DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20192097

A study of reduced port laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Biraju D. Nimbark, Mithun V. Barot

Abstract


Background: The objective was to study various technical feasibility and safety, benefit of three port cholecystectomy over four port cholecystectomy.

Methods: Total 25 patients have taken part in study with valid consent, in B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad. All patient study regarding operative time, conversion rate, inta-operative complication, immediate postoperative complication, postoperative pain, requirement of postoperative analgesic, hospital stay, feasibility and safety.

Results: Out of 25 patient mean ages 39.5 ranging from 25 to 60. Female 88%, male 12% are in this study. 72% patient have multiple stone, 28% have single stone. 96% and 4% patient has distended and contracted GB respectively. 92% patient have normal GB wall and 8% have thickened GB wall. 8%, 68% and 20% patient were discharge on 3rd, 2nd and 1st postoperative day respectively. Mean postoperative day was 4 ranging from 1 to 10. Conversion rate to open procedure is 12% in this study.

Conclusions: Three port cholecystectomy is safe procedure in expert hand. It has less requirement of analgesic with less hospital stay with good cosmetic result.


Keywords


Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, Three port cholecystectomy, Cholelithiasis, Minimal invasive surgery

Full Text:

PDF

References


Singh V, Trikha B, Nain CK, Singh K, Bose SM. Epidemiology of gallstone disease in india: A community-based study. Journal of Gastroenterology 2001; 16: 560-563.

Gupta A, Shrivastava UK, Kumar P, Burman D. Mini laparoscopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized controlled trial. J Tropical Gastroenterology 2005; 26 (3): 149-151

Kumar m, Agrawal cs, gupta rk, three port vs standard four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled clinical trial in a community based teaching hospital in india. Jsls 2007;11:358-62

Journal of medical society; a study of three port versus four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy 2013; 27:208-211

Dafir et al. three port vs four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy http://bmcsurg.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2482-7-8

Ramachandran CS, Arora V. Two-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: an innovative new method for gallbladder removal. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 1998; 8 (5): 303–308

Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Trap R, Kehlet H, Rosenberg J. Pain after microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy. A randomized double-blind controlled study. Surg Endosc. 2000; 14 (4): 340–344

Osboorne D, Boe B, Rosemurgy AS, Zervos EE.Twenty millimetre laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Fewer ports results in less pain, shorter hospitalization and faster recovery. Am Surg 2005;71:298-302

Sari YS, Tunali V, TomaoglU K, Karagoz B, Guneyi I, can bileduct injuries be pevented? “A new technique in laparoscopic cholecystectomy”. BMC Surg 2005;5:14

Otani T, Kaji T, Fukasawa T, Osawa T, seki F, yokoyama T et al. A flower shaped cannula for three incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy Surg Endosc 1998;12:179-80

Cheah WK, Lenzi JE, So JB, Kum CK, Goh PM. Randomized trial of needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 2001;88:45-7.

Slim K, Pezet D, Stencl J Jr, Lechner C, Le Roux S, Lointier P, et al.Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. An original three trocar-technique. World J surgery 1995;19:394-7.

Trichak S. Three-port vs standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2003;17:1434-6.

Waqar SH, Zahid MA. Two port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: An early experience. J Surg Pak 2009;14:179-81.

Kroh M, Rosenblatt S. Single-port, laparoscopic cholecystectomy and inguinal hernia repair: First clinical report of a new device. J LaparoendoscbAdv Surg Tech A 2009;19:215- 7.

Poon CM, Chan KW, Lee DW, Chan KC, Ko CW, Cheung HY, et al. Two-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2003;17: 1624-7