Three Ports Versus Four Ports Laporoscopic Cholecystectomy
Background: A four trocar laparoscopic cholecystectomy become the standard procedure since the first laparoscopic procedure was reported. But laparoscopic cholecystectomy has gained many steps such as reduction in port number and size. Objective: To compare Clinical results from three ports vers...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
College of medicine/ University of Diyala
2021-04-01
|
| Series: | Diyala Journal of Medicine |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://djm.uodiyala.edu.iq/index.php/djm/article/view/708 |
| _version_ | 1797454828540002304 |
|---|---|
| author | Ahmed Modher Khalaf Hazim Jabbar Kashtal Amir Hinbis Masawod |
| author_facet | Ahmed Modher Khalaf Hazim Jabbar Kashtal Amir Hinbis Masawod |
| author_sort | Ahmed Modher Khalaf |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
Background: A four trocar laparoscopic cholecystectomy become the standard procedure since the first laparoscopic procedure was reported. But laparoscopic cholecystectomy has gained many steps such as reduction in port number and size.
Objective: To compare Clinical results from three ports versus the traditional four ports in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Patients and Methods: A prospective randomized clinical trial of 100 patients was done on those who were admitted for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Baquba teaching hospital, between April 2014 and March 2015, patients were classified into two groups (A) for three ports and (B) for 4 ports. Variables such as, complications, operative time, postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting were assessed.
Results: One-hundred patients were included in this study, age of them ranged from 18-70 year and a male to female ratio was 1:9. There were no significant differences in demographic data between the two groups. Postoperative pain, analgesic requirements, nausea and vomiting, and hospital stay were slightly more in group B but statistically not significant. Postoperative return to activity was shorter in group A 6.10 versus 7.00 days for group B with (p= 0.021) which is statistically significant. There is no difference in the rate of complications.
Conclusion: Three ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy is feasible as an alternative for four ports without any significant complication.
|
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T15:42:46Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-5537a82c31464f268aba10c5b2d8e020 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2219-9764 2617-8982 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T15:42:46Z |
| publishDate | 2021-04-01 |
| publisher | College of medicine/ University of Diyala |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Diyala Journal of Medicine |
| spelling | doaj.art-5537a82c31464f268aba10c5b2d8e0202023-11-24T23:22:42ZengCollege of medicine/ University of DiyalaDiyala Journal of Medicine2219-97642617-89822021-04-01201Three Ports Versus Four Ports Laporoscopic CholecystectomyAhmed Modher Khalaf Hazim Jabbar KashtalAmir Hinbis Masawod Background: A four trocar laparoscopic cholecystectomy become the standard procedure since the first laparoscopic procedure was reported. But laparoscopic cholecystectomy has gained many steps such as reduction in port number and size. Objective: To compare Clinical results from three ports versus the traditional four ports in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients and Methods: A prospective randomized clinical trial of 100 patients was done on those who were admitted for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Baquba teaching hospital, between April 2014 and March 2015, patients were classified into two groups (A) for three ports and (B) for 4 ports. Variables such as, complications, operative time, postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting were assessed. Results: One-hundred patients were included in this study, age of them ranged from 18-70 year and a male to female ratio was 1:9. There were no significant differences in demographic data between the two groups. Postoperative pain, analgesic requirements, nausea and vomiting, and hospital stay were slightly more in group B but statistically not significant. Postoperative return to activity was shorter in group A 6.10 versus 7.00 days for group B with (p= 0.021) which is statistically significant. There is no difference in the rate of complications. Conclusion: Three ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy is feasible as an alternative for four ports without any significant complication. http://djm.uodiyala.edu.iq/index.php/djm/article/view/708Laparoscopy; Cholecystectomy; Postoperative complications |
| spellingShingle | Ahmed Modher Khalaf Hazim Jabbar Kashtal Amir Hinbis Masawod Three Ports Versus Four Ports Laporoscopic Cholecystectomy Diyala Journal of Medicine Laparoscopy; Cholecystectomy; Postoperative complications |
| title | Three Ports Versus Four Ports Laporoscopic Cholecystectomy |
| title_full | Three Ports Versus Four Ports Laporoscopic Cholecystectomy |
| title_fullStr | Three Ports Versus Four Ports Laporoscopic Cholecystectomy |
| title_full_unstemmed | Three Ports Versus Four Ports Laporoscopic Cholecystectomy |
| title_short | Three Ports Versus Four Ports Laporoscopic Cholecystectomy |
| title_sort | three ports versus four ports laporoscopic cholecystectomy |
| topic | Laparoscopy; Cholecystectomy; Postoperative complications |
| url | http://djm.uodiyala.edu.iq/index.php/djm/article/view/708 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ahmedmodherkhalaf threeportsversusfourportslaporoscopiccholecystectomy AT hazimjabbarkashtal threeportsversusfourportslaporoscopiccholecystectomy AT amirhinbismasawod threeportsversusfourportslaporoscopiccholecystectomy |