Skip to main content
Log in

Single Port Versus Multiple Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy—A Comparative Study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) was introduced to minimize postoperative morbidity and improve cosmesis. We performed a comparative study to assess feasibility, safety and perceived benefits of SPLC. Two groups of patients (104 each) with comparable demographic characteristics were selected for SPLC and multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MPLC) between May 2010 to March 2011. SPLC was performed using X cone® with 5 mm extra long telescope and 3 ports for hand instruments. MPLC was performed with traditional 4 port technique. A large window was always created during dissection to obtain the critical view of safety. Data collection was prospective. The primary end points were post-operative pain and surgical complications. Secondary end points were patient assessed cosmesis and satisfaction scores and operating time. The mean VAS scores for pain in SPLC group were higher on day 0 (SPLC 3.37 versus MPLC 2.72, p = 0.03) and equivalent to MPLC group on day 1(SPLC 1.90 versus MPLC 1.79, p = 0.06). Number of patients requiring analgesia for breakthrough pain (SPLC 21.1 % versus MPLC 26.9 %, p = 0.31) was similar. Number and nature of surgical complications was similar (SPLC 17.3 % versus MPLC 21.2 %, p =0.59). Mean patient assessed cosmesis scores (SPLC 7.96 versus MPLC 7.16, p = 0.003) and mean patient satisfaction scores (SPLC 8.66 versus MPLC 8.16, p = 0.004) were higher in SPLC group indicating better cosmesis and greater patient satisfaction. SPLC took longer to perform (61 min versus 26 min, p = 0.00). Conversion was required in 5 patients in SPLC group. SPLC appears to be feasible and safe with cosmetic benefits in selected patients. However, challenges remain to improve operative ergonomics. SPLC needs to be proven efficacious with a high safety profile to be accepted as standard laparoscopic technique.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vecchio R, MacFayden BV, Palazzo F (2000) History of laparoscopic surgery. Panminerva Med 42:87–90

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Piskun G, Rajpal S (1999) Transumbilical laparoscopic cholecystectomy utilizes no incisions outside the umbilicus. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 9:361–364

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Castellucci SA, Curcillo PG, Ginsberg PC, Saba SC, Jaffe JS, Harmon JD (2008) Single port access adrenalectomy. J Endourol 22:1573–1576

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Podolsky ER, Rottman SJ, Poblete H, King SA, Curcillo PG (2009) Single port access (SPA) cholecystectomy: A completely transumbilical approach. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 19:219–222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dapri G, Casali L, Dumont H, Goot LV, Herrandou L, Pastijn E et al (2011) Single access transumbilical laparoscopic appendectomy and cholecystectomy using new curved reusable instruments: a pilot feasibility study. Surg Endosc 25:1325–1332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rane A, Kommu S, Eddy B, Bonadio F, Rao P (2007) Clinical evaluation of a novel laparoscopic port (R-port) and evolution of the single laparoscopic port procedure (SLiPP). J Endourol 21:A22–23

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rane A, Rao P (2008) Single-port-access nephrectomy and other laparoscopic urologic procedures using a novel laparoscopic port (R-port). Urology 72:260–263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kaouk JH, Haber GP, Goel RK, Desai MM, Aron M, Rackley RR et al (2008) Single-port laparoscopic surgery in urology: Initial experience. Urology 71:3–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Raman JD, Bensalah K, Bagrodia A, Stern JM, Cadeddu JA (2007) Laboratory and clinical development of single keyhole umbilical nephrectomy. Urology 70:1039–1042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Raman JD, Cadeddu JA, Rao P, Rane A (2008) Single incision laparoscopic surgery: Initial urological experience and comparison with natural orifice transumbilical endoscopic surgery. BJU Int 101:1493–1496

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee PC, Lo C, Ps L, Chang JJ, Huang SJ, Lin MT et al (2010) Randomized clinical trial of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 97:1007–1012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kaouk JH, Goel RK, Haber GP, Crouzet S, Stein RJ (2009) Robotic single-port transumbilical surgery in humans: initial report. BJU Int 103:366–369

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mutter D, Callari C, Diana M, Dallemagne B, Leroy J, Marescaux J (2011) Single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: which technique, which surgeon, for which patient? A study of the implementation in a teaching hospital. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 18(3):453–457

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Richstone L, Kavoussi L (2009) Editorial comment. Urology 74:812

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge Ms Kalpana Singh for her assistance with statistical analysis.

Disclosures

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Sharma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sharma, A., Soni, V., Baijal, M. et al. Single Port Versus Multiple Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy—A Comparative Study. Indian J Surg 75, 115–122 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-012-0680-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-012-0680-8

Keywords

Navigation