Abstract

Introduction. The aim of this study was to compare the results of classic laparoscopic, three-port and SILS cholecystectomy.Materials and methods. We conducted a retrospective study of da- ta collected between January 2010 and December 2012 pertaining to 159 selected patients with symptomatic gallstones. 57 underwent lapa- roscopic cholecystectomy, 51 three-port cholecystectomy and 48 SILS cholecystectomy. We then compared the groups with respect to mean ope- rating time, intraoperative complications, postoperative pain, duration of hospitalization and final aesthetic result.IntroductionThe first laparoscopic cholecystectomy was carried out in 1987 in France by Philippe Mouret (1). The progressive evolution of the technique has led this procedure to be- come the gold standard in the treatment of symptoma- tic gallstones (2). As the technology improved, many sur- geons began to reduce the number and size of the ports with the aim of achieving ever lower invasiveness, con- sequently reducing trauma and postoperative pain and improving the cosmetic results. There was thus a pro-Results. The mean operating time was significantly higher in the SILS cholecystectomy group (93 minutes) than in the other two groups. There were no intraoperative complications. There were no significant differences in the duration of hospitalization among the three groups. Patients in the SILS cholecystectomy group reported significantly less pain 3, 6 and 12 hours after surgery. The aesthetic results at 1 and 6 months’ follow-up were also decidedly better.Conclusions. On the basis of this study, SILS cholecystectomy is a feasible, safe procedure. In any case, it should be used in selected patients only and carried out by a dedicated team with strong experience in laparoscopy. The main advantages of this technique are a reduction in post-operative pain and improved aesthetic result, at the price, howe- ver, of its greater technical difficulty and longer operating times. Future studies are in any case necessary to evaluate any other benefits of this method.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)249-253
Number of pages5
JournalIL GIORNALE DI CHIRURGIA
Volume34
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Cholecystectomy
Retrospective Studies
Esthetics
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Intraoperative Complications
Gallstones
Postoperative Pain
Hospitalization
Pain
Tics
Cosmetics
Laparoscopy
France
Technology
Wounds and Injuries

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery

Cite this

@article{3b85074b9980409fa9d7fc72fd65d102,
title = "Laparoscopic, three-port and SILS cholecystectomy: a retrospective study.",
abstract = "Introduction. The aim of this study was to compare the results of classic laparoscopic, three-port and SILS cholecystectomy.Materials and methods. We conducted a retrospective study of da- ta collected between January 2010 and December 2012 pertaining to 159 selected patients with symptomatic gallstones. 57 underwent lapa- roscopic cholecystectomy, 51 three-port cholecystectomy and 48 SILS cholecystectomy. We then compared the groups with respect to mean ope- rating time, intraoperative complications, postoperative pain, duration of hospitalization and final aesthetic result.IntroductionThe first laparoscopic cholecystectomy was carried out in 1987 in France by Philippe Mouret (1). The progressive evolution of the technique has led this procedure to be- come the gold standard in the treatment of symptoma- tic gallstones (2). As the technology improved, many sur- geons began to reduce the number and size of the ports with the aim of achieving ever lower invasiveness, con- sequently reducing trauma and postoperative pain and improving the cosmetic results. There was thus a pro-Results. The mean operating time was significantly higher in the SILS cholecystectomy group (93 minutes) than in the other two groups. There were no intraoperative complications. There were no significant differences in the duration of hospitalization among the three groups. Patients in the SILS cholecystectomy group reported significantly less pain 3, 6 and 12 hours after surgery. The aesthetic results at 1 and 6 months’ follow-up were also decidedly better.Conclusions. On the basis of this study, SILS cholecystectomy is a feasible, safe procedure. In any case, it should be used in selected patients only and carried out by a dedicated team with strong experience in laparoscopy. The main advantages of this technique are a reduction in post-operative pain and improved aesthetic result, at the price, howe- ver, of its greater technical difficulty and longer operating times. Future studies are in any case necessary to evaluate any other benefits of this method.",
author = "Giorgio Romano and Gaspare Cucinella and Gianfranco Cocorullo and {Di Buono}, Giuseppe and Sebastiano Bonventre and Antonino Agrusa and Giuseppe Salamone and Gaspare Gulotta and Daniela Chianetta and Vincenzo Sorce",
year = "2013",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "249--253",
journal = "Giornale di Chirurgia",
issn = "0391-9005",
publisher = "CIC Edizioni Internazionali s.r.l.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Laparoscopic, three-port and SILS cholecystectomy: a retrospective study.

AU - Romano, Giorgio

AU - Cucinella, Gaspare

AU - Cocorullo, Gianfranco

AU - Di Buono, Giuseppe

AU - Bonventre, Sebastiano

AU - Agrusa, Antonino

AU - Salamone, Giuseppe

AU - Gulotta, Gaspare

AU - Chianetta, Daniela

AU - Sorce, Vincenzo

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Introduction. The aim of this study was to compare the results of classic laparoscopic, three-port and SILS cholecystectomy.Materials and methods. We conducted a retrospective study of da- ta collected between January 2010 and December 2012 pertaining to 159 selected patients with symptomatic gallstones. 57 underwent lapa- roscopic cholecystectomy, 51 three-port cholecystectomy and 48 SILS cholecystectomy. We then compared the groups with respect to mean ope- rating time, intraoperative complications, postoperative pain, duration of hospitalization and final aesthetic result.IntroductionThe first laparoscopic cholecystectomy was carried out in 1987 in France by Philippe Mouret (1). The progressive evolution of the technique has led this procedure to be- come the gold standard in the treatment of symptoma- tic gallstones (2). As the technology improved, many sur- geons began to reduce the number and size of the ports with the aim of achieving ever lower invasiveness, con- sequently reducing trauma and postoperative pain and improving the cosmetic results. There was thus a pro-Results. The mean operating time was significantly higher in the SILS cholecystectomy group (93 minutes) than in the other two groups. There were no intraoperative complications. There were no significant differences in the duration of hospitalization among the three groups. Patients in the SILS cholecystectomy group reported significantly less pain 3, 6 and 12 hours after surgery. The aesthetic results at 1 and 6 months’ follow-up were also decidedly better.Conclusions. On the basis of this study, SILS cholecystectomy is a feasible, safe procedure. In any case, it should be used in selected patients only and carried out by a dedicated team with strong experience in laparoscopy. The main advantages of this technique are a reduction in post-operative pain and improved aesthetic result, at the price, howe- ver, of its greater technical difficulty and longer operating times. Future studies are in any case necessary to evaluate any other benefits of this method.

AB - Introduction. The aim of this study was to compare the results of classic laparoscopic, three-port and SILS cholecystectomy.Materials and methods. We conducted a retrospective study of da- ta collected between January 2010 and December 2012 pertaining to 159 selected patients with symptomatic gallstones. 57 underwent lapa- roscopic cholecystectomy, 51 three-port cholecystectomy and 48 SILS cholecystectomy. We then compared the groups with respect to mean ope- rating time, intraoperative complications, postoperative pain, duration of hospitalization and final aesthetic result.IntroductionThe first laparoscopic cholecystectomy was carried out in 1987 in France by Philippe Mouret (1). The progressive evolution of the technique has led this procedure to be- come the gold standard in the treatment of symptoma- tic gallstones (2). As the technology improved, many sur- geons began to reduce the number and size of the ports with the aim of achieving ever lower invasiveness, con- sequently reducing trauma and postoperative pain and improving the cosmetic results. There was thus a pro-Results. The mean operating time was significantly higher in the SILS cholecystectomy group (93 minutes) than in the other two groups. There were no intraoperative complications. There were no significant differences in the duration of hospitalization among the three groups. Patients in the SILS cholecystectomy group reported significantly less pain 3, 6 and 12 hours after surgery. The aesthetic results at 1 and 6 months’ follow-up were also decidedly better.Conclusions. On the basis of this study, SILS cholecystectomy is a feasible, safe procedure. In any case, it should be used in selected patients only and carried out by a dedicated team with strong experience in laparoscopy. The main advantages of this technique are a reduction in post-operative pain and improved aesthetic result, at the price, howe- ver, of its greater technical difficulty and longer operating times. Future studies are in any case necessary to evaluate any other benefits of this method.

UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10447/97430

M3 - Article

VL - 34

SP - 249

EP - 253

JO - Giornale di Chirurgia

JF - Giornale di Chirurgia

SN - 0391-9005

ER -