Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Short-term outcomes of single-site robotic cholecystectomy versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Randomized studies could not demonstrate significant outcome benefit after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared to classic four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). The new robotic single-site platform might offer potential benefits on local inflammation and postoperative pain due to its technological advantages. This prospective randomized double-blind trial compared the short-term outcomes between single-incision robotic cholecystectomy (SIRC) and CLC.

Methods

Two groups of 30 eligible patients were randomized for SIRC or CLC. During the first postoperative week, patients and study monitors were blinded to the type of procedure performed by four dressing tapes applied on the abdomen. Pain was assessed at 6 h and on day 1, 7 and 30 after surgery, along with a 1–10 cosmetic score.

Results

No significant difference in postoperative pain occurred in the two groups at any time point nor for any of the abdominal sites. Nineteen (63 %) SIRC patients reported early postoperative pain in extra-umbilical sites. Intraoperative complications which might influence postoperative pain, such as minor bleeding and bile spillage, were similar in both groups and no conversions occurred. The cosmetic score 1 month postoperatively was higher for SIRC (p < 0.001). Two SIRC patients had wound infection, one of which developed an incisional hernia.

Conclusions

SIRC does not offer any significant reduction of postoperative pain compared to CLC. SIRC patients unaware of their type of operation still report pain in extra-umbilical sites like after CLC. The cosmetic advantage of SIRC should be balanced against an increased risk of incisional hernias and higher costs.

Trial registration number

ACTRN12614000119695 (http://www.anzctr.org.au).

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. Navarra G, Pozza E, Occhionorelli S, Carcoforo P, Donini I (1997) One-wound laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 84(5):695

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Joseph M, Phillips MR, Farrell TM, Rupp C (2012) Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with a higher bile duct injury rate: a review and a word of caution. Ann Surg 256(1):1–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Garg P, Thakur JD, Singh I, Nain N, Mittal G, Gupta V (2012) A prospective controlled trial comparing single-incision and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: caution before damage control. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 22(3):220–225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pisanu A, Reccia I, Porceddu G, Uccheddu A (2012) Meta-analysis of prospective randomized studies comparing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CMLC). J Gastrointest Surg. 16(9):1790–1801

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Haber GP, White MA, Autorino R, Escobar PF, Kroh MD, Chalikonda S, Khanna R, Forest S, Yang B, Altunrende F, Stein RJ, Kaouk JH (2010) Novel robotic da Vinci instruments for laparoendoscopic single-site surgery. Urology 76(6):1279–1282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Escobar PF, Haber GP, Kaouk J, Kroh M, Chalikonda S, Falcone T (2011) Single-port surgery: laboratory experience with the daVinci single-site platform. JSLS 15(2):136–141

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Spinoglio G, Lenti LM, Maglione V, Lucido FS, Priora F, Bianchi PP, Grosso F, Quarati R (2012) Single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy(SILC): comparison of learning curves. First European experience. Surg Endosc 26:1648–1655

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pietrabissa A, Sbrana F, Morelli L, Badessi F, Pugliese L, Vinci A, Klersy C, Spinoglio G (2012) Overcoming the challenges of single-incision cholecystectomy with robotic single-site technology. Arch Surg 147(8):709–714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Marks JM, Phillips MS, Tacchino R, Roberts K, Onders R, Denoto G, Gecelter G, Rubach E, Rivas H, Islam A, Soper N, Paraskeva P, Rosemurgy A, Ross S, Shah S (2013) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with improved cosmesis scoring at the cost of significantly higher hernia rates: 1-year results of a prospective randomized, multicenter, single-blinded trial of traditional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 216(6):1037–1047

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Poon CM, Chan KW, Lee DW, Chan KC, Cho CW, Cheung HY, Lee KW (2003) Two-port vs four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 17(10):1624–1627

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Novitsky YW, Kercher KW, Czerniach DR, Kaban GK, Khera S, Gallagher-Dorva KA, Callery MP, Litwin DE, Kelly JJ (2005) Advantages of mini-laparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Results of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg 140(12):1178–1183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Rosenberg J, Kehlet H (2001) Characteristics of early pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Pain 90(3):261–269

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cuschieri A (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic surgery. J Minim Access Surg. 7(1):3–5

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Greaves N, Nicholson J (2011) Single incision laparoscopic surgery in general surgery: a review. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 93(6):437–440

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Pollard JS, Fung AK, Ahmed I (2012) Are natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and single-incision surgery viable techniques for cholecystectomy? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 22(1):1–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ma J, Cassera MA, Spaun GO, Hammil CW, Hansen PD, Aliabadi-Wahle S (2011) Randomized controlled trial comparing single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 254(1):22–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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):369–372

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Brown KM, Moore BT, Sorensen GB, Boettger CH, Tang F, Jones PG, Margolin DJ (2013) Patient-reported outcomes after single-incision versus traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized prospective trial. Surg Endosc 27(9):3108–3115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Luna RA, Nogueira DB, Varela PS, Rodrigues Neto Ede O, Norton MJ, Ribeiro Ldo C, Peixoto AM, de Mendonca YL, Bendet I, Fiorelli RA, Dolan JP (2013) A prospective, randomized comparison of pain, inflammatory response, and short-termoutcomes between single port and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 27(4):1254–1259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gonzalez AM, Rabaza JR, Donkor C, Romero RJ, Kosanovic R, Verdeja JC (2013) Single-incision cholecystectomy: a comparative study of standard laparoscopic, robotic, and SPIDER platforms. Surg Endosc 27(12):4524–4531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hahn RA (1997) The nocebo phenomenon: concept, evidence, and implications for public health. Prev Med 26(5 Pt 1):607–611

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Spiegel H (1997) Nocebo: the power of suggestibility. Prev Med 26(5 Pt 1):616–621

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Turchetti G, Palla I, Pierotti F, Cuschieri A (2012) Economic evaluation of da Vinci-assisted robotic surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 26(3):598–606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Buzad FA, Corne LM, Brown TC, Fagin RS, Hebert AE, Kaczmarek CA, Pack AN, Payne TN (2013) Single-site robotic cholecystectomy: efficiency and cost analysis. Int J Med Robot. 9(3):365–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this work by any of the following organizations: National Institutes of Health (NIH); Wellcome Trust; Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI); or others.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy

    Andrea Pietrabissa, Luigi Pugliese, Alessio Vinci, Andrea Peri, Francesco Paolo Tinozzi, Emma Cavazzi & Eugenia Pellegrino

  2. Service of Biometry and Statistics, Research Department, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy

    Catherine Klersy

  3. Unit of General Surgery 2, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, University of Pavia, Piazzale Golgi, 19, 27100, Pavia, Italy

    Luigi Pugliese

Authors
  1. Andrea Pietrabissa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luigi Pugliese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alessio Vinci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrea Peri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Francesco Paolo Tinozzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Emma Cavazzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Eugenia Pellegrino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Catherine Klersy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luigi Pugliese.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

Andrea Pietrabissa, Luigi Pugliese, Alessio Vinci, Andrea Peri, Francesco Paolo Tinozzi, Emma Cavazzi, Eugenia Pellegrino and Catherine Klersy have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 85 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pietrabissa, A., Pugliese, L., Vinci, A. et al. Short-term outcomes of single-site robotic cholecystectomy versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Surg Endosc 30, 3089–3097 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4601-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4601-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation