A retrospective comparison of two-, three-, and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomies
Purpose: A total of 1276 laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LCs) using two-, three-, and four-port methods were analyzed to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of two and three-port LCs in management for acute or elective gallstone disease when compared with four-port LC. Materials and Methods:...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Health/LWW
2017-01-01
|
| Series: | Formosan Journal of Surgery |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.e-fjs.org/article.asp?issn=1682-606X;year=2017;volume=50;issue=5;spage=169;epage=174;aulast=Lien |
| _version_ | 1797704576367853568 |
|---|---|
| author | Heng Hui Lien Chi Cheng Huang Ching Shui Huang |
| author_facet | Heng Hui Lien Chi Cheng Huang Ching Shui Huang |
| author_sort | Heng Hui Lien |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Purpose: A total of 1276 laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LCs) using two-, three-, and four-port methods were analyzed to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of two and three-port LCs in management for acute or elective gallstone disease when compared with four-port LC.
Materials and Methods: A between-group comparison was performed on the difference of operation time, postsurgery admission days, postsurgery daily pain score between acute or elective surgery or different procedures.
Results: Proportion of four-port LC was significant high in acute then in elective surgery (93.3% vs. 79.0%; P = 0.001). In elective surgeries, difference among mean operative time of two-, three-, and four-port LC (36.76, 34.72, and 27.32 min, respectively) was statistically significant (P = 0.001). Three-port LC showed a significant lowest mean pain score (1.887; 1 to 10 point pain score) on the first-day post-LC.(P = 0.04) Difference on the mean post-LC hospitalization of two-, three-, and four-port LCs (2.158, 2.141 and 2.412 days, respectively) were significant in elective (P = 0.001) while not significant in acute surgery (two-, three-, and four-port LCs: 2.75, 2.778, and 3.097 days, respectively; P = 0.237).
Conclusions: Four-port LC was the procedure of choice in acute surgery. The operative time was the shortest for four and longest for two-port LC. Three-port LC could be adopted using strategic selection (elective surgery) and conversion (with adding port) as safety guard for the benefits of less wound pain, decreased post-LC admission days. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T05:22:24Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-1d7131db6c354ba58e6e2f42122d744c |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1682-606X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T05:22:24Z |
| publishDate | 2017-01-01 |
| publisher | Wolters Kluwer Health/LWW |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Formosan Journal of Surgery |
| spelling | doaj.art-1d7131db6c354ba58e6e2f42122d744c2023-09-03T07:34:30ZengWolters Kluwer Health/LWWFormosan Journal of Surgery1682-606X2017-01-0150516917410.4103/fjs.fjs_128_17A retrospective comparison of two-, three-, and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomiesHeng Hui LienChi Cheng HuangChing Shui HuangPurpose: A total of 1276 laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LCs) using two-, three-, and four-port methods were analyzed to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of two and three-port LCs in management for acute or elective gallstone disease when compared with four-port LC. Materials and Methods: A between-group comparison was performed on the difference of operation time, postsurgery admission days, postsurgery daily pain score between acute or elective surgery or different procedures. Results: Proportion of four-port LC was significant high in acute then in elective surgery (93.3% vs. 79.0%; P = 0.001). In elective surgeries, difference among mean operative time of two-, three-, and four-port LC (36.76, 34.72, and 27.32 min, respectively) was statistically significant (P = 0.001). Three-port LC showed a significant lowest mean pain score (1.887; 1 to 10 point pain score) on the first-day post-LC.(P = 0.04) Difference on the mean post-LC hospitalization of two-, three-, and four-port LCs (2.158, 2.141 and 2.412 days, respectively) were significant in elective (P = 0.001) while not significant in acute surgery (two-, three-, and four-port LCs: 2.75, 2.778, and 3.097 days, respectively; P = 0.237). Conclusions: Four-port LC was the procedure of choice in acute surgery. The operative time was the shortest for four and longest for two-port LC. Three-port LC could be adopted using strategic selection (elective surgery) and conversion (with adding port) as safety guard for the benefits of less wound pain, decreased post-LC admission days.http://www.e-fjs.org/article.asp?issn=1682-606X;year=2017;volume=50;issue=5;spage=169;epage=174;aulast=LienCholecystectomylaparoscopicport |
| spellingShingle | Heng Hui Lien Chi Cheng Huang Ching Shui Huang A retrospective comparison of two-, three-, and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomies Formosan Journal of Surgery Cholecystectomy laparoscopic port |
| title | A retrospective comparison of two-, three-, and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomies |
| title_full | A retrospective comparison of two-, three-, and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomies |
| title_fullStr | A retrospective comparison of two-, three-, and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomies |
| title_full_unstemmed | A retrospective comparison of two-, three-, and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomies |
| title_short | A retrospective comparison of two-, three-, and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomies |
| title_sort | retrospective comparison of two three and four port laparoscopic cholecystectomies |
| topic | Cholecystectomy laparoscopic port |
| url | http://www.e-fjs.org/article.asp?issn=1682-606X;year=2017;volume=50;issue=5;spage=169;epage=174;aulast=Lien |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT henghuilien aretrospectivecomparisonoftwothreeandfourportlaparoscopiccholecystectomies AT chichenghuang aretrospectivecomparisonoftwothreeandfourportlaparoscopiccholecystectomies AT chingshuihuang aretrospectivecomparisonoftwothreeandfourportlaparoscopiccholecystectomies AT henghuilien retrospectivecomparisonoftwothreeandfourportlaparoscopiccholecystectomies AT chichenghuang retrospectivecomparisonoftwothreeandfourportlaparoscopiccholecystectomies AT chingshuihuang retrospectivecomparisonoftwothreeandfourportlaparoscopiccholecystectomies |