Micropuncture cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy - A randomized controlled trial

Background: The aim of this study was to compare micropuncture laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MPLC), with three 3.3-mm carmulas and one 10-mm carmula with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). Methods: Patients were randomized to undergo either CLC or MPLC. The duration of each operative stage and the procedure were recorded. Interleukin-6 (IL-6), adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), and vasopressin were sampled for 24 h. Visual analogue pain scores (VAPS) and analgesic consumption were recorded for 1 week. Pulmonary function and quality of life (EQ-5D) were monitored for 4 weeks. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney test or Fisher's exact test. Results are expressed as median (interquartile range). Results: Forty-four patients entered the study, but four were excluded due to unsuspected choledocholithiasis (n = 3) or the need to reschedule surgery (n - 1). The groups were comparable in terms of age, duration of symptoms, and indications for surgery. Total operative time was similar (CLC, 63 [52-81] min vs MPLC 74 [58-95] min; p = 0.126). However, time to place the cannulas after skin incision (CLC, 5:42 [3:45-6:37] min vs MPLC, 7:38 [5:57-10:15] min; p = 0.015) and to clip the cystic duct after cholanglography (CLC, 1:05 [0:401:35] min vs MPLC, 3:45 [2:26-7:49] min; p < 0.001) were significantly longer for MPLC. Six CLC patients and one MPLC patient required postoperative parenteral opiates (p = 0.04). Oral analgesic consumption was similar in both groups (p = 0.217). Median VAPS were lower at all time points for MPLC, but this finding was not significant (p = 0.431). There were no significant differences in postoperative stay, IL-6, ACTH or vasopressin responses, pulmonary function, or EQ-5D scores. Conclusions: The thinner instruments did not significantly increase the total duration of the procedure. MPLC reduced the use of parenteral analgesia postoperatively, which may prove beneficial for day case patients, but it did not have a significant impact on laboratory variables, lung function or quality of life.