Three-port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Research Articles

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.

Comparison of three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background: In the era of laparoscopic surgery, early recovery and less post-operative pain are major goals to improve patient care and cut down cost. Several studies have demonstrated less post-operative pain and early recovery with the reduction in size and number of ports. Aims and Objectives: To compare three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with four-port LC in chronic calculous cholecystitis patients. We compared the feasibility of the procedure, total operative time, intraoperative difficulties, post-operative pain, incidence of complications, and cosmetic results. Materials and Methods: The study was done in Maharani Laxmi Bal Medical College, Jhansi, between April 2021 and November 2022, including 2 groups of patients (Group A-50 patients of three-port LC and Group B-50 patients of four-port LC). Results: Most of the participants were from 18 to 30 years (32%, 38%) and 31 to 40 years (30%, 12%) in both the groups. The mean duration of surgery in three-port and four-port group was 41.64±6.972 and 42.22±13.784 min, respectively (p=0.79). Hospital stay was three-port and four-port group was 3.33±0.789 and 3.86±0.707 days, respectively (p=0.0001). 100 patients were included, with 2085 patients. The mean age of the studied patients was 46.38 years with female preponderance. The mean operative time for three ports was 66.90 min and for four ports, it was 75.45 min. The mean duration of post-operative stay for three-port was 4.66, and for the conventional group, it was 5.30. Conclusion: Three-port lap cholecystectomy can be advocated to be better than the 4-port technique, but especially in experienced hands, and 4-port LC is better for beginners.

Comparative outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic, mini-laparoscopic, four-port laparoscopic, three-port laparoscopic, and single-incision robotic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Benign gallbladder diseases are common in surgery department, and the laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard procedure for benign diseases of gallbladder. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is conventionally performed using four laparoscopic ports. However, the clinical application of different LCs is equivocal and there is no comprehensive comparison to explore which surgical options could benefit patients with benign gallbladder diseases. A network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the efficacy of the different LCs could benefit patients with benign gallbladder diseases by comprehensive comparison. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochran Library. Totally, 17 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 1627) met study selection criteria and were incorporated in this NMA study. The first ranking probabilities of the five surgical options to alleviate postoperative pain scores were: 54.4% for single-incision robotic cholecystectomy (SIRC), 25.2% for single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SALC), and 24.9% for mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Mini). The first ranking probabilities for reducing postoperative complications in the surgical options were: 61.3% for three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and 21.8% for four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The first ranking probabilities for reducing hospital stay(days) in the surgical options were: 32.3% for SIRC, 29.0% for three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and 19.8% for four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The first ranking probabilities for reducing operation time showed that the three-port technique had the shortest operation time, followed by three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (51.3%), four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (26.8%), and mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy (21.6%). Our study found that the optimal surgical plan for different outcomes varies, making it difficult to give a comprehensive recommendation. Three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy may be the best options in terms of reducing surgical complications and operative time. Meanwhile, SIRC is the best options for relieving postoperative pain relief. SIRC and three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy can reduce hospital stay (days) compared other LCs.

Three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy is safe and efficient in the treatment of surgical biliary disease: a retrospective cohort study.

Multiple studies have suggested that three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy is both feasible and safe. However, this approach has failed to gain acceptance outside of clinical trials, leaving adopters of this approach vulnerable to medico-legal scrutiny. We hypothesized that the three-port approach to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is safe and efficient in experienced hands. All LC (including robotic) cases were performed on patients 18years and older between November 2018 and March 2020. Operations utilizing three ports were compared to those performed using more than three ports. The primary outcomes measured were total operative time, conversion-to-open rate, and the complication rate. A two-sample test was performed to compare operative times, and a Fisher's exact test was used to compare conversion-to-open and complication rates. Linear regression models were used to account for the effect of confounders. 924 total LCs were performed by 30 surgeons in the study period (71 three-port, 853 four or more ports). The mean operative time was 10min shorter in the three-port group in comparison (64.1 ± 1.4min vs. 74.4 ± 1.8min, p < 0.01), despite a threefold higher rate of intraoperative cholangiogram in these cases (23.0% vs. 7.9%, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in either the conversion-to-open rate (1.6% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.35), or the overall complication rate (7.1% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.82). Operative time for LC performed through three ports was significantly less than those performed through the traditional four port approach, despite utilizing intraoperative cholangiogram nearly three times as often. There was no difference in the conversion-to open rate or complication rate. These results provide considerable evidence that three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy is comparable to four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in operative duration, conversion-to-open rate, and complication rate.

Three-port Versus Four-port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy- An Interventional Prospective Study in Public Sector Hospitals

Introduction: Cholelithiasis is a common ailment and affects about 10% of general population. Currently, the vast majority of operations for cholelithiasis are performed using laparoscopic techniques. Aim: To compare the three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy with conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Materials and Methods: A prospective interventional study was conducted on 180 cases admitted to the hospitals attached to BMCRI, Bengaluru, from November 2018 to November 2020. The clinical profile of each patient was noted. The cases were confirmed by ultrasonography and they were randomised into two groups. One group underwent three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the other group underwent four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Intraoperative complications, conversion rates, postoperative pain, postoperative complications and duration of stay in the hospital were compared. Statistical data was analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0 and data was compared using Chi-square test. Results: Most of the participants were from 31-40 years (45.6%, 44.4%) in both the groups, more common in females. The mean duration of surgery in three-port and four-port group was 30.43±15.964 and 36.81±15.592 minutes, respectively. Out of 90 (100%), 56 (62.2%) in three-port group had Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score 2 and 66 (73.3%) in four-port group had VAS score 3 (χ2=71.34; p=0.001). Conversion rates to open cholecystectomy were almost similar in both the groups. Hospital stay was also similar in both groups. Conclusion: A three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy had lesser operating time and lesser analgesics requirement with similar intra and postoperative complication when compared to four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

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.

When Should I Use an Additional Port at the Time of Three-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy?

Objective: Today, it is recommended that the laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is made with standard three ports. In this study, we aimed to determine the preoperative and intraoperative factors that require the use of an additional fourth port during three-port LC. Materials and Methods: All patients who started LC with three ports between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019 were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups as those who underwent three-port LC and those who required additional ports. Independent parameters affecting the transition from three ports to four ports were analyzed using logistic regression analysis. The patients who underwent LC with three ports were included in Group 1 and the patients requiring an additional port were included in Group 2. Results: A total of 234 patients (139 women and 95 men) were included in the study. The average age of patients was 52.95 ± 16.26 (20-89) and body mass index is 28.64 ± 5.4 (15.73-48.89), respectively. Three ports were used in 148 patients (Group 1), and an additional fourth port was used in 42 patients (Group 2). Female gender, history of upper laparotomy, presence of acute infection findings, urgent surgery, and advanced age were observed to increase the use of additional ports. In multivariate analysis, it was shown that the presence of hepatic barrier (P < .001) and the presence of complete adhesion in the gallbladder (P < .001) significantly increased the use of additional trocars during LC. In addition, female gender was found to cause an increase of 6.62 times (P < .001). Conclusion: Many factors may require the use of additional ports during three-port LC. The use of an additional fourth port should not be avoided, especially in cases where hilum dissection is prevented due to liver origin, in female patients and in cases with complete adhesion to the gallbladder.

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 conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study

Objectives This prospective comparative study aims at evaluating the feasibility of three-port technique without affecting safety and at comparing the outcome of three-port and four-port techniques. Patients and methods This study included 94 patients with symptomatic gallstone disease and gallbladder polyp in Surgical Department, Minia University Hospital, from beginning of 2018 to beginning of 2019. Patients who were unwilling to be a part of the study, jaundiced patients with radiologically evidence of common bile duct stones, patients unfit for general anesthesia, patients with liver cirrhosis, patients with portal hypertension, patients with coagulopathy, patients with acute pancreatitis, patients with generalized peritonitis, or patients with malignancy were excluded. All patients were operated by the same operating team. Patients were randomized for three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) group (45 patients) or four-port LC group (49 patients). Numeric Pain Rating Scale, operative time, operative difficulty, intraoperative and postoperative complications, duration required to stop oral analgesics, and duration required to return to normal activity were recorded. Results Numeric Pain Rating Scale, required number of diclofenac ampoules, duration required for oral analgesia, and duration required to return to normal activity were significantly less in three-port group. Other parameters were comparable between the two groups. Conclusion It seems that three-port LC is a safe and feasible technique with superior clinical outcomes to four-port LC.

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.

A Comparative Study of Needlescopic Grasper Assisted Single Incision versus Three-Port versus Pure Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

PurposeSingle incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is a surgical method to treat gallbladder disease designed to reduce postoperative pain and improve cosmetic results. However, pure SILC (pSILC) has several inherent limitations. In this study, we report the surgical outcomes of SILC with needlescopic grasper (nSILC) compared with those of pSILC and conventional three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TPLC).MethodsThis retrospective study enrolled 103 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease in our hospital between January 2013 and January 2015. Among them, 33 patients underwent pSILC, 35 underwent nSILC, and 35 underwent TPLC. We collected demographic characteristics and operative data to analyze outcomes between groups.ResultsAll procedures were done by laparoscopy and the gallbladder of each patient was completely removed. Women and younger patients were more to undergo SILC than TPLC. Analysis showed that the operation time of the nSILC group was longer than that of the TPLC group, but shorter than that of the pSILC group (skin to skin operation time [pSILC: 65.2±19.1 min, nSILC: 49.7±12.9 min, and TPLC: 43.4±14.7 min, p<0.001], and major procedure time [pSILC: 42.2±18.7 min, nSILC: 25.9±8.9 min, and TPLC: 23.4±12.7 min, p<0.001]). There were no significant differences between the groups for patient visual analogue scale score, length of hospital stay, or intraoperative blood loss.ConclusionnSILC is feasible surgical method in patients with benign gallbladder disease compared to TPLC, and that is an effective procedure to overcome the disadvantage of pSILC.

TWO PORTS VERSUS FOUR PORTS LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY (THE USE OF STRATEGIC EXTRACORPOREAL STITCHES)

Four ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has been the standard for treatment of the symptomatic cholelithiasis. Herein, the experience of two-ports LC regarding its safety and feasibility was given. This study was conducted in Theodor Bilharz Research Institute (TBRI) in the period from November 2017 till April 2018, as a prospective randomized study including one hundred patients with chronic calcular cholecystitis, which were divided into two equal groups. The study compared between group A (GA) which underwent four ports LC and group B (GB) which underwent two ports LC.The results showed that in GA, no cases were converted to open cholecystectomy. But, in GB only two patients converted to three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. There were no intraoperative complications encountered in any patient in both groups. In GA, operative time ranged between 28-62 minutes (mean±44.57) while in GB, operative time ranged between 39-134 minutes (mean±59.93); with hospital stay of three days in both groups. The pain score showed statistically significant differences regarding port-site pain (P value = 0.040). Significant lower analgesic demands were recorded in the 2 ports group. Scar satisfaction showed a marked statistically significant differences regarding the aesthetic results between the two groups (P value = 0.0319).

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.

Effect of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks of the abdominal wall on pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of an ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) and rectus sheath block (RSB) combination, an ultrasound-guided posterior TAP block combined with the local anesthetic infiltration (LAI) and LAI alone on pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).Patients and methods: One hundred eighty patients who were American Society of Anesthesiologists class Ι or Π were included in this randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study. All patients underwent three-port LC and were divided into 3 groups. The LAI group had ropivacaine mixed with dexmedetomidine injected around the trocar entrance site preoperatively. The TL group underwent ultrasound-guided posterior TAPB combined with LAI, and the TR group underwent ultrasound-guided TAPB combined with RSB. Postoperative pain was evaluated at the first, 4th, 8th, 24th, and 48th hours. If the visual analogue scale (VAS) score (including incisional pain, visceral pain or shoulder pain) was >3, intravenous dezocine (0.05 mg/kg) was injected slowly. Sleep quality, total consumption of dezocine and time to unassisted walking were recorded. The Global Satisfaction Score (GSS) for analgesia was also assessed within 48 hrs.Results: No difference was found in sleep quality, time to unassisted walking, or requirement for dezocine. We also found no difference in VAS scores at each time point within 48 hrs after LC among the 3 groups, but the GSS for analgesia in the LAI group was significantly increased within 48 hrs compared with the other two groups.Conclusion: Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks of the abdominal wall can significantly relieve postoperative pain in patients undergoing LC; however, patients receiving LAI expressed more satisfaction than patients in whom other methods were used. LAI is an easy and effective method that can be recommended for routine clinical practice in LC patients who are not converted to an open procedure.

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

Three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study at a tertiary care centre in North India

Background: Improvement of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (LC) technique in terms of reduction in size and number of ports is being tried to improve patient satisfaction and outcome. Present study was conducted to evaluate and compare the safety outcome and advantages of three-port and four-port LC. Methods: This prospective study included 90 patients presenting with symptomatic gall stone disease or gall bladder polyp more than 1cm at base. Patients with jaundice and choledocholithiasis were excluded. Patients were divided into two groups: A and B, who underwent three-port and four-port LC respectively. Outcomes of the two groups were assessed and compared in terms of duration of surgery, intra-operative and post-operative variables including rate and nature of complications, conversion rates, post-operative pain, duration of hospital stay, return to work and cosmetic outcome.Results: Statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of Visual Analogue Score for pain at 6 and 24 hours, analgesic requirement, duration of hospital stay and return to work; all being less in the three- port LC group. Cosmetic outcome as perceived by patients was also better in the three-port group. Results of other variables were comparable in the two groups. Conclusions: Three-port procedure is safe and appears to be more cost effective than four-port LC. If LC is performed by an experienced surgeon, it can be started with three ports, if required, a fourth port can be inserted.

Long-Term Patient-Aspect Outcomes of the Single-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Background: Single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) is a widely performed advanced technique in laparoscopic surgery which has many benefits compare to conventional three port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TPLC). The purpose of this study was to compare the patients’ satisfaction of SPLC and TPLC after one year of operation by using questionnaire which not only objective factors such as results of operation and hospital days but also subjective factor such as social and cosmetic quality of life. Materials and Methods: This study analyzed the data of 74 patients (SPLC = 42, TPLC = 32) who underwent the laparoscopic cholecystectomy between March and July 2013. The patients were asked to complete a patient-assessment questionnaire measuring the postoperative social and cosmetic quality-of-life values at the 12-month mark. Results: Statistically significant differences in the age, sex distribution, and body mass index are absent between the two groups. All the average scores of the different parameters of the social-activity aspect—satisfaction with physical condition, limitation of nutrition, stamina, postoperative pain level, returning to social life, impairment of social life, degree of complications, and cost-effectiveness of the surgery—are not statistically significant in both groups. Alternatively, all the results of the cosmetic aspect—scar influence on charms (p p = 0.015), and patient’s score of scars (p < 0.001)—show statistically significant differences. Conclusion: The SPLC is a safe and an attractive approach regarding the patients of this study. It offers a more effective cosmetic result that may be conveyed by a greater patient satisfaction.

Randomized trial of umbilical incisional hernia in high-risk patients: extraction of gallbladder through subxiphoid port vs. umbilical port after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

IntroductionTrocar site incisional hernia (TSIH) is one of the most common complications of laparoscopic surgery. Using the umbilical port as a common hole for removing the gallbladder in laparoscopic cholecystectomy is more likely to lead to TSIH than other ports. Thus, extracting the gallbladder through other ports may reduce the incidence of TSIH.AimTo ascertain whether extraction of the gallbladder through the subxiphoid port is more beneficial for reducing umbilical incisional hernia than the umbilical port.Material and methodsFrom April 2014 to March 2017, a randomized clinical trial was conducted among patients with high risk of incisional hernia and accepted for three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TLC) in our department. 182 patients with indications of cholecystectomy were allocated randomly to group A (subxiphoid port) and group B (umbilical port). Data collection was carried out on operative time, postoperative pain, hospital stay, wound infection and TSIH in the early postoperative course, and at 1, 10, and 24 months after surgery.ResultsThe incidence of TSIH in group A was lower than that in group B (4.9% vs. 14.6%; odds ratio = 8.02; 95% CI: 2.15–47.6; p < 0.001). The mean operative time of group A was significantly shorter than that of group B (35 ±15.16 min vs. 42 ±14.58 min, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in wound infection rate between group A and group B (p = 0.068). The data of hospital stay (p = 0.428) and postoperative pain (p = 0.349) of all analyzed patients were similar in the two groups.ConclusionsExtraction of the gallbladder through the subxiphoid port can reduce umbilical incisional hernia in high-risk patients effectively.

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.