4.6 Article

Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed with mini-instruments

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 90, Issue 11, Pages 1345-1348

Publisher

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.4315

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The outcomes after traditional laparoscopic cholecystcetomy (LC; one 10-mm. port, one 12-mm port and two 5-mm ports) and minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC; three 3-mm ports and one 12-mm. port) for gallstone disease were compared. Methods: The study was a randomized, single-blind trial comparing LC with MLC. Only elective patients were eligible for inclusion. LC was a routine procedure at the institution in which the study was performed, whereas MLC was introduced after a short training period. The randomization period was from January to December 2001. Results: Of 175 patients who had elective minimal access cholecystectomy during the randomization period, 135 entered the trial: 68 underwent LC and 67 underwent MLC. The groups were matched for age, sex and preoperative characteristics. Median (range) operating times for LC and MLC were similar (45 (20-120) and 50 (20-170) min respectively). Intraoperative and postoperative complication rates, the time for the patient to resume walking, eating and passing stools, and median hospital stay were the same in the two groups. The level of postoperative pain was lower in the MLC group at 1 h (P = 0.011), 3 h (P = 0.012), 6 h (P = 0.003), 12 h (P = 0.052) and 24 h (P = 0.034). Patients who had MLC received fewer injections of analgesic (P = 0.036) and more patients in this group expressed satisfaction with the cosmetic result (P = 0.001). Conclusion: MLC took a similar time to perform and caused less postoperative pain than the standard laparoscopic procedure. Reducing the port size further enhanced the advantages of laparoscopic over open cholecystectomy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available