Literature DB >> 27655375

Impact of miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy on recovery of physical activity: a randomized trial.

Mohsen Alhashemi1,2,3, Mohammed Almahroos4,5,6, Julio F Fiore5,6, Pepa Kaneva5,6, Juan Mata Gutierrez4,5,6, Amy Neville7, Melina C Vassiliou4,5,6, Gerald M Fried4,5,6, Liane S Feldman4,5,6.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a randomized trial comparing minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) to determine whether MLC accelerated recovery of physical activity after elective surgery (NCT01397565).
METHODS: A total of 115 patients scheduled for elective cholecystectomy were randomized to either CLC or MLC. Both procedures used a 10-mm umbilical port, but the three upper abdominal ports were 5 mm in CLC and 3 mm in MLC. Primary outcome was self-reported physical activity 1 month after surgery as estimated by Community Health Activities Model Program for Seniors questionnaire (kcal/kg/week). Secondary outcomes were umbilical pain, abdominal pain, nausea and fatigue (VAS, 1-10), and cosmetic result at one and 3 months. Patients received identical surgical dressings for 1 week, and assessors were blinded to group allocation.
RESULTS: Forty-two patients randomized to CLC group and 33 patients randomized to MLC remained in the trial and were analyzed. Both groups were similar at baseline characteristics. In the MLC group, at least one 5-mm port was used in 17 (51.5 %) mainly due to unavailability of ML equipment. Median (IQR) physical activity for the CLC and MLC groups was similar at baseline (23.4 [13.1, 44.6] vs 23.6 [14.2, 66.9] kcal/kg/week, p = 0.35) and at 1 month (20 [7.9, 52.5] vs 16.8 [11.8, 28.6] kcal/kg/week, p = 0.90). One month post-op, umbilical pain and abdominal pain were similar, but the CLC group reported higher fatigue (4 [1-5] vs 1 [0-4], p = 0.05) and worse scar appearance scores (4 [3, 4] vs 4.5 [4, 5], p = 0.009). At 3 months, the CLC group had worse scar appearance (4 [3-5] vs 5 [4-5], p = 0.02) and lower scar satisfaction scores (4 [3, 4] vs 4 [3.5-4], p = 0.04).
CONCLUSION: Recovery of physical activity was similar after MLC and CLC. MLC resulted in less fatigue and better scar appearance and satisfaction. These benefits were seen despite the need to upsize one or more ports in more than half of patients related to availability of the miniature instruments.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cholecystectomy; Laparoscopy; Minilaparoscopic; Miniport; Needlescopic; Randomized trial

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27655375     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-016-5232-z

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


  22 in total

1.  Measuring the outcome of surgical procedures: what are the challenges?

Authors:  F Carli; N Mayo
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 9.166

Review 2.  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 3.  Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis.

Authors:  F Keus; J A F de Jong; H G Gooszen; C J H M van Laarhoven
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2006-10-18

4.  How well are we measuring postoperative "recovery" after abdominal surgery?

Authors:  Lawrence Lee; Teodora Dumitra; Julio F Fiore; Nancy E Mayo; Liane S Feldman
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-05-24       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 5.  Adhesive strips for the closure of surgical incisional sites: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ioannis D Gkegkes; Michael N Mavros; Vangelis G Alexiou; George Peppas; Stavros Athanasiou; Matthew E Falagas
Journal:  Surg Innov       Date:  2011-09-16       Impact factor: 2.058

6.  Microlaparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind trial.

Authors:  T Bisgaard; B Klarskov; R Trap; H Kehlet; J Rosenberg
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2001-11-16       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed with mini-instruments.

Authors:  L Sarli; D Iusco; S Gobbi; C Porrini; M Ferro; L Roncoroni
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 6.939

8.  CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.

Authors:  Kenneth F Schulz; Douglas G Altman; David Moher
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2010-03-24       Impact factor: 8.775

9.  Measuring postoperative recovery: what are clinically meaningful differences?

Authors:  Ioana Antonescu; Susan Scott; Tung T Tran; Nancy E Mayo; Liane S Feldman
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2014-03-15       Impact factor: 3.982

10.  Randomized clinical trial of single-port, minilaparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  S Saad; V Strassel; S Sauerland
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2012-11-27       Impact factor: 6.939

View more
  9 in total

1.  Measurement of patient-reported outcomes after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Harry C Alexander; Cindy H Nguyen; Matthew R Moore; Adam S Bartlett; Jacqueline A Hannam; Garth H Poole; Alan F Merry
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  [Minilaparoscopy with 5 mm optics and 3 mm trocars].

Authors:  J Schmidt
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 0.955

3.  The protocol of low-impact laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the combination of mini-laparoscopy and low-pressure pneumoperitoneum.

Authors:  Nicola de'Angelis; Niccoló Petrucciani; Giusy Giannandrea; Francesco Brunetti
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2018-08-29

4.  Low-impact laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with decreased postoperative morbidity in patients with sickle cell disease.

Authors:  Nicola de'Angelis; Solafah Abdalla; Maria Clotilde Carra; Vincenzo Lizzi; Aleix Martínez-Pérez; Anoosha Habibi; Pablo Bartolucci; Frédéric Galactéros; Alexis Laurent; Francesco Brunetti
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-11-02       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Feasibility of needlescopic surgery for colorectal cancer: safety and learning curve for Japanese Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System-unqualified young surgeons.

Authors:  Hisanori Miki; Yosuke Fukunaga; Toshiya Nagasaki; Takashi Akiyoshi; Tsuyoshi Konishi; Yoshiya Fujimoto; Satoshi Nagayama; Masashi Ueno
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-05-13       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Minilaparoscopic over conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy and appendectomy: is it worth it? A case series and review of literature.

Authors:  Davina Perini; Alessio Giordano; Tommaso Guagni; Stefano Cantafio
Journal:  J Surg Case Rep       Date:  2022-04-04

7.  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

8.  Minimising in minimally invasive surgery through the use of a novel and flexible super elastic titanium needle suitable for a 3.5- and 5-mm trocar.

Authors:  Samir Delibegovic
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2022 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 1.407

9.  Identification and categorisation of relevant outcomes for symptomatic uncomplicated gallstone disease: in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set.

Authors:  Moira Cruickshank; Rumana Newlands; Jane Blazeby; Irfan Ahmed; Mohamed Bekheit; Miriam Brazzelli; Bernard Croal; Karen Innes; Craig Ramsay; Katie Gillies
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-06-24       Impact factor: 2.692

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.