Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
World Journal of Surgery
Published in: World Journal of Surgery 5/2017

01-05-2017 | Original Scientific Report

A Comparative Study of Outcomes Between Single-Site Robotic and Multi-port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: An Experience from a Tertiary Care Center

Authors: Banujan Balachandran, Theadore A. Hufford, Taha Mustafa, Kunal Kochar, Suela Sulo, Joubin Khorsand

Published in: World Journal of Surgery | Issue 5/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of single-site robotic cholecystectomy with multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy within a high-volume tertiary health care center.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained data was conducted on patients undergoing single-site robotic cholecystectomy or multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy between October 2011 and July 2014. A single surgeon performed all the surgeries included in the study.

Results

A total of 678 cholecystectomies were performed. Of these, 415 (61%) were single-site robotic cholecystectomies and 263 (39%) were multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Laparoscopic patients had a greater mean BMI (30.5 vs. 29.0 kg/m2; p = 0.008), were more likely to have undergone prior abdominal surgery (83.3 vs. 41.4%; p < 0.001) and had a higher incidence of preexisting comorbidities (76.1 vs. 67.2%; p = 0.014) as compared to the robotic group. There was no statistical difference in the total operative time, rate of conversion to open procedure and mean length of follow-up between the two groups. The mean length of hospital stay was shorter for patients within the robotic group (1.9 vs. 2.4 days; p = 0.012). Single-site robotic cholecystectomy was associated with a higher rate of wound infection (3.9 vs. 1.1%; p = 0.037) and incisional hernia (6.5 vs. 1.9%; p = 0.006).

Conclusion

Multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy should remain the gold standard therapy for gallbladder disease. Single-site robotic cholecystectomy is an effective alternative procedure for uncomplicated benign gallbladder disease in properly selected patients. This must be carefully balanced against a high rate of surgical site infection and incisional hernia, and patients should be informed of these risks.
Literature
1.
Reynolds W Jr (2001) The first laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 5:89–94
2.
Curcillo PG 2nd, Wu AS, Podolsky ER, Graybeal C, Katkhouda N, Saenz A, Dunham R, Fendley S, Neff M, Copper C, Bessler M, Gumbs AA, Norton M, Iannelli A, Mason R, Moazzez A, Cohen L, Mouhlas A, Poor A (2010) Single-port-access (SPA) cholecystectomy: a multi-institutional report of the first 297 cases. Surg Endosc 24:1854–1860CrossRefPubMed
3.
Mutter D, Callari C, Diana M, Dallemagne B, Leroy J, Marescaux J (2011) Single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: which technique, which surgeon, for which patient? A study of the implementation in a teaching hospital. J Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat Sci 18:453–457CrossRef
4.
Prasad A, Mukherjee KA, Kaul S, Kaur M (2011) Postoperative pain after cholecystectomy: conventional laparoscopy versus single-incision laparoscopic surgery. J Minim Access Surg 7:24–27PubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Wren SM, Curet MJ (2011) Single-port robotic cholecystectomy: results from a first human use clinical study of the new da Vinci single-site surgical platform. Arch Surg 146:1122–1127CrossRefPubMed
6.
Allemann P, Leroy J, Asakuma M, Al Abeidi F, Dallemagne B, Marescaux J (2010) Robotics may overcome technical limitations of single-trocar surgery: an experimental prospective study of Nissen fundoplication. Arch Surg 145:267–271CrossRefPubMed
7.
Pietrabissa A, Sbrana F, Morelli L, Badessi F, Pugliese L, Vinci A, Klersy C, Spinoglio G (2012) Overcoming the challenges of single-incision cholecystectomy with robotic single-site technology. Arch Surg 147:709–714CrossRefPubMed
8.
Miller DW, Schlinkert RT, Schlinkert DK (2004) Robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy: initial Mayo clinic Scottsdale experience. Mayo Clin Proc 79:1132–1136CrossRefPubMed
9.
Ross SB, Sawangkum P, de La Vega KA, Teta A, Luberice K, Rosemurgy AS (2013) Single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC): an initial review of safety and feasibility. Minerva Chir 68:435–443PubMed
10.
11.
Schirmer BD, Winters KL, Edlich RF (2005) Cholelithiasis and cholecystitis. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 15:329–338CrossRefPubMed
12.
Owens WD, Felts JA, Spitznagel EL Jr (1978) ASA physical status classifications: a study of consistency of ratings. Anesthesiology 49:239–243CrossRefPubMed
13.
Mak PH, Campbell RC, Irwin MG, American Society of Anesthesiologists (2002) The ASA physical status classification: inter-observer consistency. Anaesth Intensive Care 30:633–640PubMed
14.
Aronson WL, McAuliffe MS, Miller K (2003) Variability in the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification Scale. AANA J 71:265–274PubMed
15.
Riley R, Holman C, Fletcher D (2014) Inter-rater reliability of the ASA physical status classification in a sample of anaesthetists in Western Australia. Anaesth Intensive Care 42:614–618PubMed
16.
Haynes SR, Lawler PG (1995) An assessment of the consistency of ASA physical status classification allocation. Anaesthesia 50:195–199CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
Kama NA, Kologlu M, Doganay M, Reis E, Atli M, Dolapci M (2001) A risk score for conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 181:520–525CrossRefPubMed
19.
Frazee RC, Roberts JW, Symmonds R, Snyder SK, Hendricks J, Smith R, Custer MD (1992) What are the contraindications for laparoscopic cholecystectomy? Am J Surg 164:491–494 (discussion 494–495) CrossRefPubMed
20.
21.
Chung PJ, Huang R, Policastro L, Lee R, Schwartzman A, Alfonso A, Sugiyama G (2015) Single-site robotic cholecystectomy at an inner-city academic center. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 19(3):e2015.00033CrossRef
22.
Livingston EH, Rege RV (2004) A nationwide study of conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 188:205–211CrossRefPubMed
23.
Sakpal SV, Bindra SS, Chamberlain RS (2010) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy conversion rates two decades later. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 14:476–483CrossRef
24.
Madureira FA, Manso JE, Madureira Fo D, Iglesias AC (2013) Randomized clinical study for assessment of incision characteristics and pain associated with LESS versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 27:1009–1015CrossRefPubMed
25.
Asakuma M, Hayashi M, Komeda K, Shimizu T, Hirokawa F, Miyamoto Y, Okuda J, Tanigawa N (2011) Impact of single-port cholecystectomy on postoperative pain. Br J Surg 98:991–995CrossRefPubMed
26.
Tsimoyiannis EC, Tsimogiannis KE, Pappas-Gogos G, Farantos C, Benetatos N, Mavridou P, Manataki A (2010) Different pain scores in single transumbilical incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 24:1842–1848CrossRefPubMed
27.
Wong JS, Cheung YS, Fong KW, Chong CC, Lee KF, Wong J, Lai PB (2012) Comparison of postoperative pain between single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective case-control study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 22:25–28CrossRefPubMed
28.
Phillips MS, Marks JM, Roberts K, Tacchino R, Onders R, DeNoto G, Rivas H, Islam A, Soper N, Gecelter G, Rubach E, Paraskeva P, Shah S (2012) Intermediate results of a prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 26:1296–1303CrossRefPubMed
29.
Breivik H, Borchgrevink PC, Allen SM, Rosseland LA, Romundstad L, Hals EK, Kvarstein G, Stubhaug A (2008) Assessment of pain. Br J Anaesth 101:17–24CrossRefPubMed
30.
Pisanu A, Reccia I, Porceddu G, Uccheddu A (2012) Meta-analysis of prospective randomized studies comparing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CMLC). J Gastrointest Surg 16:1790–1801CrossRefPubMed
31.
Agaba EA, Rainville H, Ikedilo O, Vemulapali P (2014) Incidence of port-site incisional hernia after single-incision laparoscopic surgery. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 18:204–210CrossRef
32.
Alptekin H, Yilmaz H, Acar F, Kafali ME, Sahin M (2012) Incisional hernia rate may increase after single-port cholecystectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 22:731–737CrossRefPubMed
33.
Bunting DM (2010) Port-site hernia following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 14:490–497CrossRef
34.
Marks JM, Phillips MS, Tacchino R, Roberts K, Onders R, DeNoto G, Gecelter G, Rubach E, Rivas H, Islam A, Soper N, Paraskeva P, Rosemurgy A, Ross S, Shah S (2013) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with improved cosmesis scoring at the cost of significantly higher hernia rates: 1-year results of a prospective randomized, multicenter, single-blinded trial of traditional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 216:1037–1047 (discussion 1047–1038) CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A Comparative Study of Outcomes Between Single-Site Robotic and Multi-port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: An Experience from a Tertiary Care Center
Authors
Banujan Balachandran
Theadore A. Hufford
Taha Mustafa
Kunal Kochar
Suela Sulo
Joubin Khorsand
Publication date
01-05-2017
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
World Journal of Surgery / Issue 5/2017
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-016-3799-0

Other articles of this Issue 5/2017

World Journal of Surgery 5/2017 Go to the issue

Original Scientific Report

Patient-Reported Outcomes for Acute Gallstone Pathology

Original Scientific Report

Multi-disciplinary Concurrent Management of Recurrent Hepatocellular Therapy is Superior to Sequential Therapy

Letter to the Editor

Ultrasound-Guided Placement of Central Venous Port Systems via the Right Internal Jugular Vein: Are Chest X-ray and/or Fluoroscopy Needed to Confirm the Correct Placement of the Device

Original Scientific Report

The Effects of Intravenous Lidocaine Infusions on the Quality of Recovery and Chronic Pain After Robotic Thyroidectomy: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Controlled Study

Original Scientific Report

Laparoscopic Appendectomy: Risk Factors for Postoperative Intraabdominal Abscess

Original Scientific Report

Beyond a Moral Obligation: A Legal Framework for Emergency and Essential Surgical Care and Anesthesia