnosed with chronic cholelithiasis were prospectively randomized and divided into two groups. An additional 5-mm port (MCAP: with an additional port using a multi-channel device through the umbilicus) was placed in the subxiphoid area instead of a transabdominal suspension suture in one group of patients. The other group was operated on with the SILC technique. The demographic and surgical data of the patients were compared.
RESULTS: The MCAP technique shortened the surgery duration by more than half (MCAP: 35.0±12.3, SILC: 79.1±27.7 min) (p<0.05). No difference was found between the two methods in terms of estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, postoperative day 1 and 7 visual analog scale scores, need for analgesia in the postoperative period, and rate of changing to another technique due to inadequacy of the surgical technique.
CONCLUSION: MCAP is as safe as SILC for cholecystectomy and is easier for the surgeon to perform.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cholecystectomy; cholelithiasis; laparoscopic surgery; minimally invasive

Year:  2014        PMID: 25931927      PMCID: PMC4379804          DOI: 10.5152/UCD.2014.2717

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ulus Cerrahi Derg        ISSN: 1300-0705


  14 in total

Review 1.  Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with a higher bile duct injury rate: a review and a word of caution.

Authors:  Mark Joseph; Michael R Phillips; Timothy M Farrell; Christopher C Rupp
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 12.969

2.  Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy using a modified dome-down approach with conventional laparoscopic instruments.

Authors:  Hongyi Cui; John J Kelly; Demetrius E M Litwin
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  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

4.  Single-port laparoscopy in colorectal surgery.

Authors:  F H Remzi; H T Kirat; J H Kaouk; D P Geisler
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2008-08-05       Impact factor: 3.788

5.  Single-incision plus one port laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer as a reduced port surgery.

Authors:  Y Hirano; M Hattori; K Douden; S Shimizu; Y Sato; K Maeda; Y Hashizume
Journal:  Scand J Surg       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 2.360

6.  Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with needle graspers.

Authors:  Kinjiro Sumiyoshi; Norihiro Sato; Shin Akagawa; Tatsuya Hirano; Kazuhiro Koikawa; Kohei Horioka; Keigo Ozono; Kenji Fujiwara; Masao Tanaka; Masayuki Sada
Journal:  Hepatogastroenterology       Date:  2012 Mar-Apr

7.  A comparison of transumbilical single-port laparoscopic appendectomy and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy: from the diagnosis to the hospital cost.

Authors:  Seung Min Baik; Kyung Sook Hong; Yong Il Kim
Journal:  J Korean Surg Soc       Date:  2013-07-25

8.  Transumbilical single-port access versus conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy: surgical outcomes.

Authors:  Ga Won Yim; Yong Wook Jung; Jiheum Paek; San Hui Lee; Ha Yan Kwon; Eun Ji Nam; Sunghoon Kim; Jae Hoon Kim; Young Tae Kim; Sang Wun Kim
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-04-24       Impact factor: 8.661

9.  Laparoendoscopic single-site cholecystectomy vs three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a large-scale retrospective study.

Authors:  Yuan Cheng; Ze-Sheng Jiang; Xiao-Ping Xu; Zhi Zhang; Ting-Cheng Xu; Chen-Jie Zhou; Jia-Sheng Qin; Guo-Lin He; Yi Gao; Ming-Xin Pan
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-07-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 10.  Single-access laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Joerg Zehetner; Diana Pelipad; Ali Darehzereshki; Rodney J Mason; John C Lipham; Namir Katkhouda
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 1.719

View more
  2 in total

1.  Is the fourth port routinely required for laparoscopic cholecystectomy? Our three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy experience.

Authors:  A Ciftci; M B Yazicioglu; C Tiryaki; H T Turgut; O Subasi; M Ilgoz; O Civil; S Y Yildiz
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2016-08-31       Impact factor: 1.568

2.  Evidence-based surgery for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Andrea T Fisher; Kovi E Bessoff; Rida I Khan; Gavin C Touponse; Maggie M K Yu; Advait A Patil; Jeff Choi; Christopher D Stave; Joseph D Forrester
Journal:  Surg Open Sci       Date:  2022-08-18
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.