Single-incision versus 3-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in symptomatic gallstones: A prospective randomized study

Omar, Mohammed A.; Redwan, Alaa A.; Mahmoud, Ahmed Gaber

doi:10.1016/j.surg.2017.01.006

Cited by 42 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Apart from NOTEC, many randomized clinical trials have provided sufficient evidence that SILC and NSC are safe procedures, equal to CLC in clinical results. SILC and NSC have been found to be superior to CLC in postoperative wound pain and cosmetic satisfaction [2-4, 6, 11]. However, since no studies have yet compared SILC and NSC, the present clinical study was designed to compare the intensity of incisional pain and cosmetic outcome and to evaluate the difficulty of SILC and NSC as surgical procedures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The SILC procedure is not a naturally ergonomic technique because the traditional laparoscopic principle of triangulation is lost [2, 4]. Because the operating instruments used in laparoscopy are introduced through the same incision on the same axis, the space is too limited for the surgeon and assistant to work in coordination; therefore, SILC requires a longer operative time than CLC due to coaxial coordination and conflicts between the laparoscope and the instrument shafts [2, 6, 11].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have suggested that patients with obesity (BMI >24–35 kg/m 2 ) or with acute cholecystitis are at risk for intraoperative conversion during SILC [4, 27-29]. Problems with rigidity, grasping power, pitch of dissection, and energy device variations of needlescopic instruments have been reported [16, 30].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some prospective clinical trials have compared CLC to SILC or NSC to prove the feasibility and safety of those 2 techniques [2-4, 6], but no papers have presented prospective studies comparing SILC and NSC. Therefore, we conducted this prospective, randomized clinical trial to compare SILC and NSC by evaluating the surgical outcome for surgeons as well as the postoperative pain and cosmetic outcome for patients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy versus Needlescopic Cholecystectomy: A Single Institutional Randomized Clinical Trial

Umemura

Sakai²,

Nakamura³

et al. 2018

Dig Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Both single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and needlescopic cholecystectomy (NSC) are superior to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in terms of cosmetic outcome and incisional pain. We conducted a prospective, randomized clinical trial to evaluate the surgical outcome, postoperative pain, and cosmetic outcome for SILC and NSC procedures. Methods: In this trial, 105 patients were enrolled (52 in the SILC group; 53 in the NSC group). A visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the cosmetic outcome and incisional pain for patients. Logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the operative difficulty that was present for both procedures. Results: There were no significant differences in patient characteristics or surgical outcomes, including operative time and blood loss. The mean VAS scores for cosmetic satisfaction were similar in both groups. There were significant differences in the mean VAS scores for incisional pain on postoperative day 1 (p = 0.009), and analgesics were required within 12 h of surgery (p = 0.007). Obesity (body mass index ≥25 kg/m²) was the only significant influential factor for operating time over 100 min (p = 0.031). Conclusion: NSC is superior to SILC in terms of short-term incisional pain. Experienced laparoscopic surgeons can perform both SILC and NSC without an increase in operative time.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy versus Needlescopic Cholecystectomy: A Single Institutional Randomized Clinical Trial

Umemura

Sakai²,

Nakamura³

et al. 2018

Dig Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because the single-port laparoscopic technique uses a single access point, it is expected to have advantage over conventional laparoscopic techniques in terms of postoperative complications, wound cosmesis, and morbidity [5][6][7]. To date, multiple studies have shown that the single-port laparoscopic technique is safe and feasible and comparable to the conventional technique [8][9][10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety and Efficacy of Single-Port Laparoscopic Ileostomy in Palliative Settings

Kang

Cho²,

et al. 2020

Ann Coloproctol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Original ArticleAnn Coloproctol 2020;36(1):17-21 https://doi.org/10. 3393/ac.2019.04.25 Purpose: Single-port laparoscopic techniques can be optimized with confined incisions. This approach has an intraoperative advantage of excellent visualization of the correct intestinal segment for exteriorization, along with direct visual control of the extraction to avoid twisting. However, only a few studies have verified the efficacy of the technique. Thus, this study assessed the results of single-port laparoscopic stoma creation for fecal diversion, specifically focusing on feasibility, safety, and efficacy. Methods: Patients who underwent single-incision enterostomy performed by a single surgeon were included. Data on demographics, indications for and chosen procedure, and operation results were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Results: Between April 2015 and January 2018, a total of 13 patients (8 males, 5 females) with a mean age of 57.7 years (range, 41-83 years) underwent single-port ileostomy creation. The most common reason for diversion was palliative ileostomy for colon obstruction or fistula from peritoneal malignancy (n = 12), followed by colonic fistula with necrotizing pancreatitis (n = 1). There were no cases of conversion to open or multiport laparoscopic surgery. The mean operative time was 54 minutes (range, 37-118 minutes), and the median length of hospital stay was 8 days (range, 2-211 days). A postoperative complication, aspiration pneumonia, was documented in 1 patient and treated conservatively. The mean duration of bowel movement was 0.7 days (range, 0-4 days). All stomas had good function, and there was no 30-day mortality. Conclusion: Single-port laparoscopic ileostomy in patients with a palliative setting could be a safe and feasible option for fecal diversion.

show abstract

IRCAD recommendation on safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Conrad¹,

Wakabayashi²,

Asbun³

et al. 2017

J Hepato Biliary Pancreat

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An expert recommendation conference was conducted to identify factors associated with adverse events during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with the goal of deriving expert recommendations for the reduction of biliary and vascular injury. Nineteen hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgeons from high-volume surgery centers in six countries comprised the Research Institute Against Cancer of the Digestive System (IRCAD) Recommendations Group. Systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase was conducted. Using nominal group technique, structured group meetings were held to identify key items for safer LC. Consensus was achieved when 80% of respondents ranked an item as 1 or 2 (Likert scale 1-4). Seventy-one IRCAD HPB course participants assessed the expert recommendations which were compared to responses of 37 general surgery course participants. The IRCAD recommendations were structured in seven statements. The key topics included exposure of the operative field, appropriate use of energy device and establishment of the critical view of safety (CVS), systematic preoperative imaging, cholangiogram and alternative techniques, role of partial and dome-down (fundus-first) cholecystectomy. Highest consensus was achieved on the importance of the CVS as well as dome-down technique and partial cholecystectomy as alternative techniques. The put forward IRCAD recommendations may help to promote safe surgical practice of LC and initiate specific training to avoid adverse events.

show abstract

Single-incision versus 3-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in symptomatic gallstones: A prospective randomized study

Cited by 42 publications

References 33 publications

Comparison of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy versus Needlescopic Cholecystectomy: A Single Institutional Randomized Clinical Trial

Comparison of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy versus Needlescopic Cholecystectomy: A Single Institutional Randomized Clinical Trial

Safety and Efficacy of Single-Port Laparoscopic Ileostomy in Palliative Settings

IRCAD recommendation on safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About