Literature DB >> 8886638

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: two-port technique.

K F Leung1, K W Lee, T Y Cheung, L C Leung, K W Lau.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy requires four ports. The present study describes a new laparoscopic cholecystectomy technique using two ports only. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-two consecutive patients with symptomatic gallstones underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy using this two-port technique. The operation requires a straightforward laparoscope and a percutaneous sling to retract the gallbladder laterally and cephalad.
RESULTS: The two-port method was successful in 52 patients; eight required an additional port, and two required conversion to open surgery. Our results showed that the operating time and complication rate were comparable to those in other series using the conventional laparoscopic method.
CONCLUSION: The two-port method is technically more demanding, and should only be used to remove simple, uncomplicated gallbladders. The surgeon should always be prepared to insert more trocars or convert to open procedures when necessary.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8886638     DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-1005531

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  8 in total

1.  A new technique for two-trocar laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  T Mori; Y Ikeda; K Okamoto; K Sakata; K Ideguchi; K Nakagawa; T Yasumitsu
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2002-01-09       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Using Conventional Laparoscopic Instruments and Comparison with Three-Port Cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Megha Singh; Kuldeep Singh Mehta; Mir Yasir; Ameet Kaur; Aiffa Aiman; Akangsha Sharma; Neeraj Kaur
Journal:  Indian J Surg       Date:  2013-04-28       Impact factor: 0.656

Review 3.  Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Muhammad S Sajid; Nikhil Ladwa; Lorain Kalra; Kristian K Hutson; Krishna K Singh; Mazin Sayegh
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Three-port microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy in 159 patients.

Authors:  P L Leggett; C D Bissell; R Churchman-Winn; C Ahn
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2000-12-12       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Two-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  C M Poon; K W Chan; D W H Lee; K C Chan; C W Ko; H Y Cheung; K W Lee
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-07-21       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Retraction and triangulation with neodymium magnetic forceps for single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Guillermo Dominguez; Luis Durand; Julián De Rosa; Eduardo Danguise; Carlos Arozamena; Pedro A Ferraina
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-05-05       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: lessons learned for success.

Authors:  Noam Shussman; Avraham Schlager; Ram Elazary; Abed Khalaileh; Andrei Keidar; Mark Talamini; Santiago Horgan; Avraham I Rivkind; Yoav Mintz
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-07-07       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  A comparative study of two-port versus three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Ranendra Hajong; Peter Ds Khariong
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2016 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 1.407

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.