Reducing the number and size of ports in laparoscopic cholecystectomy sustains or enhances the improvements initiated by performing laparoscopic rather than open cholecystectomy. In a comparison of microlaparoscopic procedures, patients undergoing the procedure with the shorter incisions experienced significantly less pain.

This study did not demonstrate a reduction in postoperative pain or a consistent improvement in recovery when the port size was reduced at the subcostal and subxiphoid positions. It did, however, show that ports could safely be reduced in size without a negative impact on the surgeon's ability to perform a cholecystectomy. Reducing port size can be a tool in the surgeon's armamentarium for use in the attempt to optimize cosmetic results.

These data suggest that reperfusion of acutely ischaemic extremities produces structural and functional changes in the small intestine, although these changes are not associated with increased neutrophil infiltration within the bowel wall.

Both approaches resolved reflux symptoms without significant differences in complications, conversions, or length of stay. Preoperative differences between groups, as well as the method of sequentially comparing the two different procedures, prevent us from attributing greater postoperative dysphagia in the Rossetti group solely to the choice of surgical approach. Prospective randomized studies are needed to control for variables, such as surgical team experience and patient differences.

These data suggest that reperfusion of acutely ischaemic extremities produces structural and functional changes in the small intestine, although these changes are not associated with increased neutrophil infiltration within the bowel wall.