4.0 Article

Early results of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy in comparison with the conventional: Does it have any impact on quality of life?

Journal

ANNALS OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY
Volume 32, Issue -, Pages 1-5

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2018.06.002

Keywords

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy; Multi port; Single incision; Early results; Quality of life; Comparison

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the standard treatment for gallbladder diseases. In recent times, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy(SILC) has developed as a less invasive alternative technique to conventional laparoscopy. In the literature, many studies have compared SILC and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) procedures but a limited number of studies have compared the two techniques with regard to quality of life (QOL). The choice of surgical procedure was effected by QOL of the patients. The effects of SILC on QOL remain unclear. In this study, we aimed to compare the effects of conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) and single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) procedures on the clinical outcomes and quality of life of patients by short-term follow-up evaluation. Material and methods: In this study, 142 patients who underwent cholecystectomy operations with either technique underwent SILC and CLC were evaluated. The quality of life index in the patients was measured with short form 36 (SF 36) test. Results: The results of mean operative time, length of stay and complication rate for SILC and CLC were similar. The postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores were not significantly different between the SILC and CLC patients but only physical functioning score were higher in SILC patients. Conclusions: SILC is a safe and effective alternative to CLC. To detect the effects of SILC on HRQOL, we need long-term prospective comparative studies.

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