Sung Ryol Lee1, Hyung Ook Kim1, Jun Ho Shin1. 1. From the Department of Surgery, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
Background: Few studies have compared the surgical results of single-incision robotic cholecystectomy (SIRC) with those of conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative clinical efficacy of SIRC by comparing the number of postoperative days, pain level and complications between the 2 surgical methods. Methods: We retrospectively collected demographic, perioperative and postoperative data for all patients who underwent SIRC or CLC performed by a single surgeon from June 2016 to May 2017. Operative time was recorded, divided into anesthesia time, docking time, console time and total operation time. Postoperative pain was measured with the Numerical Pain Rating Scale. Results: A total of 121 patients underwent cholecystectomy during the study period, of whom 61 had SIRC and 60 had CLC. The mean total operation time of SIRC and CLC was 93.52 (SD 20.27) minutes and 37.67 (SD 19.73) minutes, respectively (p < 0.001). The total operation time excluding console time of SIRC was significantly longer than that of CLC (82.77 [SD 18.27] min v. 37.67 [SD 19.73] min) (p < 0.001). The mean Numerical Pain Rating Scale score was 4.73 (SD 1.23) (SIRC: 4.75 [SD 1.24]; CLC: 4.70 [SD 1.22]) (p = 0.8) within 1 hour after the operation; scores after 6 hours and 1 day decreased in a similar manner in the 2 groups (p = 0.1). Conclusion: Postoperative pain, use of an additional port, complication rates, operation time and cost of SIRC were similar to or greater than those of CLC. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to examine the true benefits of SIRC.
Background: Few studies have compared the surgical results of single-incision robotic cholecystectomy (SIRC) with those of conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative clinical efficacy of SIRC by comparing the number of postoperative days, pain level and complications between the 2 surgical methods. Methods: We retrospectively collected demographic, perioperative and postoperative data for all patients who underwent SIRC or CLC performed by a single surgeon from June 2016 to May 2017. Operative time was recorded, divided into anesthesia time, docking time, console time and total operation time. Postoperative pain was measured with the Numerical Pain Rating Scale. Results: A total of 121 patients underwent cholecystectomy during the study period, of whom 61 had SIRC and 60 had CLC. The mean total operation time of SIRC and CLC was 93.52 (SD 20.27) minutes and 37.67 (SD 19.73) minutes, respectively (p < 0.001). The total operation time excluding console time of SIRC was significantly longer than that of CLC (82.77 [SD 18.27] min v. 37.67 [SD 19.73] min) (p < 0.001). The mean Numerical Pain Rating Scale score was 4.73 (SD 1.23) (SIRC: 4.75 [SD 1.24]; CLC: 4.70 [SD 1.22]) (p = 0.8) within 1 hour after the operation; scores after 6 hours and 1 day decreased in a similar manner in the 2 groups (p = 0.1). Conclusion:Postoperative pain, use of an additional port, complication rates, operation time and cost of SIRC were similar to or greater than those of CLC. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to examine the true benefits of SIRC.
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
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
Authors: Paul G Curcillo; Andrew S Wu; Erica R Podolsky; Casey Graybeal; Namir Katkhouda; Alex Saenz; Robert Dunham; Steven Fendley; Marc Neff; Chad Copper; Marc Bessler; Andrew A Gumbs; Michael Norton; Antonio Iannelli; Rodney Mason; Ashkan Moazzez; Larry Cohen; Angela Mouhlas; Alex Poor Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-02-05 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Jeffrey Marks; Roberto Tacchino; Kurt Roberts; Raymond Onders; George Denoto; Paraskevas Paraskeva; Homero Rivas; Nathaniel Soper; Alexander Rosemurgy; Sajani Shah Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Renato A Luna; Daniel B Nogueira; Pablo S Varela; Eduardo de O Rodrigues Neto; Maria Júlia R Norton; Luciana do Carmo B Ribeiro; Agatha M Peixoto; Yara L de Mendonça; Isidro Bendet; Rossano A Fiorelli; James P Dolan Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Philippe Morel; Nicolas C Buchs; Pouya Iranmanesh; François Pugin; Leo Buehler; Dan E Azagury; Minoa Jung; Francesco Volonte; Monika E Hagen Journal: J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci Date: 2013-10-21 Impact factor: 7.027
Authors: Rivfka Shenoy; Michael A Mederos; Linda Ye; Selene S Mak; Meron M Begashaw; Marika S Booth; Paul G Shekelle; Mark Wilson; William Gunnar; Melinda Maggard-Gibbons; Mark D Girgis Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2021-04-23
Authors: Kuo Chen; Jin Zhang; Narasimha M Beeraka; Mikhail Y Sinelnikov; Xinliang Zhang; Yu Cao; Pengwei Lu Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-03-25 Impact factor: 4.241