Four-port Technique Research Articles

Frequency of Early Complications of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Using Four Ports.

Background Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has become a widely accepted bariatric procedure for treating morbid obesity and associated comorbidities due to its relatively straightforward technique and positive outcomes in terms of weight loss and metabolic improvement. Objective To investigate the frequency and types of early complications followingLSGusing four ports. Methods This prospective observational study was conducted at Al Hadi International Hospital, Swabi, Pakistan, from January 2022 to December 2022. A total of 369 patients aged 25-65 years with a BMI of 35-55 kg/m2 were included. Data on demographic characteristics, surgery duration, intraoperative blood loss, and hospital stay were collected. Early complications within 30 days post-surgery, including bleeding, infection, and leakage, were documented. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26 (Released 2019; IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, United States). Results The mean age of patients was 43.6 years (SD = 11.8) and the mean BMI was 42.3 kg/m2 (SD = 6.5). The average surgery duration was 92 minutes (SD = 22) and the mean intraoperative blood loss was 100 mL (SD = 50). Early complications occurred in 18% of patients with bleeding, infection, and leakage each accounting for 5%, 4%, and 3%, respectively. Reoperation was required in 5% of patients due to these complications. Higher BMI (45.2 vs. 41.8 kg/m2, p = 0.04) and longer surgery duration (105 vs. 88 minutes, p = 0.03) were significantly associated with increased complication rates. Comorbidities were present in 60% of patients with complications compared to 34% without complications (p = 0.03). Conclusion The four-port technique in LSG is associated with an 18% early complication rate with significant risk factors being higher BMI and longer surgery duration. Careful patient selection, standardized surgical techniques, and robust postoperative care are essential to minimize complications and improve outcomes in LSG.

Feasibility of robotic cholecystectomy at an academic center with a young robotic surgery program: a retrospective cohort study with umbrella review

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has been standard of care for surgical treatment of benign gallbladder pathology for decades. With the advent of robotic surgical technology, robotic cholecystectomy (RC) has gained attention as an alternative to conventional laparoscopy. This study introduces a single-surgeon experience with laparoscopic versus robotic cholecystectomy and an umbrella systematic review of the outcomes of both approaches. A retrospective chart review was performed at a single institution on a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder pathology. An umbrella systematic review was conducted using PRISMA methodology. A total of 103 patients were identified; 61 patients underwent LC and 42 underwent RC. In the RC cohort, 17 cases were completed using a four-port technique while 25 were completed using a three-port technique. Patients undergoing RC were older compared to the LC group (44.78 vs 57.02 years old; p < 0.001) and exhibited lower body mass index (29.37 vs 32.37 kg/m2, p = 0.040). No statistically significant difference in operative time or need for postoperative ERCP was noted. Neither this series nor the umbrella systematic review revealed significant differences in conversion to open surgery or readmissions between the LC and RC cohorts. Three-port RC was associated with reduced operative time compared to four-port RC (101.28 vs 150.76 min; p < 0.001). Robotic cholecystectomy is feasible and safe at a young robotic surgery program in an academic center setting and comparable to laparoscopic cholecystectomy clinical outcomes.

The Comparison of Two-port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Technique and Standard Four-port Technique

The Comparison of Two-port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Technique and Standard Four-port Technique

EGS P32V Laparoscopic transcystic Antegrade Biliary Stenting

Abstract Background Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the gold standard treatment for symptomatic cholelithiasis including pancreatitis. Symptomatic gall stones patients have up to 20% risk of having common bile duct (CBD) stones too. Although, guidelines have been laid down for management of suspected CBD stones, in practice there is a lot of variability and lack of standardisation. The waiting list for Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is long, resulting in delayed treatment and increased length of hospital stay. Similarly, pre-operative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) can also increase the length of hospital stay due to long waiting lists, limited availability and overall risk of complications as high as 30%. Hence, the role of on-table cholangiogram (OTC) while performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been explored. The guidelines state that OTC should be performed in fit for surgery patients, without pre-operative investigations for diagnosing CBD stones. We have been practising early cholecystectomy with on-table cholangiogram (during the index admission), with selective insertion of antegrade biliary stent in patients with choledocholithiasis. We facilitate ERCP with stent removal and clearance of CBD stones after 4 weeks post-operatively. We aim to present our technique of laparoscopic antegrade biliary stent insertion. Methods We follow the standard four-port technique for Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Following dissection of Calot's triangle and visualisation of ‘critical view of safety’, an on-table cholangiogram is performed using a standard technique. If CBD stones are visualised, a transcystic antegrade stenting is done by Seldinger technique (without clearing the CBD of stones). The cholangiogram catheter is removed and flex-tip ureteric catheter is inserted transcystically. Through the ureteric catheter a flex-tip guidewire is inserted into CBD till its tip is visualised in the duodenum, under C-arm guidance. The ureteral catheter is then withdrawn carefully with guidewire placed satisfactorily. A double pig tail end biliary stent is rail-roaded over the guidewire, using a pushing catheter fashioned appropriately. As soon as the tip of the stent is visualised beyond the ampulla (in the X-ray), the guidewire and pushing catheter are withdrawn. The curling up of both ends of the stent is visualised and confirmed through C-arm guidance. Thereafter the procedure of cholecystectomy, as standard, is completed. Results The results of this procedure were analysed from 2014 to 2017, and subsequently published in 2018. Conclusions This technique does not involve skills required for CBD exploration. Hence, can be performed by general surgeons with expertise in minimal access surgeries, as it does not involve a steep learning curve. This technique is safe, reliable and cost-effective. It also decreases delays in biliary decompression, in-hospital stay and ensures timely treatment.

The Generation of Pneumoperitonium by DCI Technique

Background: The safe and effective insertion of a primary port is the first and most crucial &amp; risky of a laparoscopy. Open laparoscopy, optical trocar insertion, direct trocar insertion (DTI) and direct cannula insertion ot traditional technique of insufflation following Veress needle (VN) insertion via the umbilicus. Aim: To assess the safety of DCI technique to generate the pneumoperitonium in our set up. Methodology: This prospective study was conducted at AIMEC sheikhupura from Feb.2019 to Feb.2020. All the150 patients with symptomatic gall bladder disease were admitted. All consecutive patients who underwent successful LC under the care of a single consultant. GA was used to operate in every case. After painting and draping, a 10 mm infra umbilical incision was made. With the use of towel clips, the anterior abdominal wall was raised, and a direct cannula was inserted into the abdominal cavity. All the LC was performed with four-port technique. Three doses of second-generation cephalosporin were administered in every case. Data was entered and analyzed in SPSS. Result: Total 150 patients were included. There were 30(20%) male and 130(80%) female. The mean age was 42.5±12.2 years. Out of 150(100%) patients 18(12%) were having acute gallbladder disease while rest 132(88%) were chronic cases. Most of the operated patients 81(54%) were discharged at 48 hours, 45(30%) at 24hours while rest of the patients stayed longer, including 15(10%) stayed for 72 hours,9(6%) for 96hours and one of the patients who was converted to open procedure for an accessory duct stayed for 7 days. Conclusion: The conclusion of the study that DCI technique to generate pneumoperitonium for laparoscopic procedures remains safe and rapid technique. Keywords: Laparoscopic surgery, DCI technique, pneumoperitonium, gall bladder disease

Three-port versus four-port technique for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BackgroundThe four-port laparoscopic technique is the standard approach for cholecystectomy. A three-port technique has been described, but there is no consensus over the outcomes and efficacy of this approach. The aim was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the three- and four-port techniques in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign diseases of the gallbladder.MethodsThe review was conducted according to a predefined protocol registered on PROSPERO. Two authors independently conducted an electronic database search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Outcomes are reported as risk ratios (RR), mean difference (m.d.), or standardized mean difference (s.m.d.) with 95 per cent confidence intervals.ResultsEighteen trials were included with 2085 patients. Length of hospital stay and postoperative analgesia requirement favoured the three-port group (m.d. −0.29, 95 per cent c.i. −0.43 to −0.16 (P < 0.001); and s.m.d. −0.68, 95 per cent c.i. −1.03 to −0.33 (P < 0.001), respectively). There were no differences in length of procedure or success rate between the two groups (m.d. 0.90, 95 per cent c.i. −3.78 to 5.58 (P = 0.71) and RR 0.99, 95 per cent c.i. 0.97 to 1.01 (P = 0.17), respectively). There were no differences in adverse events. The overall quality of evidence was low.ConclusionThe three-port technique for laparoscopic cholecystectomy is an option for appropriately trained surgeons who perform it regularly. However, the decision to use three ports should not be at the expense of safe dissection of Calot’s triangle.

P-BN33 Should a three-port technique be the gold standard for laparoscopic cholecystectomy?

Abstract Background The four-port technique is currently considered the gold standard technique for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A three-port technique has been described but there is no consensus over the safety profile and efficacy of this technique compared to the four-port technique. Methods A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the three-port technique to the standard four-port technique in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign diseases of the gallbladder was performed. Two authors independently conducted an electronic database search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals. Results Eighteen trials were included which randomised 2085 participants. Length of hospital stay and postoperative analgesia requirement favoured the three-port group [(MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.43 – -0.16, p &amp;lt; 0.0001) and (SMD -0.68, 95% CI -1.03 – -0.33, p = 0.0001) respectively]. There were no differences in length of procedure and success rate between the two groups [(MD 0.90, 95% CI -3.78 – 5.58, p = 0.71) and (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.97 – 1.01, p = 0.17) respectively]. There were no differences in the rate of any measured adverse events. There were no mortalities in either group. The GRADE quality of evidence was low. Conclusions The three-port technique for laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be chosen by experienced surgeons who perform it regularly. However, the decision to use three ports should not be at the expense of safe dissection.

Feasibility and Safety of Three-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Compared to Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

BackgroundThe standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard procedure. The various clinical trials and reports in the literature have suggested that the three-port technique LC can be done safely with acceptable results.Still, that the three-port LC offers any added benefits to the patient is a controversial issue especially in view of safety and feasibility. In this study, we report the experience of three-port LC compared to four-port LC technique, its safety, feasibility and outcomes.Materials and methodsA prospective randomized study was conducted between two groups which included 165 cases - 93 patients were included in three-port LC (Group A) and 72 patients in four-port LC (Group B). Operative time, intraoperative complications, postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, analgesics requirement, conversion to open and return to normal activities were parameters of evaluation.ResultsDemographic data was comparable in both the groups. Three-port LC Group A had lesser post-operative pain and analgesics requirements. The mean postoperative pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score on day 1 was (4.16 and 6.24), on day 7 was (1.26 and 1.81) in three-port group and in four-port LC group, respectively. The mean days of analgesics requirement were 2.56 days and 4.21 days among three-port group and four-port group, respectivelyLength of hospital stay was less and returning to work was early in three-port group. There was no statistical difference in operative time. The mean operative time among three-port LC group A and four-port LC group B was 36+/-8.6 minutes (30-68) and 39+/-7 minutes (30-90), respectively. The overall outcomes were comparable to four-port LC.ConclusionThree-port LC is a feasible and safe procedure for LC with satisfactory outcomes like lesser postoperative pain, postoperative stay and less scars, when performed by experienced hands, especially in acute cholecystitis. The use of fourth port should be done when required in a difficult situation.

TP6.1.8 Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Level 1 Evidence)

Abstract Aims to compare the outcomes of three-port and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods In compliance with PRISMA statement standards, electronic databases were searched to identify all comparative studies investigating outcomes of three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Two techniques were compared using direct comparison meta-analysis model. The risks of type 1 or type 2 error in the meta-analysis model were assessed using trial sequential analysis model. The certainty of the available evidence was assessed using GRADE system. Random effects modelling was applied to calculate pooled outcome data. Results Analysis of 2524 patients from 17 studies showed that three-port and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy techniques were comparable in terms of operative time (MD:-0.13,P=0.88), conversion to open operation (OR:0.80,P=0.43), gallbladder perforation (OR:1.43,P=0.13), bleeding from gallbladder bed (OR: 0.81, P = 0.34), bile duct injury (RD: 0.00, P = 0.97), iatrogenic visceral injury (RD:-0.00,P=0.81), bile or stone spillage (OR:1.67,P=0.08), port site infection (OR:0.90,P=0.76) and need for reoperation (RD:-0.00,P=0.94). However, the three-port technique was associated with lower VAS pain score at 12 hours (MD:-0.66,P&amp;lt;0.00001) and 24 hours (MD:-0.54,P&amp;lt;0.00001) postoperatively, shorter length of hospital stay (MD: -0.09, P = 0.41), and shorter time to return to normal activities (MD:-0.79,P=0.02). Conclusions Robust evidence (Level 1 with high certainty) suggests that in an elective setting with uncomplicated cholelithiasis as indication for cholecystectomy, three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy is comparable with the four-port technique in terms of procedural and morbidity outcomes and may be associated with less postoperative pain, shorter length of hospital stay and shorter time to return to normal activities.

Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of three-port vs four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (level 1 evidence).

To compare the outcomes of three-port and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In compliance with PRISMA statement standards, electronic databases were searched to identify all comparative studies investigating outcomes of three-port vs four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Two techniques were compared using direct comparison meta-analysis model. The risks of type 1 or type 2 error in the meta-analysis model were assessed using trial sequential analysis model. The certaintyof evidence was assessed using GRADE system. Random effects modelling was applied to calculate pooled outcome data. Analysis of 2524 patients from 17 studies showed that both techniques were comparable in terms of operative time (MD:- 0.13, P = 0.88), conversion to open operation (OR:0.80, P = 0.43), gallbladder perforation (OR: 1.43, P = 0.13), bleeding from gallbladder bed (OR:0.81, P = 0.34), bile duct injury (RD: 0.00, P = 0.97), iatrogenic visceral injury (RD: - 0.00, P = 0.81), bile or stone spillage (OR:1.67, P = 0.08), port site infection (OR: 0.90, P = 0.76), port site hernia (RD: 0.00, P = 0.89), port site haematoma (RD: - 0.01, P = 0.23), port site seroma (RD: 0.00, P = 1.00), and need for reoperation (RD: - 0.00, P = 0.94). However, the three-port technique was associated with lower VAS pain score at 12h (MD: - 0.66, P < 0.00001) and 24h (MD: - 0.54, P < 0.00001) postoperatively, shorter length of hospital stay (MD:-0.09, P = 0.41), and shorter time to return to normal activities (MD: - 0.79, P = 0.02). Trial sequential analysis confirmed that the meta-analysis was conclusive with no significant risks of type 1 or type 2 error. Robust evidence (level 1 with high certainty) suggests that in an elective setting with uncomplicated cholelithiasis as indication for cholecystectomy, three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy is comparable with the four-port technique in terms of procedural and morbidity outcomes and may be associated with less postoperative pain, shorter length of hospital stay and shorter time to return to normal activities.

Three port versus four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective comparative clinical study

Background: Although, traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy is performed using four-port technique, various modifications were made to further enhance the advantages of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Aim of the study is to compare the results of three-port and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy at single centre in terms of technical feasibility, safety of the procedure, operative time, intra-operative complications, postoperative pain and post-operative analgesia requirement.Methods: It was a prospective comparative study conducted in the department of surgery Smimer medical college Surat, India from July 2018 to July 2019. The study was performed on all adult patients with ultrasound documented cholelithiasis. The total number of patients studied was 50 which were divided into two groups of 25 each.Results: Demographic data were comparable for both study groups. Patients in the 3-port group had shorter mean operative time (47.3±29.8 min versus 60.8±32.3 min) for the 4-port group (p=0.04). Post-operative requirement of analgesia was less in 3 port group as compared to 4 port group. Pain visual analog scale (VAS) score, intra operative complications, post- operative complications and return to normal activity were significant in our study. Hospital stay and patient satisfaction were non- significant.Conclusions: The three-port technique is as safe as the standard four-port technique and can be a viable alternative to four port cholecystectomy with an advantage of less analgesic requirement, early post-operative ambulance, early oral feed, and better cosmetic results.

Retrospective Study of Three-port versus Standard Four-port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Single Surgical Unit Experience of 1456 Patients

Introduction: Although laparoscopic surgeries have proven beyond doubt their benefit in terms of early recovery, better patient care and cost-effectiveness, the quest for reduction in either the size or number of ports still continues. Aim: To compare the safety, outcome, and advantages between three-port versus four-port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (LC) in acute and chronic cholecystitis. Materials and Methods: Medical records of 1456 patients that underwent LC (three- or four-port) for acute and chronic cholecystitis from January 2015 to December 2019 (60 months) were retrospectively analysed. All patients were given the same anaesthetic drugs for induction and maintenance, with standard anaesthetic protocol. The results were compared for both the techniques in terms of operating time, conversion rate, intraoperative complications, immediate postoperative complications, pain score, analgesic requirement and hospital stay. Results: Total 1456 patients underwent LC; 1282 were female and 174 were male. The mean age of the patients was 39.2 years (range 18-70 years). The three-port LC technique was performed on 816 (56.04%) patients, while the traditional four-port LC technique was performed on 640 (43.96%) patients. Visual Analog Score (VAS) in the postoperative period at six hour was 2.11±0.82 in three-port group versus 3.17±1.12 in four-port group, this suggests that there was a significant difference in pain in these two groups in the early postoperative period (p&lt;0.001). In three-port group, the requirement of analgesic drug was significantly less as compared to four-port group (2.86±0.98 versus 3.22±0.87; p&lt;0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean operating time, duration of hospital stay, intra and postoperative complications, days to return to normal activity, satisfaction score and conversion rate (p=0.087, p=0.061, p=0.578, p=0.555, p=0.572 and p=0.145, respectively). Conclusion: Three-port LC is a feasible, effective and safe technique that further enhances the surgical outcome in terms of postoperative pain, fewer needs for analgesic medication.

Modification of Step in Difficult Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy to Minimize the Conversion Rate

Gall stone disease is a common gastrointestinal surgical problem and symptomatic patients needs appropriate and timely treatment in the form of cholecystectomy else the disease process becomes complicated because of recurrent chronic infection, dislodgement of stone to common bile duct, acute infection and more severe complications like perforation of gall bladder. In recent years, Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy is considered as gold standard treatment for symptomatic as well as for few categories of asymptomatic cholelithiasis. Reduced postoperative pain, early return of mobility and to work, cosmetic results and brief hospital stay are distinct advantages of the procedure. Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy becomes difficult in patients with male sex, age above 50 years, obese, history of previous hospitalization due to attacks, previous abdominal surgery scar, palpable gall bladder, impacted stone, overdistended/contracted gall bladder. Various scoring systems have been reported to predict difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy preoperatively. These difficult cases required longer operating time and hospital stay. The incidence of postoperative complications are also higher as compared to easy Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Of the total 430 cases included in this study, 200 (46.5%) cases were difficult cases. For performing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in these patients successfully i.e. with minimum conversion to open, certain modifications in the classical four-port technique were done. As a result, conversion rate in difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy could be limited to 7% only. Postoperative complication were pyrexia (21.5%), paralytic ileus (9.5%), bile stained subhepatic discharge (6.5%), port site infection (8%) and respiratory complications (8%). Late complication was port-site hernia (0.5%). Operating time 58.7+12.4 minutes in difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy as compared to 36.5+9.2 minutes in easy cases and postoperative hospital stay was of 6.9+1.8 days against 2.3+0.8 days as compared to easy cases. Unclear anatomy (3%), haemorrhage (4%), dense adhesions (2%) and anaesthesia issue (1%) were the reasons of conversion to open cholecystectomy. It is concluded from this study that preoperative difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be predicted and modifications of the steps of four-port cholecystectomy can be done to minimize the conversion rate.

Safety and feasibility of three port procedure in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is widely accepted gold standard technique for management of cholelithiasis and has undergone many refinements including decrease in size and number of ports. Many researchers have claimed that three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy is safe and feasible method for management of cholelithiasis but still it is not performed widely by the surgeons. Objective of our study was to assess the safety and feasibility of three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy by comparing the various defined parameters with the standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Methods: The study included 100 patients and was divided equally in 2 groups. Patients in Group A underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy by three-port technique and in Group B were operated by four-port technique. Patients in both the groups were compared in terms of operative time, intra-operative complications, post-operative pain, post-operative complications and cosmesis outcome.Results: The mean operative time was similar in both groups. Intra-op and post-op complications were also similar. 3 patients in Group A needed fourth port and 1 patient in both group required conversion to open cholecystectomy. Mean pain score and requirement of parentral analgesia was found to be lower in Group A. Duration of hospital was similar in both the groups. Patients in group A had slightly better cosmetic outcome.Conclusions: Three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a minimally invasive, safe and feasible technique and is not difficult to master than other advanced techniques. In experienced hands, laparoscopy cholecystectomy can be initially started with three-ports and can be converted to four-port if rarely necessary.

Low-Cost Incisionless Liver Retraction for Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Prospective Controlled Trial.

Background: Laparoscopic bariatric surgery has been performed safely since 1991. In a persistent search for fewer and smaller scars, single port, needlescopic surgery, and other approaches have been implemented. Our goal was to analyze the safety and feasibility of using incisionless autostatic liver retraction for sleeve gastrectomy. Materials and Methods: Candidates for sleeve gastrectomy were selected, excluding those <18 and having had prior upper left quadrant surgery. Patients were randomized 1:1 to either a standard five-port technique with a fan-type liver retractor (Group A); or a four-port technique with the liver retracted using a polypropylene 1 suture passed through the right crura and retrieved at the epigastrium employing a fascial closure needle (Group B). All surgeries were performed by the same surgeon. The primary endpoint was surgery duration. Secondary outcomes were quality of surgical-field visualization, complications inherent to liver retraction, and postoperative morbidity. Results: One hundred patients were recruited (n = 50/group). The groups (both 90% females) were demographically and anthropomorphically comparable. Surgery duration was 30.4 ± 4.6 and 29.6 ± 4.7 minutes for Groups A and B, respectively (P = .41). Visualization was considered very good in 80% versus 82%, good in 16% versus 12%, and poor in 4% versus 6% (P = NS). Two patients from each group (4%) had self-limited minor bleeding from the liver attributed to the retraction technique. No 30-day morbidity was observed. Conclusions: Liver retraction using a polypropylene suture was both effective and inexpensive. Visualization and the duration of surgery were comparable to a standard liver retractor. This low-cost alternative may diminish the need for expensive instruments and reduce the number of scars without jeopardizing the safety and quality of sleeve gastrectomy.

Thoracoscopic clipping of patent ductus arteriosus: position of surgery in the era of transcatheter procedures

To describe single-center evolution of the procedure and to evaluate the results of thoracoscopic clipping of patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) with diameter over 3,0 mm in term infants weighting over 4,0 kg. Thoracoscopic clipping of PDA has been performed in 140 patients for the period from March 2012 to March 2018 in Meshalkin National Medical Research Center. Mean age was 4.0 years (range 3 months - 13 years), mean body mass index - 15.4±2.2 kg/m2. PDA size 3.5-10 mm, Qp/Qs >1,3/1,0, weight 4.0-40 kg. Mean PDA size was 4.6±0.9 mm (range 3.5-8.0 mm), mean pulmonary artery pressure - 34.3±5.8 mm Hg, mean systemic/pulmonary flow Qp/Qs - 1.6±0.3. All patients underwent successful PDA closure through four-port technique under endotracheal general anesthesia and no need for pleural drainage. Mean procedure time was 24.5±15.5 min. In 29 (20,7%) cases we used titanium clips, in 11 (79.3%) - polymer locking ligating clips. There was 1 conversion to mini-thoracotomy. There were no deaths, bleeding or any other life-threatening complications. 94 (67.1%) patients were weaned from ventilator within operating theatre, in other 46 (32.9%) patients mean ventilation time in ICU was 1.3±1.0 hours. In-hospital postoperative complications: pneumothorax - 2 (1.4%) cases, recurrent laryngeal nerve dysfunction - 1 (0.7%), false croup - 1 (0.7%). There were 2 residual leakages in 2 (1.4%) patients in 10 and 6 months after titanium clip deployment. Both of them underwent transcatheter closure using the coil. Considering these cases all following patients underwent PDA closure by polymer locking ligating clips with no cases of residual leakage. Thoracoscopic PDA closure by polymer locking ligating clip is safe and effective technique for surgical management of PDA with diameter over 3.0 mm in term infants weighting over 4.0 kg.

A comparison of outcomes of four ports versus three ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background: Conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy is performed using four ports. With increasing surgeon experience, there is a trend towards performing it using three ports. The aim of this study was to compare the three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy with the conventional four-port technique in terms of safety, benefits and feasibility in a teaching hospital and private hospital setups.Materials &amp; Methods: A retrospective review of medical records was performed on patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy at KIST Medical College and Teaching Hospital and Om Hospital &amp; Research Center P. Ltd by a single laparoscopic surgeon. The review included demographics, operating time, analgesics requirement, post- operative hospital stay and intra-operative and post-operative complications. The data were tabulated in MS-Excel and statistically analyzed using SPSS statistics software, version 21.Results: There were 150 patients included in this study with 75 patients in each three and four-port groups. The demographics were comparable in both groups. 7.3% were diagnosed with acute calculous cholecystitis, 76.7% with chronic calculous cholecystitis and 3.3 % were gall bladder polyps. Four-port technique was generally required for the acute calculous cholecystitis which was statistically significant. The three-port group had a shorter mean operative time than the four-port group. There was no statistically significant difference in the doses of analgesics requirement and mean post-operative hospital stay in both groups. There were no major intra and post-operative complications in both groups. Four-port technique was commonly done in teaching hospital and the three-port in private hospital.Conclusions: There is significant number of laparoscopic cases being performed using three ports and we concluded that the three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy is safe and feasible in experienced hand although there is no significant benefit. The study also showed an increasing use of four-port technique in the teaching institution which is better to clearly visualize the anatomy of the Calot’s triangle. So we recommend using the four-port technique for teaching the beginners and as the experience is gained, we can gradually shift to three-port technique and at the same time we shouldn’t hesitate to convert to four-port in difficult cases.JMMIHS.2018;4(1):66-71

Establishment of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy in a porcine model: techniques and outcomes in 44 pigs

BackgroundLaparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has replaced open donor nephrectomy in most patients due to numerous benefits. A live animal model is required to equip surgeons with the necessary skills to perform such a procedure with minimal risk of complications. The aim of this study was to establish the technique for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy in a porcine (Sus scrofa) model. Materials and methodsThis study was approved by the Animal Ethics Committee of the university. Forty-four pigs underwent laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. The left kidney was removed with a standardized four-port technique, with a small suprapubic incision to facilitate kidney delivery. ResultsAll 44 procedures were performed successfully, with no intraoperative complications or conversion to open surgery. There was no apparent damage to any of the kidney grafts. The mean surgical time was 118.3 (±20.7) minutes. There was a small, but statistically insignificant, decrease in surgical time throughout the duration of the study. Several subjects had minor variations in the anatomy of the renal vasculature. ConclusionsThis series has developed and proven a training model for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in pigs. This training model will allow surgeons to develop laparoscopic proficiency in a live donor, to be used in conjunction with human cadaveric training.

Three-Port, Two Located on the Pfannenstiel Line, Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Comparison with Traditional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is seen as a gateway to minimally invasive surgery. We defined a new three-port technique with different port sites and compared the postoperative results with traditional four-port LC procedure in a case-match study. Between June 2012 and May 2013, 104 consecutive patients underwent three-port LC by same experienced surgeon. In the same center, 2963 consecutive patients underwent four-port LC, and of these 2963 patients, a matched group of 104 patients was selected. Data included patient age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, history of abdominal operations, intraoperative data about operating time and conversion to open surgery, and postoperative data about length of hospital stay and postoperative complications were recorded prospectively. We concluded that our new three-port technique with different port sites is as feasible and safe as traditional four-port technique.

Laparoscopic Umbilical Hernia Repair Using a “Two-Port” Technique: A Single-Center Experience

Background: Laparoscopic umbilical hernia repair has gained popularity over the last decade. As an alternative to the classical three- to four-port laparoscopic technique, the two-port technique is reported to have the advantages of being the least minimally invasive umbilical repair procedure described to date. The aim of this study was to determine the operative outcomes of patients treated using the two-port umbilical hernia repair technique. Methods: This was a retrospective, single-center study. The case notes of 52 patients undergoing umbilical hernia repair between November 2015 and November 2016 via the two-port method were reviewed. Operative time and hospital stay were recorded. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: The operating time was 32 min on average. There was no significant procedural blood loss, iatrogenic injury, or subcutaneous emphysema. No patient required conversion to conventional methods. All patients were comfortable in the postoperative period and were routinely discharged on the second postoperative day. Forty-five of the 52 cases completed 3-month follow-up without any reported complications. Conclusions: Excellent outcomes are possible using the two-port technique for umbilical hernia repair. However, proper patient selection and experience and proficiency in performing laparoscopic hernia repair are prerequisites for good outcomes. J Curr Surg. 2017;7(3):39-41 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcs329w