Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A retrospective wound review of standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Is there need for single-port laparoscopic surgery?

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

This study was designed to assess the satisfaction or otherwise of a proportion of the U.K. population who have undergone standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy within the past 18 months. The results should indicate whether there is potential demand for a new, improved approach to surgery.

Methods

Patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy between October 2008 and October 2009 in two geographically separated general hospitals were identified from hospital databases. Notes were reviewed to confirm the technique and lack of conversion to an open procedure. Those who had immediate complications were excluded. A telephone questionnaire was conducted to answer questions related to long-term cosmetic and general satisfaction of the current procedure.

Results

Of the patients surveyed, 93% were happy or extremely happy with the current procedure, 48% experienced some wound-related issues (pain, infection), and 65% of those were at the umbilicus (a possible reflection of location and retrieval site for gallbladder). Cosmesis was rated less important than hospital cleanliness and experience of the surgeon.

Conclusions

Overall satisfaction was high with the existing technique. The high rate of umbilical wound problems is an issue that will not be eradicated by introduction of single-port laparoscopic surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hirano Y, Watanabe T et al (2010) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: single-institution experience and literature review. World J Gastroenterol 16(2):270–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. IPG346 Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: guidance. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/IPG346

  3. Rhodes M (2010) Commentary: critical appraisal of single-port access cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 97:1481

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Curicillio PG, Wu AS, Podolosky ER, Graybeal C, Katkhouda N, Saenz A et al (2010) Single-port access (SPA) cholecystectomy: a multi-institutional report of the first 297 cases. Surg Endosc 24:1854–1860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Rao PP, Bhagwat SM, Rane A, Rao PP (2008) The feasibility of single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a pilot study of 20 cases. HPB (Oxford) 10:336–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. McGregor C, Sodergren M et al (2010) Evaluating systemic stress response in single port vs. multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy [abstract 29]. Assoc Laparosc Surg

  7. Chula A, Romeo G, Genova G, Tomasello G, Agnello G, Cstronovo G (2006) Gallbladder carcinoma late metastases and incisional hernia at umbilical port site after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. G Chir 27(5):214–216

    Google Scholar 

  8. Froghi F, Sodergren MH, Darzi A, Paraskeva P (2010) Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) in general surgery: a review of current practice. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 20(4):191–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Keller D (2010) Patients prefer single-incision cholecystectomy to conventional laparoscopic approach. Presented at the American College of Surgeons 96th annual clinical congress

  10. Solomon D, Bell R, Duffy A, Roberts K (2010) Single-port cholecystectomy: small scar, short learning curve. Surg Endosc 24:2954–2957

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cameron J, Gadacz T (1991) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 213(1):1–2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

S.J.W. Monkhouse, E.L. Court, L.A. Beard, J. Bunni, and P. Burgess have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose. All authors contributed equally to this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Upper GI Surgery, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Gloucester, GL1 3NN, UK

    S. J. W. Monkhouse & L. A. Beard

  2. Department of Surgery, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK

    E. L. Court

  3. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Great Western Hospital, Swindon, SN3 6BB, UK

    J. Bunni & P. Burgess

Authors
  1. S. J. W. Monkhouse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. L. Court
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. A. Beard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Bunni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. Burgess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. J. W. Monkhouse.

Appendix: Telephone questionnaire

Appendix: Telephone questionnaire

figure a
figure b
figure c

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Monkhouse, S.J.W., Court, E.L., Beard, L.A. et al. A retrospective wound review of standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Is there need for single-port laparoscopic surgery?. Surg Endosc 26, 255–260 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1863-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1863-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation