Two-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Poon, Chi‐Ming; Chan, K. W.; Lee, D. W. H.; Chan, K. C.; Ko, C. W.; Cheung, Ho-Yin; Lee, K. W.

doi:10.1007/s00464-002-8718-9

Cited by 103 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We used four 5-mm ports, whereas Kim et al [10] used one 12-mm trocar and two 5-mm trocars, and Tsimoyiannis et al [11] made four punctures in the abdomen, using one 11-mm trocar and three 5-mm trocars. Several studies showed that either the size or the number of ports related to the degree of postoperative pain [12][13][14]. Therefore, the differences in both the size and the number of trocars may be a factor that caused disparity between the results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A randomized prospective study of single-port and four-port approaches for hysterectomy in terms of postoperative pain

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A randomized prospective study of single-port and four-port approaches for hysterectomy in terms of postoperative pain

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The only reported advantage of single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) over standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy is an improved cosmetic result. 7 With gradual and long experience in laparoscopy surgery, now three port LC is routinely performed by experienced surgeon. Multiple study reports that three port LC is safe when performed by experienced surgeons.…”

Section: Reason Tomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6,7 Although, three port cholecystectomy is not common, research has demonstrated that it is a safe and feasible surgical technique. 7,8 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Three Port Versus Four Port Cholecystectomy- A Retrospective Descriptive Study

Pandey¹,

Mishra²,

Nagar³

et al. 2018

jemds

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUNDVarious modifications have been tried in laparoscopic cholecystectomy since its introduction. One, two and three port LC have been performed on limited scale. Our aim was to compare three port LC with four port LC in patients with cholelithiasis. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the outcome of 3 port LC for treatment of cholelithiasis by comparing the result with 4 port LC with respect to safety and efficacy. MATERIALS AND METHODSIn this comparative study, a total of 150 patients of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gall stone disease were studied by dividing them into two groups. The results were compared in terms of complications, conversion from 3 port to 4 port and from LC to open procedure, hospital stay, pain score, operative time, need of analgesia and bile duct injury. RESULTSA total of 150 patients of cholelithiasis were treated by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Three port LC was performed in 60 (40%) patients and 4 port LC was performed in 90 (60%) patients. In group 1, 44.4% patients complained of mild pain and 55.5% experienced moderate-to-severe pain on VAS post-operatively, while in group 2 70% patients complained of mild pain and 30% patients complained of moderate-to-severe pain post-operatively. There was no bile duct injury reported in either group. However, in group 2 (3 port LC) 3 cases (5%) converted to 4 port LC and there was no conversion (open) reported in group 1 (4 port LC). CONCLUSIONIn this comparative study, we found that use of 3 port LC did not affect the procedure safety, conversion rate, operating time and complication rate. Three port LC is routine in our institute and used by experienced surgeons, needed fewer painkillers, shorter hospital stay and more cost effective. Various studies had shown that most of the gall bladder stone were asymptomatic and cholecystectomy was the gold standard surgical treatment of cholelithiasis. In the current laparoscopic era surgical treatment of cholelithiasis has changed, now laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the gold standard surgical treatment of cholelithiasis.The laparoscopic procedure was found to cause less scarring, shorter hospital stay and faster recovery than open procedure, but probably at the expense of a higher rate of 'Financial or Other Competing Interest': None. Submission 23-01-2018, Peer Review 17-02-2018, Acceptance 22-02-2018, Published 05-03-2018. Corresponding Author: Mahesh Chandra Pandey, 536/53 KMA, Durga Mandir, Madeh Gani, Sitapur Road, Lucknow-226020, Uttar Pradesh. E-mail: mp211177@gmail.com DOI: 10.14260/jemds/2018 bile duct injuries. 2 Post-operative pain and cosmesis and later complication like incisional hernia and intestinal obstruction should help to decide which technique is better. 3 Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is one of the most commonly performed operations in general surgery and considered standard care for symptomatic gall stone. 4 Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was first performed in 1987 by Philip Mouret. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy traditionally performed throu...

show abstract

“…The patient was a 75-year-old male (body mass index (BMI) 20.1 kg/m 2 ; height 167 cm, weight 56 kg) with sigmoid colon adenocarcinoma. He had no history of previous surgery or underlying disease but leukoplakia.…”

Section: Case Reportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single Port Laparoscopic Surgery and Transanal Specimen Retrieval for Sigmoid Colon Cancer

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transumbilical single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) is a newly emerged and rapidly evolving, minimally invasive treatment method. Transumbilical SPLS produces minimal parietal injury and can achieve cosmetic advantages by reducing additional trocar placement. The in-line or chopstick arrangement of laparoscopic instruments can make the operative procedures somewhat strange and inconvenient at first, but experienced laparoscopic surgeons can achieve the same coverage as conventional laparoscopic surgery with time. Here, we report the first case of transumbilical SPLS anterior resection (SPLS-AR) with transanal retrieval of aspecimen and intracorporeal single stapling anastomosis. The operating time was 270 min. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. Transumbilical SPLS resulted in a 1.5-cm wound with early recovery. Transumbilical SPLS-AR with transanal retrieval and intracorporeal anastomosis for sigmoid colon cancer is feasible by experienced laparoscopic colorectal surgeons based on careful evaluation and selection of patients. This operation fulfills both oncological principles and cosmetic demand.

show abstract

Two-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Abstract: Two-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy resulted in less individual port-site pain and similar clinical outcomes but fewer surgical scars compared to four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Thus, it can be recommended as a routine procedure in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Cited by 103 publications

References 9 publications

A randomized prospective study of single-port and four-port approaches for hysterectomy in terms of postoperative pain

A randomized prospective study of single-port and four-port approaches for hysterectomy in terms of postoperative pain

Three Port Versus Four Port Cholecystectomy- A Retrospective Descriptive Study

Single Port Laparoscopic Surgery and Transanal Specimen Retrieval for Sigmoid Colon Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About