Prospective Observational Study of Single-Site Multiport Per-umbilical Laparoscopic Endosurgery versus Conventional Multiport Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Critical Appraisal of a Unique Umbilical Approach.

IF 1.3 Q3 SURGERY Minimally Invasive Surgery Pub Date : 2014-01-01 Epub Date: 2014-04-30 DOI:10.1155/2014/909321
Priyadarshan Anand Jategaonkar, Sudeep Pradeep Yadav
{"title":"Prospective Observational Study of Single-Site Multiport Per-umbilical Laparoscopic Endosurgery versus Conventional Multiport Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Critical Appraisal of a Unique Umbilical Approach.","authors":"Priyadarshan Anand Jategaonkar,&nbsp;Sudeep Pradeep Yadav","doi":"10.1155/2014/909321","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Purpose. This prospective observational study compares an innovative approach of Single-Site Multi-Port Per-umbilical Laparoscopic Endo-surgery (SSMPPLE) cholecystectomy with the gold standard-Conventional Multi-port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (CMLC)-to assess the feasibility and efficacy of the former. Methods. In all, 646 patients were studied. SSMPPLE cholecystectomy utilized three ports inserted through three independent mini-incisions at the umbilicus. Only the day-to-day rigid laparoscopic instruments were used in all cases. The SSMPPLE cholecystectomy group had 320 patients and the CMLC group had 326 patients. The outcomes were statistically compared. Results. SSMPPLE cholecystectomy had average operative time of 43.8 min and blood loss of 9.4 mL. Their duration of hospitalization was 1.3 days (range, 1-5). Six patients (1.9%) of this group were converted to CMLC. Eleven patients had controlled gallbladder perforations at dissection. The Visual Analogue Scores for pain on postoperative days 0 and 7, the operative time, and the scar grades were significantly better for SSMPPLE than CMLC. However, umbilical sepsis and seroma outcomes were similar. We had no bile-duct injuries or port-site hernias in this study. Conclusion. SSMPPLE cholecystectomy approach complies with the principles of laparoscopic triangulation; it seems feasible and safe method of minimally invasive cholecystectomy. Overall, it has a potential to emerge as an economically viable alternative to single-port surgery. </p>","PeriodicalId":45110,"journal":{"name":"Minimally Invasive Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2014/909321","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minimally Invasive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/909321","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2014/4/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Purpose. This prospective observational study compares an innovative approach of Single-Site Multi-Port Per-umbilical Laparoscopic Endo-surgery (SSMPPLE) cholecystectomy with the gold standard-Conventional Multi-port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (CMLC)-to assess the feasibility and efficacy of the former. Methods. In all, 646 patients were studied. SSMPPLE cholecystectomy utilized three ports inserted through three independent mini-incisions at the umbilicus. Only the day-to-day rigid laparoscopic instruments were used in all cases. The SSMPPLE cholecystectomy group had 320 patients and the CMLC group had 326 patients. The outcomes were statistically compared. Results. SSMPPLE cholecystectomy had average operative time of 43.8 min and blood loss of 9.4 mL. Their duration of hospitalization was 1.3 days (range, 1-5). Six patients (1.9%) of this group were converted to CMLC. Eleven patients had controlled gallbladder perforations at dissection. The Visual Analogue Scores for pain on postoperative days 0 and 7, the operative time, and the scar grades were significantly better for SSMPPLE than CMLC. However, umbilical sepsis and seroma outcomes were similar. We had no bile-duct injuries or port-site hernias in this study. Conclusion. SSMPPLE cholecystectomy approach complies with the principles of laparoscopic triangulation; it seems feasible and safe method of minimally invasive cholecystectomy. Overall, it has a potential to emerge as an economically viable alternative to single-port surgery.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
单位点多口经脐腹腔镜内手术与传统多口腹腔镜胆囊切除术的前瞻性观察研究:对一种独特的脐入路的关键评价。
目的。本前瞻性观察性研究比较了一种创新的单位点多口经脐腹腔镜内镜手术(SSMPPLE)胆囊切除术与金标准-传统多口腹腔镜胆囊切除术(CMLC),以评估前者的可行性和疗效。方法。总共研究了646名患者。SSMPPLE胆囊切除术利用三个端口插入三个独立的小切口在脐部。所有病例仅使用日常刚性腹腔镜器械。ssmple胆囊切除术组320例,CMLC组326例。结果进行统计学比较。结果。ssmple胆囊切除术平均手术时间43.8 min,出血量9.4 mL。住院时间1.3天(范围1-5天)。本组6例(1.9%)转为CMLC。11例患者在剥离时胆囊穿孔得到控制。术后第0天和第7天疼痛的视觉模拟评分、手术时间和疤痕等级ssmple明显优于CMLC。然而,脐带败血症和血肿的结果是相似的。在本研究中,我们没有胆管损伤或肝端疝。结论。ssmple胆囊切除术入路符合腹腔镜三角剖分原则;这是一种可行、安全的微创胆囊切除术方法。总的来说,它有可能成为一种经济可行的替代单孔手术的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Initial Experience of Robot-Assisted Nephroureterectomy without Intraoperative Repositioning Using a New Robotic Surgical System (KD-SR-01TM). Systematic Review of Utilized Ports in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Pushing the Boundaries Comparison of Perioperative, Functional, and Oncological Outcomes of Transperitoneal and Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy. Laparoscopic vs. Robotic Gastrectomy in Patients with Situs Inversus Totalis: A Systematic Review. Clinical Factors to Predict Difficult Ureter during Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1