AIM: To investigate the safety and feasibility of needlescopic grasper-assisted single-incision laparoscopic common bile duct exploration(n SIL-CBDE) by comparing the surgical outcomes of this technique with those of ...AIM: To investigate the safety and feasibility of needlescopic grasper-assisted single-incision laparoscopic common bile duct exploration(n SIL-CBDE) by comparing the surgical outcomes of this technique with those of conventional laparoscopic CBDE(CL-CBDE).METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients who underwent CL-CBDE or n SILCBDE for the treatment of common bile duct(CBD) stones between January 2000 and December 2014. For performing n SIL-CBDE, a needlescopic grasper was also inserted through a direct puncture below the right subcostal line after introducing a single-port through the umbilicus. The needlescopic grasper helped obtain the critical view of safety by retracting the gallbladder laterally and by preventing crossing or conflict between laparoscopic instruments. The gallbladder was then partially dissected from the liver bed and used for retraction. CBD stones were usually extracted through a longitudinal supraduodenal choledochotomy, mostly using flushing a copious amount of normal saline througha ureteral catheter. Afterward, for the certification of CBD clearance, CBDE was performed mostly using a flexible choledochoscope. The choledochotomy site was primarily closed without using a T-tube, and simultaneous cholecystectomies were performed.RESULTS: During the study period, 40 patients underwent laparoscopic CBDE. Of these patients, 20 underwent CL-CBDE and 20 underwent n SIL-CBDE. The operative time for n SIL-CBDE was significantly longer than that for CL-CBDE(238 ± 76 min vs 192 ± 39 min, P = 0.007). The stone clearance rate was 100%(40/40) in both groups. Postoperatively, the n SIL-CBDE group required less intravenous analgesic(pethidine)(46.5 ± 63.5 mg/kg vs 92.5 ± 120.1 mg/kg, P = 0.010) and had a shorter hospital stay than the CL-CBDE group(3.8 ± 2.0 d vs 5.1 ± 1.7 d, P = 0.010). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups.CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that n SIL-CBDE could be safe and feasible while improving cosmetic outcomes when performed by surgeons trained in conventional laparoscopic techniques.展开更多
文摘AIM: To investigate the safety and feasibility of needlescopic grasper-assisted single-incision laparoscopic common bile duct exploration(n SIL-CBDE) by comparing the surgical outcomes of this technique with those of conventional laparoscopic CBDE(CL-CBDE).METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients who underwent CL-CBDE or n SILCBDE for the treatment of common bile duct(CBD) stones between January 2000 and December 2014. For performing n SIL-CBDE, a needlescopic grasper was also inserted through a direct puncture below the right subcostal line after introducing a single-port through the umbilicus. The needlescopic grasper helped obtain the critical view of safety by retracting the gallbladder laterally and by preventing crossing or conflict between laparoscopic instruments. The gallbladder was then partially dissected from the liver bed and used for retraction. CBD stones were usually extracted through a longitudinal supraduodenal choledochotomy, mostly using flushing a copious amount of normal saline througha ureteral catheter. Afterward, for the certification of CBD clearance, CBDE was performed mostly using a flexible choledochoscope. The choledochotomy site was primarily closed without using a T-tube, and simultaneous cholecystectomies were performed.RESULTS: During the study period, 40 patients underwent laparoscopic CBDE. Of these patients, 20 underwent CL-CBDE and 20 underwent n SIL-CBDE. The operative time for n SIL-CBDE was significantly longer than that for CL-CBDE(238 ± 76 min vs 192 ± 39 min, P = 0.007). The stone clearance rate was 100%(40/40) in both groups. Postoperatively, the n SIL-CBDE group required less intravenous analgesic(pethidine)(46.5 ± 63.5 mg/kg vs 92.5 ± 120.1 mg/kg, P = 0.010) and had a shorter hospital stay than the CL-CBDE group(3.8 ± 2.0 d vs 5.1 ± 1.7 d, P = 0.010). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups.CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that n SIL-CBDE could be safe and feasible while improving cosmetic outcomes when performed by surgeons trained in conventional laparoscopic techniques.
