RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Patient demand for cosmetically superior surgical outcomes has driven minimally invasive technique development like single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC). Implementation has been hindered by equipment factors, compromise of ergonomics, increased cost, and larger primary incision, leading to the associated risk of postoperative wound complications, incisional hernia, and fascial dehiscence. We present a method of reduced port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (RPLC), which utilises existing laparoscopic conventional equipment and an innovative MiniLap® grasper (Teleflex Incorporated, Wayne, Pennsylvania). The aim of the approach being enhanced cosmesis, cost equivalence with existing methods, and preservation of surgical ergonomics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients presenting to a single-surgeon practice with pathology requiring cholecystectomy and favourable body habitus were offered an RPLC procedure. Abdominal access was obtained via two laparoscopic working ports placed through a single incision within the umbilicus and with a 2.3mm port-less MiniLap® inserted via stab incision in the right upper quadrant utilised for retraction. Operative time, cost, cosmesis, postoperative pain, and patient demographics were compared with the standard four-port cholecystectomy. RESULTS: Twenty patients underwent RPLC with age ranging from 20 to 67 with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 31kg/m2. Mean operative time of 36.3 minutes was comparable to conventional multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). All operations were completed as RPLC, and no conversion to conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy was required. Gall bladder retraction with Teleflex grasper and an innovative swirling technique provides adequate exposure of the hepato-cystic triangle. Patient response regarding cosmetic outcome of the procedure was overwhelmingly positive. A single complication of the RPLC technique was documented-a superficial umbilical site wound infection, which was treated with oral antibiotics. Instrumental cost of the RPLC was $80 (AUD) greater than standard 4LP due to reduced port number but higher MiniLap® cost. CONCLUSION: The RPLC method utilises an ergonomically attractive technique with outcomes and a safety profile equal to the standard multi-port LC whilst minimizing the complications and prohibitive economic penalties of traditional SILC. A well-designed prospective randomised trial can provide more insight into the pros and cons of this innovative technique.
