Pain, well-being, body image and cosmesis: a comparison of single-port and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to compare post-operative pain, well-being, body image and cosmesis in SILS cholecystectomy and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (FPLC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-two consecutive patients (15 SILS, 27 FPLC) undergoing elective cholecystectomy were included in the study. Peri-operative pain, well-being, body image and cosmesis were evaluated using validated assessment tools. RESULTS: Significantly lower pain scores were reported one week post-operatively in the SILS group (5.6 vs 8.3; p = 0.035). No significant difference was found in analgesic requirements, physical or mental well-being at any time interval. Significantly higher (favourable) body image questionnaire scores were reported in the SILS group at one week (5.4 v 4.5; p < 0.01), two weeks (5.6 vs 4.8; p < 0.01) and one month (5.7 vs 5.0; p < 0.01) post-operatively. CONCLUSION: SILS patients have significantly reduced one-week pain scores and there was no significant difference in well-being between the two groups. Patients who underwent SILS had improved body image and cosmesis. If both techniques are found to be equivalent concerning safety, cost, learning curve and availability, SILS may play a key role in the new era of patient choice.

Evaluating systemic stress response in single port vs. multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Acute-phase proteins and inflammatory cytokines mediate measurable responses to surgical trauma, which are proportional to the extent of tissue injury and correlate with post-operative outcome. By comparing systemic stress following multi-port (LC) and single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC), we aim to determine whether reduced incision size induces a reduced stress response. METHODS: Thirty-five consecutive patients were included, 11 underwent SILC (mean ± SEM; age 44.8 ± 3.88 year; BMI 27 ± 1.44 kg/m(2)) and 24 underwent LC (56.17 ± 2.80 year; 31.72 ± 1.07 kg/m(2), p < 0.05). Primary endpoint measures included levels of interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein measured pre- and post-operatively. Length-of-stay (LOS) and postoperative morbidity were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found between SILC and LC for interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein levels, LOS and duration of surgery. There was also no correlation between systemic stress response and operative parameters. There were no intra-operative complications. CONCLUSION: SILC appears to be a safe, feasible technique with potential advantages of cosmesis, reduced incisional pain, and well-being recommending its use. These data indicate no difference in systemic stress and morbidity between SILC and LC. A larger, multi-centred, randomised prospective trial is warranted to further investigate and confirm this finding.