4.0 Article

Evolution of the Konyang Standard Method for single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the result from a thousand case of a single center experience

Journal

ANNALS OF SURGICAL TREATMENT AND RESEARCH
Volume 95, Issue 2, Pages 80-86

Publisher

KOREAN SURGICAL SOCIETY
DOI: 10.4174/astr.2018.95.2.80

Keywords

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy; Single-incision; Laparoscopy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is increasingly performed worldwide. Accordingly, the Konyang Standard Method (KSM) for SILC has been developed over the past 6 years. We report the outcomes of our procedures. Methods: Between April 2010 and December 2016, 1,005 patients underwent SILC at Konyang University Hospital. Initially 3-channel SILC with KSM was changed to 4-channel SILC using a modified technique with a snake retractor for exposure of Calot triangle; we called this a modified KSM (mKSM). Recently, we have used a commercial 4-channel (Glove) port for simplicity. Results: SILC was performed in 323 patients with the KSM, in 645 with the mKSM, and in 37 with the commercial 4-channel port. Age was not significantly different between the 3 groups (P = 0.942). The postoperative hospital days (P = 0.051), operative time (P < 0.001) and intraoperative bleeding volume (P < 0.001) were significantly improved in the 3 groups. Drain insertion (P = 0.214), additional port insertion (P = 0.639), and postoperative complications (P = 0.608) were not significantly different in all groups. Postoperative complications were evaluated with the Clavien-Dindo classification. There were 3 cases (0.9%) over grade IIIb (bile duct injury, incisional hernia, duodenal perforation, or small bowel injury) with KSM and 3 (0.5%) with mKSM. Conclusion: We evaluated the evolution of the KSM for SILC. The use of the mKSM with a commercial 4-channel port may be the safest and most effective method for SILC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available