Intermediate results of a prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Phillips, Melissa S.; Marks, Jeffrey M.; Roberts, Kurt E.; Tacchino, Roberto M.; Onders, Raymond P.; DeNoto, George; Rivas, Homero; Islam, Arsalla; Soper, Nathaniel J.; Gecelter, Gary; Rubach, Eugene; Paraskeva, Paraskevas; Shah, Sajani

doi:10.1007/s00464-011-2028-z

Cited by 154 publications

(185 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

172

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Table 2) was described also in a preliminary report. 34 Both papers were used to extract methodological particulars, but only the complete report (Marks 2013) was used for outcome extraction. RCTs, randomized controlled trials *Abstract form, number of subjects not declared.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single incision versus standard multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Up-dated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Milas¹,

Deveđija²,

Trkulja³

2014

The Surgeon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single incision versus standard multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Up-dated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Milas¹,

Deveđija²,

Trkulja³

2014

The Surgeon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…SILC utilizes three ports through a single skin incision at the umbilicus and is considered to be cosmetically superior in some studies [12][13][14]. However, most of the studies have been conducted in the urban population who are more conscious and demanding as far as cosmetic outcomes are concerned than the rural population whose expectations are comparatively modest.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Cosmetic Outcome Between Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy and Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Rural Indian Population: A Randomized Clinical Trial

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Persistent efforts are being made to reduce operative trauma and morbidity and to improve cosmesis following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The trend is to reduce the number of incisions, and thus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and natural orifice endoscopic surgery (NOTES) are becoming popular. There is a paucity of studies pertaining to cosmetic outcome after SILC and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in rural Indian population. In the present study, the cosmetic outcome of SILC versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) in rural Indian population was evaluated. Sixty patients with gallstone disease were randomly assigned to two groups. In group A (n=30), CLC was performed, while group B (n=30) was subjected to SILC. The cosmetic outcome was evaluated using a body image questionnaire on the 7th and 30th postoperative days. On the 7th postoperative day, the body image score for SILC was 6.23±0.89 and for CLC, 8.26±1.08 (p<0.0001), while the cosmetic score for SILC was 19.56±1.07 and for CLC, 15±1.20 (p<0.0001). On the 30th postoperative day, the body image score for SILC was 5.50±0.68 and for CLC, 8±1.31 (p<0.0001), while the cosmetic score for SILC was 21.13±0.57 and for CLC, 15.63±1.06 (p<0.0001), which favored SILC over CLC. The patient perception and acceptance of SILC was better than that of CLC in terms of cosmetic outcome.

show abstract

“…Few studies and meta-analysis had shown similar results as our study, and some studies had shown similar operative time in SILC. 12,14,16 Postoperative complications and mean hospital stay were similar in both groups. There was no incidence of bile duct injury and port-site hernia in both groups.…”

mentioning

confidence: 77%

Comparative Study of Single-incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy with Four-port Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Single-center Experience

Goel¹,

Chaubey²,

Gupta³

et al. 2016

WJOLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims and objective:To assess the feasibility of singleincision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) with conventional laparoscopic instruments and to compare it with four-port conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) regarding various intraoperative and postoperative factors. Materials and methods:This is a prospective randomized controlled study carried out at Santosh Medical College and Hospitals, Ghaziabad from March 2014 to September 2015. This study included 60 patients with cholelithiasis who were divided into two groups of 30 patients each. Group I was offered four-port conventional LC and group II underwent SILC. Results and observations:Cholelithiasis was commonly seen in young females. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy took more operating time than conventional LC due to more operative difficulty. Outcome of SILC was 79.6% (23 of 30). However, postoperative complications and pain (measured by visual analog scale scoring system) were almost the same in both groups. Cosmetic outcome was better in SILC group. Conclusion:Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy has no added advantage over conventional LC, but it can be performed in selected patients for better cosmetic results.

show abstract

Intermediate results of a prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Cited by 154 publications

References 18 publications

Single incision versus standard multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Up-dated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Single incision versus standard multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Up-dated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Comparison of Cosmetic Outcome Between Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy and Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Rural Indian Population: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Comparative Study of Single-incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy with Four-port Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Single-center Experience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About