Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Research Articles

Blunt dissection method using HiQ+ soft coagulation system for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis

AbstractIntroductionDuring laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis, it is often difficult to keep the surgical view dry because of inflammation‐related tissue fragility and susceptibility to bleeding. The resulting inadequate surgical view can lead to bile duct or vascular injury. Soft coagulation systems are used to achieve hemostasis during various surgeries; however, the usefulness of soft coagulation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis is unclear. We here demonstrate the usefulness and feasibility of blunt dissection and soft coagulation during this procedure.Materials and Surgical TechniqueWe used blunt dissection and soft coagulation when performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy on two patients with acute cholecystitis. As with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy, four ports were inserted. After cutting the serosa by electrocautery, blunt dissection using soft coagulation was performed, exposing the inner subserosa. Maintaining this layer using blunt dissection with soft coagulation achieved a sufficiently clear view for safety. After resecting the cystic artery and duct, the gallbladder bed was also dissected by blunt dissection with soft coagulation. Blood loss was <20 mL in both patients.DiscussionBlunt dissection with soft coagulation may be a useful and feasible means of keeping the surgical view dry and minimizing blood loss during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis.

Three-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy as a Safe and Feasible Alternative to the Conventional Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

Aims A prospective observational study was performed to assess the feasibility and safety of three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Parameters comprising age, sex, number of cases in which intra-operative difficulty were encountered, and outcomes such as number of cases that required conversion to four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy, postoperative pain on the visual analog scale (VAS), and postoperative hospital stay were assessed. We also documented difficult cases that were operated successfully with three ports, and the number of cases that needed conversion to four ports along with the reason for the conversion. Material and methods The patients were operated upon in the supine position in all cases. A pre-emptive analgesia with 1% lignocaine was administered in all cases prior to making the incision. The first port was 10-mm supraumbilical and inserted by the open technique. After insertion of the umbilical port, pneumoperitoneum was created by maintaining a maximum pressure of 12 mmHg and a flow rate of 8 L/minute. A camera head with a 30° telescope was introduced in the peritoneal cavity, and diagnostic laparoscopy was performed. A 10-mm subxiphoid port and a 5-mm subcostal port were placed under vision, with the latter placed more lateral and inferior to the conventional port position for better triangulation and ergonomics. The outcomes measured were operative time, the number of cases requiring a fourth port, postoperative pain (VAS), and postoperative hospital stay (number of days patients stayed in the hospital post-surgery until discharge). Data were collected using MS Excel, and an analysis was performed using SPSS Version 21.0. Results Data of 102 patients were analyzed prospectively. The mean age of the patients was 50.98 years, with an SD of 16.88, and the gender ratio was 73:29 (female: male). The mean operative time was 52.68 ± 20.84 minutes, with an SD of 20.84. Difficulty was encountered in 18.6% of cases in the form of pericholecystic adhesions, aberrant Calot's anatomy, empyema or mucocele of the gallbladder, or bleeding from the liver bed or cystic artery stump. Postoperative pain was less in our study due to the reduced number of ports and the use of a pre-emptive analgesia, with a mean VAS score of 1.22 and an SD of 0.56. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 1.08 days, with an SD of 0.31. We needed to convert to a four-port procedure for safety in 2.9% cases. The operative time and postoperative hospital stay in our study were similar to those of other studies, but our average pain score was less due to the use of the pre-emptive analgesia. Only three cases required conversion to four ports, and 99 cases were successfully managed with three ports without compromising safety. No bile duct injury occurred in any of our 102 cases. Conclusion From this study, we conclude that three-port cholecystectomy is feasible, and it can be performed even in difficult cases without compromising safety. The surgical time is similar to that of four-port cholecystectomy, and the postoperative stay is shorter. The decreased number of ports and the pre-emptive analgesia reduced postoperative pain, cosmesis was better, and the incidence of bile duct injury did not increase. The procedure can also be converted to four-port cholecystectomy at any time if safety is compromised. Therefore, three-port cholecystectomy is a viable and safe option in the treatment of gallstone disease.

Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis according to disease severity: single center retrospective study in Korea.

The safety of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) for acute cholecystitis (AC) has not yet been confirmed. This single-center retrospective study included patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for AC between April 2010 and December 2020. Propensity scores were used to match patients who underwent SILC with those who underwent conventional multiport LC (CMLC) in the entire cohort and in the two subgroups. A total of 1,876 patients underwent LC for AC, and 427 (22.8%) underwent SILC. In the propensity score-matched analysis of the entire cohort (404 patients in each group), the length of hospital stay (2.9 days vs. 3.5 days, p = 0.029) was shorter in the SILC group than in the CMLC group. No significant differences were observed in other surgical outcomes. In grade I AC (336 patients in each group), the SILC group showed poorer surgical outcomes than the CMLC group, regarding operation time (57.6 minutes vs. 52.4 minutes, p = 0.001) and estimated blood loss (22.9 mL vs. 13.1 mL, p = 0.006). In grade II/III AC (58 patients in each group), there were no significant differences in surgical outcomes between the two groups. Postoperative pain outcomes were also not significantly different in the two groups, regardless of severity. This study demonstrated that SILC had similar surgical and pain outcomes to CMLC in patients with AC; however, subgroup analysis showed that SILC was associated with poor surgical outcomes than CMLC in grade I AC. Therefore, SILC should be carefully performed in patients with AC by experienced hepatobiliary surgeons.

Preoperative admission is non-essential in most patients receiving elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A cohort study.

We evaluated conventional overnight-stay laparoscopic cholecystectomy, focusing on the preoperative admission day, to assess the feasibility of implementing daycare laparoscopic cholecystectomy, which is currently underutilized in developing and some Asian countries. We retrospectively reviewed elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy data from March 2020 to February 2022 at a 700-bed tertiary hospital in Thailand. Variables included age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, presence of preoperative anesthesiology visit, laparoscopic cholecystectomy indications, additional intraoperative cholangiography, and surgery cancellations. The primary focus was on preoperative treatment and monitoring needs; secondary outcomes included morbidity, mortality within 30 days, and prolonged hospital stay (>48 hours). Statistical analysis was conducted using the Fisher exact test, t-test, and logistic regression. The study included 405 patients. Of these, 65 (16.1%) received preoperative treatment, with 21 unnecessary (over) treatments and six under-treatments. Based on the results, approximately 12.1% (n = 49) of patients may have theoretically required preoperative admission and treatment. Multivariable analysis showed that the increasing of comorbidities was significantly associated with preoperative management (odds ratio [95% Confidence interval]: 7.0 [2.1, 23.1], 23.9 [6.6, 86.6], 105.5 [17.5, 636.6]) for one, two, and three comorbidities, respectively), but factors such as age, obesity, and American Society of Anesthesiologists status were not. The cohort had 4.2% morbidity (2.2% medical complications), with no mortality. Surgery cancellations occurred in 0.5%. In conclusion, on the basis of our data, a small proportion (12.1%) of patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy may require preoperative admissions to receive the necessary treatment, and most (87.9%) preoperative admissions may not provide treatment benefit. The traditional admission approach was safe but required re-evaluation for optimal resource management.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy using totally homemade glove port versus conventional laparoscopic approach: A cross-sectional study in a developing country

PurposeSeveral home made glove ports for single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has been proposed but no comparison in surgical outcomes with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) was made. Therefore, we aimed to compare the outcomes of SILC using a totally homemade glove port versus CLC. MethodsThis cross-sectional study compared the surgical outcomes between 90 patients, who underwent SILC and 123 patients who underwent CLC. Patients with acute cholecystitis grade 3 according to the Tokyo Guidelines 2018, body mass index ≥30, and previous abdominal surgeries were excluded. Totally homemade glove port was made of a small and a big rubber ring and a surgical glove to creat the wound retractor. Trocars were inserted into the glove's fingers. ResultsThe proportion of patients with acute cholecystitis was lower in the SILC group (7.78%) than in CLC (21.79%). Intraoperative complication rate, the prevalence of additional trocar or conversion to open surgery, success rate, and postoperative complication rate were similar between the two groups. However, SILC showed a significantly longer operative time (62.9 ± 25.1 verus 50.4 ± 20.7 min) and lower postoperative pain than CLC. The discrepancy in operative time was more likely to be remarkable in acute cholecystitis (50.43 min) compared with symptomatic cholelithiasis (14.28 min). ConclusionsThe SILC using a totally homemade glove port is feasible and safe compared with the CLC. However, in the case of acute cholecystitis, SILC should be indicated with caution because of the longer operative time than CLC.

ThTP1.12 Stitch Closure of Gall Bladder Remnant during Laparoscopic Retrograde Subtotal Cholecystectomy for Difficult Gall Bladders

Abstract Background and Aim Laparoscopic Retrograde Subtotal cholecystectomy (LRSC) recommended for difficult gall bladders (Grade 3&4, Nassar et al) reduces CBD injury (.08%), however, increases subhepatic collections (2.9%), reoperations (1.8%) and bile leaks (18%). Assess whether intracorporeal stitch closure of gall bladder remnant reduces complications and improves outcome. Patients and Method Prospective study of 1722 consecutive patients undergoing LC in a large DGH (2007-2022) with data of age, sex, BMI, ASA, grade of operation with postoperative stay and complications were collected and analysed. Group A: Conventional laparoscopic total cholecystectomy (LTC). Group B: LRSC includes a ‘fundus first approach’, piecemeal anterior & posterior wall transection with <1cm gall bladder remnant that is closed with a figure of 8 absorbable sutures. Results Group A: 1584(92%) with Male: Female 1:4 (363:1221), Age 51* (16-89) years, BMI 27* (17-65), ASA 2* (1-3), Grade 1* (1-4), Operating time 45* (15-200) minutes, PO stay 0* (0-15) day. 11(.7%) conversions, 3(.18%) CBD injury, 4 (.25%) bile leaks, 3(.18%) ERCPs, 13 (.82%) collections requiring 9 surgical wash outs and 4 radiological drainages. Group B: 138(8%) with Male: Female 1:1 (64:74), Age 61* (21-88) years, BMI 29 * (19-60), ASA 2* (1-3), Grade 4* (3-4), Operating time 100 *(40-240) minutes, PO stay 1 *(0-13) day. One (.72%) conversion, 6(4.3%) bile leaks, 3(2.17%) ERCPs and 3(2.17%) collections requiring 1 surgical wash out and 2 radiological drainages. Conclusion We recommend routine stitch closure of the gall bladder remnant during LRSC that significantly reduces post operative morbidity (bile leak and collection) for a better outcome. * Median

FTP5.13 Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is more cost effective than robotic cholecystectomy: a systematic review of published studies

Abstract Objective Robotic cholecystectomy (RC) has been proven safe and postoperative outcomes have also been quoted to be equivalent to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The objective of this review to evaluate the cost effectiveness of RC compared to LC. Materials and methods All types of comparative studies reporting the cost of RC versus LC were retrieved from the search of standard medical electronic databases and analysis was conducted by using the principles of meta-analysis on the statistical software RevMan version 5.4. Results Four comparative studies (one randomised trial and 3 retrospective studies) on 817 patients undergoing RC versus LC were found and deemed suitable for analysis. There were 559 patients in the LC group and 258 patients in the RC group. In the random effects model analysis, LC was associated with the reduced cost [standardised mean difference -5.39, 95%, CI (-8.97, -1.81), Z = 2.95, P=0.003] compared to RC. However, there was significant heterogeneity (Tau2 = 13.06; Chi2 = 583.52, df = 3; (p < 0.00001; I2 = 99%) among included studies. Conclusion The LC seems to be more cost effective compared to RC in terms of procedural cost. However, due to statistically significant heterogeneity among included studies and paucity of the randomised, controlled trials, these findings should be taken cautiously. A Major multicentre randomised, controlled trial is needed to validate these findings.

Systematic review: robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic multiport cholecystectomy.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has become the standard of care for the treatment of symptomatic gallstone disease. In the context of the increasing uptake of robotic surgery, robotic cholecystectomy has seen a substantial growth over the past decades. Despite this, a formal assessment of the evidence for this practice remains elusive and a randomised controlled trial is yet to be performed. This paper reviews the evidence to date for robotic multiport cholecystectomy compared to conventional multiport cholecystectomy. This systematic review was performed conducted using the Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases; in line with the PRISMA guideline. All articles that compared robotic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included. The studies were assessed with regards to operative outcomes, postoperative recovery and complications. Fourteen studies were included, describing a total of 3002 patients. There was no difference in operative blood loss, complication rates, incidence of bile duct injury or length of hospital stay between the robotic and laparoscopic groups. The operative time for robotic cholecystectomy was longer, whereas the risk of conversion to open surgery was lower. There was marked variation in definitions of measured outcomes, and most studies lacked data on training and quality assessment, leading to substantial heterogeneity of the data. Available evidence on multiport robotic cholecystectomy compared to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy is scarce and the quality of the available studies is generally poor. Results suggest longer operating time for robotic cholecystectomy, although many studies included the learning curve period. Postoperative recovery and complications were similar in both groups.

Comparison of robotic single site cholecystectomy and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy using propensity score matching

Comparison of robotic single site cholecystectomy and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy using propensity score matching

Laparoscopic modified fundus-down cholecystectomy technique: an alternative method for performing a safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy: how to article.

This study aimed to compare the operative outcomes of conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and modified fundus-down techniques regarding postoperative complications and consequences. A retrospective analysis of single-centre data from 2010 to 2022 was conducted at our hospital. All patients with gallstone disease who underwent conventional LC or modified fundus-down cholecystectomy were included in the study. The primary outcomes of this study were the incidence of major bile duct injury and the need for further intervention or surgical correction. From a total of 1993 patients who were surveyed, 1612 patients underwent conventional LC and 381 underwent laparoscopic modified fundus-down cholecystectomy. In terms of conversion rate, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and complication rate, there were no differences between the conventional LC and the modified fundus-down approach. However, modified fundus-down cholecystectomy reduced the operative time. The authors collected data from each patient's sign-in to extubation time (P<0.001). The postoperative complications (P=0.120) and conversion rates (P=0.904) were similar. Laparoscopic modified fundus-down cholecystectomy can be performed in simple and complex cases, including cases of severe fibrosis of the hepatocystic triangle. The study showed that this alternative technique could reduce operative time compared to the conventional technique with no difference in complications, especially common bile duct injury, postoperative common bile duct stones, and postoperative pancreatitis.

Cost-effective scarless cholecystectomy using a modified endoscopic minimally invasive reduced appliance technique (Emirate).

The current gold-standard surgical treatment for symptomatic gallstone disease is the conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). In recent years, however, celebrities and social media have altered people's attitudes regarding surgery. Consequently, CLC has undergone several changes to reduce scarring and improve patient satisfaction. In this case-matched control study, the cost-effectiveness of a modified endoscopic minimally invasive reduced appliance technique (Emirate) that uses less equipment and three 5 mm reusable ports only at precisely specified anatomical sites was compared to CLC. Single-center retrospective matched cohort analysis including 140 consecutive patients treated with Emirate laparoscopic cholecystectomy ("ELC-group"), matched 1:1 by sex, indications for surgery, surgeon expertise, and preop bile duct imaging, with 140 patients receiving CLC in the same period of time ("CLC group"). We performed a retrospective case-matched review of 140 patients who had Emirate laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallstones between January 2019 and December 2022. The groups included 108 females and 32 males with an equal ratio of surgical expertise-115 procedures were performed by consultants and 25 by trainees. In each group, 18 patients had preoperative MRCP or ERCP and 20 had acute cholecystitis as indications for surgery. Preoperative characteristics such as age (39 years in the Emirates group and 38.6 years in the CLC group), BMI (29.3 years in the Emirates group and 30 years in the CLC group), stone size, or liver enzymes showed no statistical difference between the two groups. In both groups, the average hospital stay was 1.5 days, and there was no conversion to open surgery, nor was there any bleeding requiring blood transfusion, bile leakage, stone slippage, bile duct injury, or invasive intervention postoperatively. When compared to the CLC group, the ELC group had significantly faster surgery times (t-test, p = 0.001), lower levels of the bile duct enzyme ALP (p = 0.003), and much lower costs (t-test, p = 0.0001). The Emirate laparoscopic cholecystectomy method is a safe alternative to the traditional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy that is also much faster and less expensive.

Magnetic anchor technique assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy in swine

Magnetic anchor device based on the principle of magnet heteropolar attraction can assist laparoscopic surgery and reduce abdominal wall trauma. This study explored the feasibility of use of our self-designed magnetic anchor device for reduced-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) through animal experiments. Twelve experimental pigs (15–20 kg) were randomly divided into study group (magnetic anchor technique assisted 2-port LC, n = 6) and control group (conventional 3-port LC, n = 6). Operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. LC was successfully performed in all 12 pigs. There was no significant between-group difference with respect to operative time (study group: 35.83 ± 5.12 min; control group: 34.50 ± 5.13 min, P = 0.662) or intraoperative blood loss (< 50 mL per animal in both groups). In the experimental group, there was no malfunction of the magnetic anchoring device, the use process was smooth, and the tissue traction and surgical field exposure were satisfactory. There were no perioperative complications such as bile duct injury, bile leakage, or bleeding in both groups. We demonstrated the feasibility of use of the self-designed magnetic anchor device in reduced-port LC. The device has important clinical application value.

Clinical Outcome in Two Incision, Three Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Gall Stone Disease

Background Conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy requires four different incisions to insert the four ports for various instruments. It has been seen that fourth trocar which is used to retract fundus of gall bladder is not required at all and laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be performed without using it. Various modification have been done in this regard. The present study is designed to evaluate the feasibility of two incision three port laparoscopic and its outcome in term of postoperative recovery. Methods A prospective study was conducted in a unit in Department of General Surgery, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, India. 100 patients of either sex undergoing two incision laparoscopic surgery in gallstone disease from January 2018 to October 2019. Results In the study, two incision, three port laparoscopic cholecystectomy is safe and feasible technique with added advantage of significantly less port site pain, good satisfaction score and less operative time with experienced surgeon. Conclusions Two incision, three port laparoscopic cholecystectomy is feasible, safe and with good aesthetic results using the same instruments of conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy, without increasing operative time and compromising safety. It could be recommended for routine laparoscopic cholecystectomy in place of conventional four port or three incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

An Observational Study Comparing Hybrid Transvaginal Notes and Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

Recently, a great interest has arisen in hybrid natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery-cholecystectomy (NOTES-C). It has the potential to causeless postoperative pain and may offer better cosmesis over conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). A total of 112 females who underwent conventional cholecystectomy were compared with 108 patients of hybrid transvaginal NOTES-cholecystectomy (TV NOTES-C). We compared intraoperative factors, postoperative pain, the analgesic requirement at different intervals, duration of hospital stay, and time to return to normal activities. In addition, cosmesis and patient satisfaction were assessed at four weeks. Postoperative pain and analgesic requirement were less in the hybrid TV NOTES-C group (p<0.001 at 95% CI). Hybrid TV NOTES-C patients were discharged more frequently within 12 hours (27.5% versus 1.8%; p<0.001) and returned faster (2.22 versus 4.62 days; p<0.001) to normal activities.Cosmetic results and short-term quality of life as assessed by the patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS) and short form-36 (SF-36) scores, respectively, were better in the hybrid TV NOTES-C group (p<0.001 at 95% CI). Hybrid TV NOTES-C is associated with reduced postoperative analgesic requirements, faster return to normal activities, better cosmesis, and patient satisfaction compared to conventional four-port cholecystectomy.

Robotic single-site cholecystectomy is better in reducing postoperative pain than single-incision and conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

To compare the short-term outcomes of robotic single-site cholecystectomy (RSSC) with single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CMLC), focusing on postoperative pain outcomes. This single-center retrospective study included consecutive patients with benign gallbladder disease who underwent cholecystectomy by a single surgeon between June 2019 and December 2021. Exclusion criteria were acute cholecystitis (AC) and other combined surgeries. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed between the RSSC and SILC or CMLC. Of the 157 patients included, 39 (24.8%) underwent RSSC, 32 (20.4%) underwent SILC, and 86 (54.8%) underwent CMLC. In a propensity score-matched cohort between RSSC and SILC (32 patients in each group), the number of additional analgesic injections was significantly lower in the RSSC group than in the SILC group (0.7 vs. 1.3, p = 0.002), and postoperative pain scores were also significantly lower at 6h (2.8 vs. 3.6, p = 0.004) and 24h (2.6 vs. 3.3, p = 0.021) after surgery in the RSSC group than in the SILC group. In a propensity score-matched cohort between RSSC and CMLC (23 patients in each group), the number of additional analgesic injections was significantly lower in the RSSC group than in the CMLC group (0.7 vs. 1.3, p = 0.005), and postoperative pain scores were also significantly lower at 6h after surgery (2.9 vs. 3.7, p = 0.025) in the RSSC group than in the CMLC group. This study demonstrated that RSSC is helpful in reducing postoperative pain and the use of additional analgesics compared to both SILC and CMLC.

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Using the Marionette Transumbilical Approach Is Safe and Efficient with Careful Patient Selection: A Comparative Analysis with Conventional Multiport Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Objectives  The "marionette technique" for transumbilical laparoscopic cholecystectomy (m-TLC) offers improved cosmesis and possibly shorter postoperative recovery for patient undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus the four-port conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). We compared the outcomes of m-TLC and CLC at a tertiary care facility in New York. Methods  A retrospective chart review was conducted and data on patients who underwent m-TLC and CLC were retrieved. Hospital length of stay (LOS), operative time, and complications were compared between the two groups using linear and logistic regression, as appropriate. Results  M-TLC group patients were significantly younger, predominantly females with lower body mass index. They were less likely to have previous abdominal surgery and more likely to have noninflammatory pathology ( p  < 0.05 for all). Nonadjusted LOS (1 vs. 3 days, p -value < 0.0001) and operative time (50 vs. 56 minutes, p -value = 0.007) were significantly lower among patients who underwent m-TLC; however, there was no significant difference on multivariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, there was no difference in the overall complication rate (odds ratio: 1.63; 95% confidence interval 0.02-2.39). Conclusion  With careful patient selection, m-TLC offers better cosmesis with comparable safety outcomes. Level of evidence  Level III.

Propensity Score Matched Comparison of Robotic Single-Site and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

To demonstrate the feasibility and potential of robotic single-site cholecystectomy, the study aimed to compare it with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In total, 791 consecutive patients underwent conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy or robotic single-site cholecystectomy at our center between 2019 and 2022. After 1:1 propensity score matching, 117 patients for each group were selected. After propensity score matching, the only statistically significant difference between conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy and robotic single-site cholecystectomy was operative time, which was 29.15 ±11.45 min in the conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy group versus 38.57 ± 12.59 min in the robotic single-site cholecystectomy group (P < 0.001). Because the difference in surgical time between the two groups was minimal, it has little clinical relevance. Using cumulative sum analysis, the maturation phase of the total operation and docking times occurred after the 53rd case. To reduce bias, a comparison of results with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy and cases of robotic single-site cholecystectomy was performed in the maturation phase, which revealed only total operative time as statistically significant (P < 0.001). Robotic single-site cholecystectomy is a technically feasible and safe method for treating benign gallbladder diseases, with a relatively short learning curve and reasonable operative time.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Versus Conventional Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

The present systematic review compares single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) with the aim of assessing early postoperative pain and morbidity. The secondary outcomes assessed were the duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, and conversion to open surgery. A systematic search for medical records was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4. A total of 14 randomized control trials met the eligibility criteria, involving a total of 1762 patients. Early postoperative pain (four to six hours) (mean difference (MD): -0.86; 95%; confidence interval (CI): -1.16 to -0.55) showed significantly better results in the SILC group but showed no difference on the first or second postoperative day. There were significantly fewer complications (relative risk (RR): 1.7; 95%; CI: 1.16-2.50)recorded in the CLC group as compared to the SILC group. Operative time (MD: 19.66; 95% CI: 13.21-26.11) was significantly longer in the SILC group, while the duration of hospital stay (MD: -0.01; 95% CI: -0.28-0.26) and conversion to open surgery (RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.20-4.82) showed no significant difference. SILC had a significantly longer operative time and more complications as compared to CLC. However, it was associated with significantly lower early post-operative pain.

Is fundus first laparoscopic cholecystectomy a better option than conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy for difficult cholecystectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The gallstone disease prevalence is up to 27% in the general adult population. Though most of the patients are asymptomatic, about 1-4% of these patients became symptomatic every year and will require treatment. Fundus first laparoscopic cholecystectomy (FFLC) was first reported by Cooperman in 1990 when he utilized the approach to safely perform LC for patients with acute cholecystitis and dense adhesion around the calot's triangle which precluded safe dissection. Some surgeons reported that the FFLC may be quicker than the traditional dissection starting at the Calot's triangle, although no randomized trial has been undertaken to confirm that. We aim to perform this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare outcome of fundal first laparoscopic cholecystectomy with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Three reviewers independently searched the Pubmed, medline, google schoolar, Cochrane library and Embase databases for prospective or retrospective articles comparing outcomes of fundus first LC and conventional LC. The search terms were "retrograde cholecystectomy", "antegrade cholecystectomy", "fundus first cholecystectomy", "fundus down cholecystectomy", and "dome down cholecystectomy". Studies were selected based on predetermined criteria and data were extracted from the study for meta-analysis. Twelve studies were included for meta-analysis. Our analysis revealed that FFLC is associated with less conversion to open surgery, less time of surgery, less risk of bile duct injuries and shorter duration of hospital stay compared conventional cholecystectomy in patients with difficult cholecystectomy. In conclusion, fundus first laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a safer alternative to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with difficult cholecystectomy.

Suprapubic Cholecystectomy Improves Cosmetic Outcome Compared to Classic Cholecystectomy.

Currently, cholecystectomy is performed laparoscopically. While the conventional approach (CA) with four access ports persists, other methods seek to reduce trauma or to optimize cosmetic results. In this study, the safety and cosmetic outcome of a suprapubic approach (SA) were evaluated. Between 2015 and 2016, patients undergoing elective cholecystectomy either by CA or by a suprapubic approach (SA) at our institution were included. The cosmetic outcome, postoperative morbidity, operative time and length of stay were evaluated. Pictures of the site of intervention were taken 6–12 months postoperatively and rated on a scale from 1 (unsatisfying aesthetic result) to 5 (excellent aesthetic result). Five “non-medical” and five “medical” raters as well as one board-certified plastic surgeon performed the ratings. A total of 70 patients were included (n = 28 SA, n = 42 CA). The two groups did not differ in baseline characteristics (age, gender, BMI). The SA group showed a significantly better aesthetic outcome compared to the CA group 4.8 (4.8–4.9) vs. 4.2 (3.8–4.4), (p > 0.001). Medical raters: 4.0 (3.8–4.2) vs. 4.8 (4.6–5.0), (p < 0.001); non-medical raters: 4.2 (3.8–4.6) vs. 5.0 (4.8–5.0), (p < 0.001); plastic surgeon: 4.0 (4.0–4.0) vs. 5.0 (5.0–5.0), (p < 0.001). Fair interrater consistency was demonstrated with an ICC of 0.47 (95% CI = 0.38–0.57). No significant difference in the complication rate (1 (3.5%) in SA vs. 6 (14%) in CA, (p = 0.3)), or the operating time 66 (50–86) vs. 70 (65–82) min, (p = 0.3), were observed. Patients stayed for a median of three (3–3) days in the SA group and 3 (3–4) days in the CA group (p = 0.08). This study demonstrated that the suprapubic approach is an appropriate alternative to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy, presenting a better cosmetic outcome with a similar complication rate.