Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 8/2011

01-08-2011

Assessment of cosmetic outcome after laparoscopic cholecystectomy among women 4 years after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: is there a problem?

Authors: Mark Bignell, Andrew Hindmarsh, Haritharan Nageswaran, Bhavani Mothe, Andrew Jenkinson, David Mahon, Michael Rhodes

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 8/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Advocates of single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) claim that improved cosmetic outcome is one of its main benefits over conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). However, the published data quantifying the cosmetic outcome after CLC is sparse. This study aimed to determine the cosmetic outcome after CLC using a validated scar assessment tool.

Methods

The patient scar assessment questionnaire was sent to all women ages 20–50 years who had undergone CLC at the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital (Norwich), the Homerton Hospital (London), and the Musgrove Park Hospital (Taunton) in 2005 (n = 380). In all cases, the operation had been performed using a four-port technique. The patients were asked to give scores related to the appearance and symptoms associated with the scars at the time the questionnaire was completed.

Results

Of the 380 patients, 195 responded to the questionnaire, giving a response rate of 51%. The median age of the responders was 39 years, and 63 (32%) of them had undergone previous surgery. The mean score for each section was low, indicating a favorable cosmetic outcome. This correlated with the global question answered with “excellent” for 4 of 5 categories and “good” for the remaining category. Nine patients highlighted dissatisfaction with the umbilical incision.

Conclusions

Patients perceive the cosmetic results after CLC as excellent. Therefore, SPLC seems to have a limited role in terms of improving cosmesis for patients undergoing cholecystectomy. Anecdotal evidence from the questionnaire suggests that the umbilical port may be the site of problems for some patients. Further investigation is needed to determine whether this is significant, especially because it may be exaggerated after SPLC.
Literature
1.
2.
go back to reference Cuschieri A (1991) Minimal access surgery and the future of interventional laparoscopy. Am J Surg 161:385–387PubMedCrossRef Cuschieri A (1991) Minimal access surgery and the future of interventional laparoscopy. Am J Surg 161:385–387PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Kim S, Kim S, Mun S (2009) Should subcostal and lateral trocars be used in laparoscopic cholecystectomy? A randomised, prospective study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 19:749–753PubMedCrossRef Kim S, Kim S, Mun S (2009) Should subcostal and lateral trocars be used in laparoscopic cholecystectomy? A randomised, prospective study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 19:749–753PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Leggett P, Bissell C, Churchman-Winn R, Ahn C (2001) Three-port microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy in 159 patients. Surg Endosc 15:293–296PubMedCrossRef Leggett P, Bissell C, Churchman-Winn R, Ahn C (2001) Three-port microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy in 159 patients. Surg Endosc 15:293–296PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Golder M, Rhodes M (1998) Prospective randomised trial of 5- and 10-mm epigastric ports in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 85:1066–1067PubMedCrossRef Golder M, Rhodes M (1998) Prospective randomised trial of 5- and 10-mm epigastric ports in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 85:1066–1067PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Cheah W, Lenzi J, So J, Kum C, Goh P (2001) Randomized trial of needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 88:45–47PubMedCrossRef Cheah W, Lenzi J, So J, Kum C, Goh P (2001) Randomized trial of needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 88:45–47PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Bisgaard T, Klaeskov B, Trap R, Kehlet H, Rosenberg J (2000) Pain after microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized double-blind controlled study. Surg Endosc 14:340–344PubMedCrossRef Bisgaard T, Klaeskov B, Trap R, Kehlet H, Rosenberg J (2000) Pain after microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized double-blind controlled study. Surg Endosc 14:340–344PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Tacchino R, Greco F, Matera D (2009) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: surgery without a visible scar. Surg Endosc 23:896–899PubMedCrossRef Tacchino R, Greco F, Matera D (2009) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: surgery without a visible scar. Surg Endosc 23:896–899PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Chow A, Purkayastha S, Aziz O, Paraskeva P (2010) Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for cholecystectomy: an evolving technique. Surg Endosc 24:709–714PubMedCrossRef Chow A, Purkayastha S, Aziz O, Paraskeva P (2010) Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for cholecystectomy: an evolving technique. Surg Endosc 24:709–714PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Durani P, McGrouther D, Ferguson M (2009) The patient scar assessment questionnaire: a reliable and valid patient-reported outcomes measure for linear scars. Plas Reconstr Surg 123:1481–1489CrossRef Durani P, McGrouther D, Ferguson M (2009) The patient scar assessment questionnaire: a reliable and valid patient-reported outcomes measure for linear scars. Plas Reconstr Surg 123:1481–1489CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Vander Velpen G, Shimi S, Cuschieri A (1993) Outcome after cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstone disease and effect of surgical access: laparoscopic v open approach. Gut 34:1448–1451PubMedCrossRef Vander Velpen G, Shimi S, Cuschieri A (1993) Outcome after cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstone disease and effect of surgical access: laparoscopic v open approach. Gut 34:1448–1451PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Ros A, Nilsson E (2004) Abdominal pain and patient overall and cosmetic satisfaction one year after cholecystectomy: outcome of a randomised trial comparing laparoscopic and minilaparotomy cholecystectomy. Scand J of Gastroenterol 39:773–777CrossRef Ros A, Nilsson E (2004) Abdominal pain and patient overall and cosmetic satisfaction one year after cholecystectomy: outcome of a randomised trial comparing laparoscopic and minilaparotomy cholecystectomy. Scand J of Gastroenterol 39:773–777CrossRef
13.
go back to reference McCloy R, Randall D, Schug S, Kehlet H, Simanski C, Bonnet F, Camu F, Fischer B, Joshi G, Rawal N, Neugebauer E (2008) Is smaller necessarily better? A systematic review comparing the effects of minilaparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy on patient outcomes. Surg Endosc 22:2541–2553PubMedCrossRef McCloy R, Randall D, Schug S, Kehlet H, Simanski C, Bonnet F, Camu F, Fischer B, Joshi G, Rawal N, Neugebauer E (2008) Is smaller necessarily better? A systematic review comparing the effects of minilaparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy on patient outcomes. Surg Endosc 22:2541–2553PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Sajid M, Khan M, Ray K, Cheek E, Baig M (2009) Needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a metaanalysis. ANZ J Surg 79:437–442PubMedCrossRef Sajid M, Khan M, Ray K, Cheek E, Baig M (2009) Needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a metaanalysis. ANZ J Surg 79:437–442PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Huang M-T, Wang W, Wei P-L, Chen R, Lee W (2003) Minilaparoscopic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Arch Surg 138:1017–1023PubMedCrossRef Huang M-T, Wang W, Wei P-L, Chen R, Lee W (2003) Minilaparoscopic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Arch Surg 138:1017–1023PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Novitsky Y, Kercher K, Czerniach D, Kabah G, Gallagher-Dorval K, Callery M, Litwin D, Kelly J (2005) Advantages of mini-laparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Arch Surg 140:1178–1183PubMedCrossRef Novitsky Y, Kercher K, Czerniach D, Kabah G, Gallagher-Dorval K, Callery M, Litwin D, Kelly J (2005) Advantages of mini-laparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Arch Surg 140:1178–1183PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Chow A, Purkayastha S, Paraskeva P (2009) Appendicetomy and cholecystectomy using single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS): the first UK experience. Surgical Innovation 16:211–217PubMedCrossRef Chow A, Purkayastha S, Paraskeva P (2009) Appendicetomy and cholecystectomy using single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS): the first UK experience. Surgical Innovation 16:211–217PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Edwards C, Bradshaw A, Ahearne P, Dematos P, Humble T, Johnson R, Mauterer D, Soosaar P (2010) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is feasible: initial experience with 80 cases. Surg Endosc 24(9):2241–2247. doi:10.1007/s00464-010-0943-z PubMedCrossRef Edwards C, Bradshaw A, Ahearne P, Dematos P, Humble T, Johnson R, Mauterer D, Soosaar P (2010) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is feasible: initial experience with 80 cases. Surg Endosc 24(9):2241–2247. doi:10.​1007/​s00464-010-0943-z PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Assessment of cosmetic outcome after laparoscopic cholecystectomy among women 4 years after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: is there a problem?
Authors
Mark Bignell
Andrew Hindmarsh
Haritharan Nageswaran
Bhavani Mothe
Andrew Jenkinson
David Mahon
Michael Rhodes
Publication date
01-08-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 8/2011
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1589-1

Other articles of this Issue 8/2011

Surgical Endoscopy 8/2011 Go to the issue