Three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy is safe and efficient in the treatment of surgical biliary disease: a retrospective cohort study

被引:0
|
作者
Wiseman, James E. [1 ]
Hsu, Chiu-Hsieh [2 ]
Oviedo, Rodolfo J. [3 ]
机构
[1] Johns Hopkins Univ, Dept Surg, 600 N Wolfe St Blalock 655, Baltimore, MD 21287 USA
[2] Univ Arizona, Mel & Enid Zuckerman Coll Publ Hlth, 1295 N Martin,Drachman Hall A232, Tucson, AZ 85724 USA
[3] Houston Methodist Hosp, Dept Surg, 6550 Fannin St Suite 1501, Houston, TX 77030 USA
关键词
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy; Surgical education; Minimal ports; BILE-DUCT INJURY;
D O I
10.1007/s11701-022-01410-z
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Multiple studies have suggested that three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy is both feasible and safe. However, this approach has failed to gain acceptance outside of clinical trials, leaving adopters of this approach vulnerable to medico-legal scrutiny. We hypothesized that the three-port approach to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is safe and efficient in experienced hands. All LC (including robotic) cases were performed on patients 18 years and older between November 2018 and March 2020. Operations utilizing three ports were compared to those performed using more than three ports. The primary outcomes measured were total operative time, conversion-to-open rate, and the complication rate. A two-sample test was performed to compare operative times, and a Fisher's exact test was used to compare conversion-to-open and complication rates. Linear regression models were used to account for the effect of confounders. 924 total LCs were performed by 30 surgeons in the study period (71 three-port, 853 four or more ports). The mean operative time was 10 min shorter in the three-port group in comparison (64.1 +/- 1.4 min vs. 74.4 +/- 1.8 min, p < 0.01), despite a threefold higher rate of intraoperative cholangiogram in these cases (23.0% vs. 7.9%, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in either the conversion-to-open rate (1.6% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.35), or the overall complication rate (7.1% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.82). Operative time for LC performed through three ports was significantly less than those performed through the traditional four port approach, despite utilizing intraoperative cholangiogram nearly three times as often. There was no difference in the conversion-to open rate or complication rate. These results provide considerable evidence that three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy is comparable to four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in operative duration, conversion-to-open rate, and complication rate.
引用
收藏
页码:147 / 154
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy is safe and efficient in the treatment of surgical biliary disease: a retrospective cohort study
    James E. Wiseman
    Chiu-Hsieh Hsu
    Rodolfo J. Oviedo
    Journal of Robotic Surgery, 2023, 17 : 147 - 154
  • [2] Laparoscopic, three-port and SILS cholecystectomy: a retrospective study
    Agrusa, A.
    Romano, G.
    Cucinella, G.
    Cocorullo, G.
    Bonventre, S.
    Salamone, G.
    Di Buono, G.
    De Vita, G.
    Frazzetta, G.
    Chianetta, D.
    Sorce, V.
    Bellanca, G.
    Gulotta, G.
    GIORNALE DI CHIRURGIA, 2013, 34 (9-10): : 249 - 253
  • [3] Three-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy as a Safe and Feasible Alternative to the Conventional Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
    Chatterjee, Abhik
    Kumar, Ranjan
    Chattoraj, Ashok
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2024, 16 (01)
  • [4] Retrospective Study of Three-Port versus Standard Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Single Surgical Unit Experience of 1456 Patients
    Srivastava, Vivek
    Ansari, Mumtaz Ahmad
    Shukla, Vijay Kumar
    Basu, Somprakas
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH, 2020, 14 (07) : PC01 - PC03
  • [5] Safety and effectiveness of three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy
    Mayir, Burhan
    Dogan, Ugur
    Koc, Umit
    Aslaner, Arif
    Bilecik, Tuna
    Ensari, Cemal Ozben
    Cakir, Tugrul
    Oruc, Mehmet Tahir
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2014, 7 (08): : 2339 - 2342
  • [6] A comparative study of two-port versus three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy
    Hajong, Ranendra
    Khariong, Peter D. S.
    JOURNAL OF MINIMAL ACCESS SURGERY, 2016, 12 (04) : 311 - 314
  • [7] Three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy
    Cerci, Celal
    Tarhan, Omer Ridvan
    Barut, Ibrahim
    Bulbul, Mahmut
    HEPATO-GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2007, 54 (73) : 15 - 16
  • [8] Is the fourth port routinely required for laparoscopic cholecystectomy? Our three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy experience
    Ciftci, A.
    Yazicioglu, M. B.
    Tiryaki, C.
    Turgut, H. T.
    Subasi, O.
    Ilgoz, M.
    Civil, O.
    Yildiz, S. Y.
    IRISH JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2016, 185 (04) : 909 - 912
  • [9] Is the fourth port routinely required for laparoscopic cholecystectomy? Our three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy experience
    A. Ciftci
    M. B. Yazicioglu
    C. Tiryaki
    H. T. Turgut
    O. Subasi
    M. Ilgoz
    O. Civil
    S. Y. Yildiz
    Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -), 2016, 185 : 909 - 912
  • [10] Laparoendoscopic single-site cholecystectomy vs three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A large-scale retrospective study
    Yuan Cheng
    Ze-Sheng Jiang
    Xiao-Ping Xu
    Zhi Zhang
    Ting-Cheng Xu
    Chen-Jie Zhou
    Jia-Sheng Qin
    Guo-lin He
    Yi Gao
    Ming-Xin Pan
    World Journal of Gastroenterology, 2013, (26) : 4209 - 4213