2001
DOI: 10.1007/s004640000302
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Three-port microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy in 159 patients

Abstract: 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.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
35
0
1

Year Published

2002
2002
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
2
35
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…An optimal cosmetic aspect of the abdominal incisions and reduced postoperative pain should be considered as an important goal of minimal invasive surgery. Matsuda et al [15] reported a shorter convalescence and reduced postoperative pain using smaller ports compared to larger ports ( ‡10 mm), and it has been shown that ports could safely be reduced in size without a negative impact on the surgeon's ability to perform the operation [14,19,34]. Reducing port size offers a much better cosmetic effect, especially in young women undergoing laparoscopy for benign conditions [33].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…An optimal cosmetic aspect of the abdominal incisions and reduced postoperative pain should be considered as an important goal of minimal invasive surgery. Matsuda et al [15] reported a shorter convalescence and reduced postoperative pain using smaller ports compared to larger ports ( ‡10 mm), and it has been shown that ports could safely be reduced in size without a negative impact on the surgeon's ability to perform the operation [14,19,34]. Reducing port size offers a much better cosmetic effect, especially in young women undergoing laparoscopy for benign conditions [33].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…It has been demonstrated that by using smaller rather than larger ports ( ‡10 mm), both convalescence and postoperative pain are reduced without a negative impact on the surgeon's ability to perform the operation [10,13,20]. Furthermore, Legget et al [11] reported that not only reducing the size but also decreasing the number of ports diminishes the incisional pain after laparoscopic colecistectomy.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A fine example is the conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy with the use of four laparoscopic ports. From thence, literature has been published regarding use of three or even two ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy with the intention of further reducing the amount of scar as well as tissue damage associated with port insertion [17,18]. From here, laparoscopic surgery has further evolved when used in combination with NOSE or NOTES to further reduce surgical scars to an almost scarless surgery as was described in this chapter earlier.…”
Section: Sils Experiencementioning
confidence: 99%