Learning Curve of Transumbilical Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (SILS): A Preliminary Study of 80 Selected Patients with Benign Gallbladder Diseases

Qiu, Zhengjun; Sun, Jing; Pu, Ying; Jiang, Tao; Cao, Jun; Wu, Weidong

doi:10.1007/s00268-011-1144-1

Cited by 67 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 44 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Accordingly, this leads to increased operative times compared with traditional techniques, 21 even when the learning curve is reached. In our study the operative time was the only variable that had a significant difference between groups (P ¼ 0.007), which is consistent with what is reported in the literature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

One, Two, or Three Ports in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy?

Justo-Janeiro

Vincent²,

Lara

et al. 2014

International Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has been compared with 3-or 4-port LC. To our knowledge, there are no studies comparing the 3-, 2-, and 1-port techniques. Patients were randomized into 3 groups: LC 1-port using SILS, LC 2-port using a laparoscope with a working channel, and LC 3-port using the standard ports. Pain was evaluated at recovery, 4 hours, 24 hours, day 5, and day 8, using an analog visual scale. Homogenous groups in their demographic characteristics; all confirmed gallbladder lithiasis. At recovery, there was less pain in group 1 (P ¼ 0.002); at 4 hours pain was similar in all groups (P ¼ 0.899); at 24 hours there was less pain in groups 2 and 3 (P ¼ 0.031); and at days 5 and 8 there was marginal (P ¼ 0.053) and significant (P ¼ 0.003) relevance. In terms of pain perception, LC performed through 1 port does not offer advantages when compared with 2 or 3 ports. More clinical trials are needed to confirm these data.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

One, Two, or Three Ports in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy?

Justo-Janeiro

Vincent²,

Lara

et al. 2014

International Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cholecystectomy using transumbilical SILS technique has been the most prevalent type of SILS reported [17][18][19][20], but the utility extends to appendectomy [21], colectomy [22] and gastrectomy [23]. However, the operative procedure of laparoscopic gastrectomy is complex and requires a surgical learning curve.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relevance of Reduced-Port Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Pilot Study

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aims: Single-port and reduced-port laparoscopic surgeries are performed as a less invasive form of surgery than conventional laparoscopy. In this study, short-term patient outcomes were compared between reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RPLDG) and conventional laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) to evaluate the feasibility of RPLDG for gastric cancer. Methods: Between August 2010 and July 2011, 38 patients underwent LADGs that were performed by a single surgeon. Of these, 20 patients underwent RPLDG, and 18 patients underwent conventional LADG. Short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results: Surgical procedures, total operation time (278.8 versus 228.7 min, p = 0.0002) and time for lymph node dissection (181.3 versus 136.3 min, p = 0.0001) were significantly longer in the RPLDG group compared with the LADG group, while the volume of blood loss during reconstruction was reduced (17.5 versus 49.6 ml, p = 0.0019). Cosmetic satisfaction in the RPLDG group showed significant superiority over that in the conventional LADG group (p = 0.0252). Conclusion: RPLDG was shown to be an acceptable and satisfactory procedure for the treatment of gastric cancer. To confirm the feasibility of this surgical procedure, it is necessary to conduct a well-designed randomized controlled study comparing RPLDG and conventional LADG in many patients.

show abstract

“…[11][12][13][14] This is partly a reflection of the increased operating time during the initial learning curve and the clashing and restricted mobility of the instruments at the very narrow umbilical fulcrum and careful closure of the umbilical port. 15 Although others have reported equal times for SILC and SLC after the learning curve is over. Our operating time also improved over the learning curve and experience, but was always significantly more than that for SLC.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%