Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intermediate results of a prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Minimally invasive techniques have become an integral part of general surgery, with recent investigation into single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC). This study presents a prospective, randomized, multicenter, single-blind trial of SILC compared with four-port cholecystectomy (4PLC) with the goal of assessing safety, feasibility, and factors predicting outcomes.

Methods

Patients with biliary colic and documented gallstones or polyps or with biliary dyskinesia were randomized to SILC or 4PLC. Data measures included operative details, adverse events, and conversion to 4PLC or laparotomy. Pain, cosmesis, and quality-of-life scores were documented. Patients were followed for 12 months.

Results

Two hundred patients were randomized to SILC (n = 117) or 4PLC (n = 80) (3 patients chose not to participate after randomization). Patients were similar except for body mass index (BMI), which was lower in the SILC patients (28.9 vs. 31.0, p = 0.011). One SILC patient required conversion to 4PLC. Operative time was longer for SILC (57 vs. 45 min, p < 0.0001), but outcomes, including total adverse events, were similar (34% vs. 38%, p = 0.55). Cosmesis scores favored SILC (p < 0.002), but pain scores were lower for 4PLC (1 point difference in 10-point scale, p < 0.028) despite equal analgesia use. Wound complications were greater after SILC (10% vs. 3%, p = 0.047), but hernia recurrence was equivalent for both procedures (1.3% vs. 3.4%, p = 0.65). Univariate analysis showed female gender, SILC, and younger age to be predictors for increased pain scores, while SILC was associated with improved cosmesis scores.

Conclusions

In this multicenter randomized controlled trial of SILC versus 4PLC, SILC appears to be safe with a similar biliary complication profile. Pain scores and wound complication rates are higher for SILC; however, cosmesis scores favored SILC. For patients preferring a better cosmetic outcome and willing to accept possible increased postoperative pain, SILC offers a safe alternative to the standard 4PLC. Further follow-up is needed to detail the long-term risk of wound morbidities, including hernia recurrence.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Reynolds W (2001) The first laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS 5(1):89–94

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference (1992) Gallstones and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. NIH Consens Statement 10(3):1–28

    Google Scholar 

  3. Schirmer BD, Edge SB, Dix J, Hyser MJ, Hanks JB, Jones RS (1991) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Treatment of choice for symptomatic cholelithiasis. Ann Surg 213:665–676; discussion 677

    Google Scholar 

  4. Soper NJ, Stockmann PT, Dunnegan DL, Ashley SW (1992) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The new ‘gold standard’? Arch Surg 127:917–921; discussion 921–923

    Google Scholar 

  5. Johansson M, Thune A, Nelvin L, Stiernstam M, Westman B, Lundell L (2005) Randomized clinical trial of open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the treatment of acute cholecystitis. Br J Surg 92:44–49

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ponsky TA, Diluciano J, Chwals W, Parry R, Boulanger S (2009) Early experience with single port laparoscopic surgery in children. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 19(4):551–553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Saber AA, El-Ghazaly TH, Dewoolkar AV (2010) Single-incision laparoscopic bariatric surgery: a comprehensive review. Surg Obes Relat Dis 6(5):575–582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Targarona EM, Balague C, Martinez C, Pallares L, Estalella L, Trias M (2009) Single-port access: a feasible alternative to conventional laparoscopic splenectomy. Surg Innov 16(4):348–352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chow AG, Purkayastha S, Zacharakis E, Paraskeva P (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for right hemicolectomy. Arch Surg 146(2):183–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Navarra G, Pozza E, Occhionorelli S (1997) Short note: one wound laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 84(5):695–697

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Podolsky ER, Rottman SJ, Curcillo PG (2009) Single port access (SPA) cholecystectomy: two year follow-up. JSLS 13(4):528–535

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Marks J, Tacchino R, Roberts K, Onders R, Denoto G, Paraskeva P, Rivas H, Soper N, Rosemurgy A, Shah S (2011) Prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: report of preliminary data. Am J Surg 201(3):369–373

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chang SK, Tay CW, Bicol RA, Lee YY, Madhavan K (2011) A case-control study of single-incision versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. World J Surg 35(2):289–293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Prasad A, Mukherjee KA, Kaul S, Kaur M (2011) Postoperative pain after cholecystectomy: conventional laparoscopy versus single-incision laparoscopic surgery. J Minim Access Surg 7(1):24–27

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hernandez JM, Morton CA, Ross S, Albrink M, Rosemurgy AS (2009) Laparoendoscopic single site cholecystectomy: the first 100 patients. Am Surg 75(8):681–685

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. McGregor CG, Sodergren MH, Aslanyan A, Wright VJ, Purkayastha S, Darzi A, Paraskeva P (2011) Evaluating systemic stress response in single port vs. multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 15(4):614–622

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Love KM, Durham CA, Meara MP, Mays AC, Bower CE (2010) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a cost comparison. Surg Endosc 25(5):1553–1558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Antoniou SA, Pointner R, Granderath FA (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 25(2):367–377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Phillipp S, Miedema B, Thaler K (2009) Single incision laproscopic cholecystectomy using conventional instruments: early experience in comparison with the gold standard. J Am Coll Surg 209(5):632–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chiruvella A, Sarmiento JM, Sweeney JF, Lin E, Davis SS (2010) Iatrogenic combined bile duct and right hepatic artery injury during single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS 14(2):268–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was sponsored by Covidien (Mansfield, MA).

Disclosures

Dr. Phillips is a consultant for W. L. Gore & Associates and Cook Biotech. Dr. Marks is a consultant/researcher for Covidien, Olympus, and W. L. Gore & Associates and is on the advisory board for Apollo Endosurgery. Dr. Tacchino is teacher/consultant for Covidien. Dr. DeNoto is a speaker for Olympus and a consultant/speaker for LifeCell, Covidien, and Intuitive. Dr. Rivas works as an educator for Covidien. Dr. Soper is on the advisory board for Transeneterix, Terumo, Endogastric Solutions, and Miret Surgical Inc. and has received educational support from Covidien and Ethicon Endo-Surgery and research support from Karl Storz Endoscopy. Dr. Gecelter is a consultant on the advisory board for Covidien. Drs. Roberts, Onders, Islam, Rubach, Paraskeva, and Shah have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, 11100 Euclid Ave., Lakeside 7, Mailstop 5047, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA

    Melissa S. Phillips, Jeffrey M. Marks & Raymond Onders

  2. Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

    Kurt Roberts

  3. Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy

    Roberto Tacchino

  4. North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, NY, USA

    George DeNoto

  5. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA

    Homero Rivas & Arsalla Islam

  6. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL, USA

    Nathaniel Soper

  7. St. Francis Hospital, Roslyn, NY, USA

    Gary Gecelter & Eugene Rubach

  8. Imperial College of London, London, UK

    Paraskevas Paraskeva

  9. Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA

    Sajani Shah

Authors
  1. Melissa S. Phillips
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey M. Marks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kurt Roberts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Roberto Tacchino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Raymond Onders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. George DeNoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Homero Rivas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Arsalla Islam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Nathaniel Soper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Gary Gecelter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Eugene Rubach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Paraskevas Paraskeva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Sajani Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melissa S. Phillips.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Phillips, M.S., Marks, J.M., Roberts, K. et al. Intermediate results of a prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 26, 1296–1303 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-2028-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-2028-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation