期刊文献+

Single-incision vs three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy:Prospective randomized study 被引量:27

Single-incision vs three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy:Prospective randomized study
下载PDF
导出
摘要 AIM:To compare the clinical outcome of single-inci-sion laparoscopic cholecystectomy(SILC)with threeport laparoscopic cholecystectomy(TPLC). METHODS:Between 2009 and 2011,one hundred and two patients with symptomatic benign gallbladder diseases were randomized to SILC(n=49)or TPLC (n=53).The primary end point was post operative pain score(at 6 h and 7 d).Secondary end points were blood loss,operation duration,overall complications,postoperative analgesic requirements,length of hospital stay,cosmetic result and total cost.Surgical techniques were standardized and all operations were performed by one experienced surgeon,who had performed more than 500 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. RESULTS:One patient in the SILC group required conversion to two-port LC.There were no open conversions or major complications in either treatment groups.There were no differences in terms of esti-mated blood loss(mean±SD,14±6.0 mL vs 15±4.0 mL),operation duration(mean±SD,41.8±17.0 min vs 38.5±22.0 min),port-site complications(contusion at incision:5 cases vs 4 cases and hematoma at inci- sion:2 cases vs 1 case),total cost(mean±SD,12 075 ±1047 RMB vs 11 982±1153 RMB)and hospital stay (mean±SD,1.0±0.5 d vs 1.0±0.2 d),respectively. TPLC had a significantly worse visual analogue pain score at 8 h after surgery(mean±SD,3.5±1.6 vs 2.0 ±1.5),however,the scores were similar on day 7(mean ±SD,2.5±1.4 vs 2.0±1.3).Cosmetic satisfaction, as determined by a survey at 2 mo follow-up favored SILC(mean±SD,8±0.4 vs 6±0.2). CONCLUSION:SILC is a safe and feasible approach in selected patients.The main advantages are a better cosmetic result and less pain. AIM: To compare the clinical outcome of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) with three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TPLC). METHODS: Between 2009 and 2011, one hundred and two patients with symptomatic benign gallbladder diseases were randomized to SILC (n = 49) or TPLC (n = 53). The primary end point was post operative pain score (at 6 h and 7 d). Secondary end points were blood loss, operation duration, overall complications, postoperative analgesic requirements, length of hospital stay, cosmetic result and total cost. Surgical techniques were standardized and all operations were performed by one experienced surgeon, who had performed more than 500 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. RESULTS: One patient in the SILC group required conversion to two-port LC. There were no open conversions or major complications in either treatment groups. There were no differences in terms of estimated blood loss (mean ± SD, 14 ± 6.0 mL vs 15 ± 4.0 mL), operation duration (mean ± SD, 41.8 ± 17.0 min vs 38.5 ± 22.0 min), port-site complications (contusion at incision: 5 cases vs 4 cases and hematoma at incision: 2 cases vs 1 case), total cost (mean ± SD, 12?075 ± 1047 RMB vs 11?982 ± 1153 RMB) and hospital stay (mean ± SD, 1.0 ± 0.5 d vs 1.0 ± 0.2 d) , respectively. TPLC had a significantly worse visual analogue pain score at 8 h after surgery (mean ± SD, 3.5 ± 1.6 vs 2.0 ± 1.5), however, the scores were similar on day 7 (mean ± SD, 2.5 ± 1.4 vs 2.0 ± 1.3). Cosmetic satisfaction, as determined by a survey at 2 mo follow-up favored SILC (mean ± SD, 8 ± 0.4 vs 6 ± 0.2). CONCLUSION: SILC is a safe and feasible approach in selected patients. The main advantages are a better cosmetic result and less pain.
出处 《World Journal of Gastroenterology》 SCIE CAS 2013年第3期394-398,共5页 世界胃肠病学杂志(英文版)
关键词 CHOLECYSTECTOMY LAPAROSCOPIC Singleincision RANDOMIZED LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY Cholecystectomy Laparoscopic Single-incision Randomized Laparoscopic cholecystectomy
  • 相关文献

参考文献15

  • 1Yasumitsu Hirano,Toru Watanabe,Tsuneyuki Uchida,Shuhei Yoshida,Kanae Tawaraya,Hideaki Kato,Osamu Hosokawa.Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy:Single institution experience and literature review[J].World Journal of Gastroenterology,2010,16(2):270-274. 被引量:24
  • 2Daniel Solomon,Robert L. Bell,Andrew J. Duffy,Kurt E. Roberts.Single-port cholecystectomy: small scar, short learning curve[J].Surgical Endoscopy.2010(12)
  • 3Chris Edwards,Alan Bradshaw,Paul Ahearne,Pierre Dematos,Ted Humble,Randy Johnson,David Mauterer,Peeter Soosaar.Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is feasible: initial experience with 80 cases[J].Surgical Endoscopy.2010(9)
  • 4Homero Rivas,Esteban Varela,Daniel Scott.Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: initial evaluation of a large series of patients[J].Surgical Endoscopy.2010(6)
  • 5S. Trichak.Three-port vs standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy[J].Surgical Endoscopy.2003(9)
  • 6Sy Hu,F Li,QV Yang,WB Yu,Gy Zhang.Transumbilical single port Laparoscopic cholecystectomy with a simple technique: initial experience of 33 cases[].Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol.2010
  • 7Jacob DA,,Raakow R.Single-port transumbilical endoscopic chole-cystectomy:a new standard[].Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift.2010
  • 8Emami CN,Garrett D,Anselmo D,et al.Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy in children:a feasible alternative to thestandard laparoscopic approach[].Journal of Pediatric Surgery.2011
  • 9Elsey JK,Feliciano DV.Initial experience with single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy[].Journal of the American College of Surgeons.2010
  • 10P Allemann,M Schafer,N Demartines.Critical appraisal of single port access cholecystectomy[].British Journal of Surgery.2010

共引文献23

同被引文献185

引证文献27

二级引证文献233

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部