Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Surgery 2/2011

01-02-2011

A Case–control Study of Single-Incision Versus Standard Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Authors: Stephen Kin Yong Chang, Chee Wei Tay, Ralph Allan Bicol, Yang Yang Lee, Krishnakumar Madhavan

Published in: World Journal of Surgery | Issue 2/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has been increasingly performed recently. Although it seems plausible that SILC will be associated with less pain compared to standard 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), there is currently no conclusive comparative study on the postoperative pain issues of SILC against LC.

Methods

In this retrospective, case–control study, 30 patients who had SILC over a 6-month period were compared with a matched (sex, age group, race) group of 30 patients who underwent LC. Verbal pain score (VPS) on postoperative days (POD) 1, 2, 3, and 5; pain sites; analgesic requirement; and number of days (NoD) required to return to normal activities were compared.

Results

There were 4 (13%) acute cholecystitis cases in each group. Average VPS on POD 1, 2, 3, and 5 of SILC and (LC) cholecystectomy patients were 4.53 (5.14) (P = 0.09), 3.43 (3.83) (P = 0.36), 2.07 (2.52) (P = 0.25), and 1.13 (1.24) (P = 0.69), respectively. In the SILC group, 26 patients (87%) had umbilical pain, whereas in the LC group, 25 patients (83%) had similar symptoms. Epigastric pain was experienced by 5 patients in the two groups, and RHC pain was experienced by 1 patient in the SILC group (3%) and 2 patients in the LC group (7%). The SILC and the LC patients required 4.00 and 4.90 days (P = 0.09) of paracetamol, respectively, to control pain. The NoD required before return to normal activity in the SILC and LC groups was 5.97 days and 7.79 days (P = 0.008), respectively.

Conclusions

There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative pain, pain site and analgesia requirement; however, patients who underwent SILC returned to their normal activity 1.8 days earlier than the LC patients. Larger RCTs are needed to compare postoperative outcomes between SILC and LC.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Rao PP, Bhagwat SM, Rane A et al (2008) The feasibility of single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a pilot study of 20 cases. HPB 10:336–340CrossRefPubMed Rao PP, Bhagwat SM, Rane A et al (2008) The feasibility of single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a pilot study of 20 cases. HPB 10:336–340CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Tacchino R, Greco F, Matera D et al (2009) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: surgery without a visible scar. Surg Endosc 23:896–899CrossRefPubMed Tacchino R, Greco F, Matera D et al (2009) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: surgery without a visible scar. Surg Endosc 23:896–899CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Chow A, Purkayastha S, Aziz O et al (2009) Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for cholecystectomy: an evolving technique. Surg Endosc 24:709–714CrossRefPubMed Chow A, Purkayastha S, Aziz O et al (2009) Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for cholecystectomy: an evolving technique. Surg Endosc 24:709–714CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Ersin S, Firat O, Sozbilen M et al (2009) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: is it more than a challenge? Surg Endosc 24:68–71CrossRefPubMed Ersin S, Firat O, Sozbilen M et al (2009) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: is it more than a challenge? Surg Endosc 24:68–71CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Bucher P, Pugin F, Buchs N et al (2009) Single port access laparoscopic cholecystectomy (with video). World J Surg 33:1015–1019CrossRefPubMed Bucher P, Pugin F, Buchs N et al (2009) Single port access laparoscopic cholecystectomy (with video). World J Surg 33:1015–1019CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Hernandez JM, Morton CA, Ross S et al (2009) Laparoendoscopic single site cholecystectomy: the first 100 patients. Am Surg 75:681–686PubMed Hernandez JM, Morton CA, Ross S et al (2009) Laparoendoscopic single site cholecystectomy: the first 100 patients. Am Surg 75:681–686PubMed
7.
go back to reference Bucher P, Pugin F, Morel P et al (2009) From single-port access to laparoendoscopic single-site cholecystectomy (letter). Surg Endosc 24:234–235CrossRefPubMed Bucher P, Pugin F, Morel P et al (2009) From single-port access to laparoendoscopic single-site cholecystectomy (letter). Surg Endosc 24:234–235CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Hodgett SE, Hernandez JM, Morton CA et al (2009) Laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) cholecystectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 13:188–192CrossRefPubMed Hodgett SE, Hernandez JM, Morton CA et al (2009) Laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) cholecystectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 13:188–192CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Ponsky TA (2009) Single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in adults and children: tools and techniques. J Am Coll Surg 209:e1–6 epub Sept 3 Ponsky TA (2009) Single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in adults and children: tools and techniques. J Am Coll Surg 209:e1–6 epub Sept 3
Metadata
Title
A Case–control Study of Single-Incision Versus Standard Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Authors
Stephen Kin Yong Chang
Chee Wei Tay
Ralph Allan Bicol
Yang Yang Lee
Krishnakumar Madhavan
Publication date
01-02-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
World Journal of Surgery / Issue 2/2011
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-010-0842-4

Other articles of this Issue 2/2011

World Journal of Surgery 2/2011 Go to the issue