Abstract

Recent reports have suggested that single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is technically feasible. We present our initial retrospective comparative study between SILC and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) with respect to perioperative outcomes. The authors reviewed 100 SILC and 100 CLC performed by a single surgeon from May 2009 to July 2010 at the Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University. All the procedures were completed by using the standard trocars and rigid laparoscopic instruments. Demographic data, operating time, estimated blood loss, analgesics requirements, days to oral food intake, and complications were compared. Of the attempted SILC cases, 99 cases (99%) were successfully performed, with 1 case requiring three additional trocars for safe dissection because of existence of accessory bile duct. In the CLC group, all the procedures were successfully completed (three trocars) without conversion to open cholecystectomy. Compared with the CLC group, there was a lower mean estimated blood loss (17.9 ± 15.8 mL versus 27.5 ± 13.9 mL; P = .000) and analgesic requirement (10 versus 23; P = .024) in the SILC group. However, there was no difference between SILC and CLC in operating time (53.5 ± 24.0 minutes versus 49.2 ± 13.8 minutes; P = .163), days to oral food intake (1.8 ± 0.8 days versus 1.8 ± 0.7 days; P = .873), and postoperative complication rate (2% versus 0%; P = .155). SILC is feasible using the standard trocars and rigid laparoscopic instruments, and it is an effective alternative to CLC in selected patients. However, further clinical studies are necessary to confirm its real benefits.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.