Laparoendoscopic single-site cholecystectomy vs three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a large-scale retrospective study.

AIM: To perform a large-scale retrospective comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site cholecystectomy (LESSC) and three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TPLC) in a single institution. METHODS: Data were collected from 366 patients undergoing LESSC between January 2005 and July 2008 and were compared with the data from 355 patients undergoing TPLC between August 2008 and November 2011 in our department. Patients with body mass index greater than 35 kg/m(2), a history of major upper abdominal surgery, signs of acute cholecystitis, such as fever, right upper quadrant tenderness with or without Murphy's sign, elevated white blood cell count, imaging findings suggestive of pericholecystic fluid, gallbladder wall thickening > 4 mm, and gallstones > 3 cm, were excluded to avoid bias. RESULTS: Altogether, 298 LESSC and 315 TPLC patients met the inclusion criteria. The groups were well matched with regard to demographic data. There were no significant differences in terms of postoperative complications (contusion: 19 vs 25 and hematoma at incision: 11 vs 19), hospital stay (mean ± SD, 1.4 ± 0.2 d vs 1.4 ± 0.7 d) and visual analogue pain score (mean ± SD, 8 h after surgery: 2.3 ± 1.4 vs 2.3 ± 1.3 and at day 1: 1.2 ± 0.4 vs 1.3 ± 1.2) between the LESSC and TPLC patients. Four patients required the addition of extra ports and 2 patients were converted to open surgery in the LESSC group, which was not significantly different when compared with TPLC patients converted to laparotomy (2 vs 2). LESSC resulted in a longer operating time (mean ± SD, 54.8 ± 11.0 min vs 33.5 ± 9.0 min), a higher incidence of intraoperative gallbladder perforation (56 vs 6) and higher operating cost (mean ± SD, 1933.7 ± 64.4 USD vs 1874.7 ± 46.2 USD) than TPLC. No significant differences in operating time (mean ± SD, 34.3 ± 6.0 min vs 32.7 ± 8.7 min) and total cost (mean ± SD, 1881.3 ± 32.8 USD vs 1876.2 ± 33.4 USD) were found when the last 100 cases in the two groups were compared. A correlation was observed between reduced operating time of LESSC and increased experience (Spearman rank correlation coefficient, -0.28). More patients in the LESSC group expressed satisfaction with the cosmetic result (98% vs 85%). CONCLUSION: LESSC is a safe and feasible procedure in selected patients with benign gallbladder diseases, with the significant advantage of cosmesis.

[Comparison of operative techniques in single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: suture-suspension versus three-device method].

OBJECTIVE: To compare the operative techniques of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) via suture-suspension versus three-device method. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed for a total of 300 patients undergoing umbilical single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy from June 2008 to November 2011 at our hospital. The procedures were of suture-suspension (n = 200) and three-device (n = 100). Operative duration, estimated intra-operative blood loss, exposure extent of Calot's triangle, postoperative pain score, hospital stay and complications were compared respectively between two groups. Both groups were matched for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), diagnoses and American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class. RESULTS: All procedures were completed by the same surgeon. Comparison between two groups showed insignificant differences in blood loss (mean: (15.6 ± 9.5) vs (16.8 ± 7.4) ml; t = 1.266, P = 0.207), postoperative complications (number of case, incision contusion:4 vs 2, P = 1.000;incision hemorrhage:2 vs 2, P = 0.603) and hospitalization duration (mean: (1.6 ± 0.5) vs (1.6 ± 0.5) d; t = 0.653, P = 0.514), but significant differences in operative duration (mean:(40.5 ± 16.0) vs (51.5 ± 18.0) min; t = 5.381, P = 0.000), postoperative pain (mean: 2.0 ± 1.7 vs 3.7 ± 1.6; t = 8.324, P = 0.000) and exposure of Calot's triangle (number of case, 197 vs 68; χ(2) = 60.178, P = 0.000). Thus the suture-suspension method was superior to the three-device counterpart. CONCLUSION: The suture-suspension method of SILC is safe, economic and easy-to-handle in clinical practice.

Single-incision vs three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective randomized study.

AIM: To compare the clinical outcome of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) with three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TPLC). METHODS: Between 2009 and 2011, one hundred and two patients with symptomatic benign gallbladder diseases were randomized to SILC (n = 49) or TPLC (n = 53). The primary end point was post operative pain score (at 6 h and 7 d). Secondary end points were blood loss, operation duration, overall complications, postoperative analgesic requirements, length of hospital stay, cosmetic result and total cost. Surgical techniques were standardized and all operations were performed by one experienced surgeon, who had performed more than 500 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. RESULTS: One patient in the SILC group required conversion to two-port LC. There were no open conversions or major complications in either treatment groups. There were no differences in terms of estimated blood loss (mean ± SD, 14 ± 6.0 mL vs 15 ± 4.0 mL), operation duration (mean ± SD, 41.8 ± 17.0 min vs 38.5 ± 22.0 min), port-site complications (contusion at incision: 5 cases vs 4 cases and hematoma at incision: 2 cases vs 1 case), total cost (mean ± SD, 12 075 ± 1047 RMB vs 11 982 ± 1153 RMB) and hospital stay (mean ± SD, 1.0 ± 0.5 d vs 1.0 ± 0.2 d) , respectively. TPLC had a significantly worse visual analogue pain score at 8 h after surgery (mean ± SD, 3.5 ± 1.6 vs 2.0 ± 1.5), however, the scores were similar on day 7 (mean ± SD, 2.5 ± 1.4 vs 2.0 ± 1.3). Cosmetic satisfaction, as determined by a survey at 2 mo follow-up favored SILC (mean ± SD, 8 ± 0.4 vs 6 ± 0.2). CONCLUSION: SILC is a safe and feasible approach in selected patients. The main advantages are a better cosmetic result and less pain.

Single-incision laparoscopic hepatectomy: a case report.

AIMS: Single-incision laparoscopic procedures are reported to be accessible comprehensively for abdominal surgeries. Herein, we report 1 case of partial hepatectomy in which the single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) technique or the laparoendoscopic single-site surgery was conducted. CASE: One 53-year-old woman diagnosed with hepatic multicystis (the largest one had a diameter of 5 cm) underwent single-incision laparoscopic partial hepatectomy on January 1, 2010. RESULTS: The entire procedure was completed in 105 minutes without any complications. The patient went out of bed for mobilization 8 hours after surgery and was discharged on the fifth postoperative day. CONCLUSION: Single-incision laparoscopic procedures are available for many abdominal surgeries, whereas trials reported to perform partial hepatectomy using SILS are fewer. Therefore, our success in the case of partial hepatectomy by SILS provides another optional approach to liver surgeries.