DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20205019

Role of a modified epigastric port in reducing post operative pain and causing early ambulation in a patient undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy as compared to a standard four port procedure, a randomized controlled study

Arijit Roy, Pramatha Nath Datta, Kushankur Guha

Abstract


Background: Standard four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the gold standard in the treatment of gall stones. Modified epigastric port laparoscopic cholecystectomy may be considered an alternative, as this procedure maintains the advantages of four ports and does not require any special set of instruments. In this study we aimed to see whether this procedure is comparable to the standard four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy based on the primary objectives of postoperative pain score, degree of ambulation, time to return to normal activities.

Methods: Consecutive patients due to undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy, meeting all the predefined criteria were recruited into the study. The group A was assigned to receive intervention in the form of modified epigastric port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The group B was assigned to receive intervention in the form of standard four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients in group A were compared with patients in group B based on multiple pre-defined parameters.

Results: Pain scores were significantly better in group A. Degree of ambulation at was significantly better in group A. In respect to the time to resumption of normal activities there was no significant difference between the two groups. When comparing the quality life at 1 month following surgery with SF-36 health survey, the patients in group A did better than patients in group B with respect to the six scales.

Conclusions: Modified epigastric port laparoscopic cholecystectomy appears to be significantly better than the standard four port cholecystectomy in terms of postoperative recovery.


Keywords


Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, Post operative pain, Early ambulation, Modified epigastric port

Full Text:

PDF

References


Walker RJ. The first laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Soc Laproend Soc. 2001;5(1):89-94.

Zehetner J, Pelipad D, Darehzereshki A, Mason RJ, Lipham JC, Katkhouda N. Single-access laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus classical laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2013;23 (3):235-43.

Hauters P, Auvray S, Cardin JL, Papillon M, Delaby J, Dabrowski A, et al. Comparison between single-incision and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective trial of the Club Coelio. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(5):1689-94.

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

Look M, Chew SP, Tan YC, Liew SE, Cheong DMO, Tan JCH, et al. Post-operative pain in needlescopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomised trial. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 2001;46:138-42.

Markar SR, Karthikesalingam A, Thrumurthy S, Muirhead L, Kinross J, Paraskeva P. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) vs. conventional multiport cholecystectomy: systematic review and metaanalysis. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(5):1205-13.

Philipp SR, Miedema BW, Thaler K. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy using conventional instruments: early experience in comparison with the gold standard. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209(5):632-7.

Sarli L, Iusco D, Gobbi S, Porrini C, Ferro M, Roncoroni L. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed with miniinstruments. Br J Surg. 2003;90(11):1345-8.

Poon CM, Chan KW, Lee DWH, Chan KC, Ko CW, Cheung HY, et al. Two port versus four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2003;17(10):1624-7.

Al-Azawi D, Houssein N , Rayis AB, McMohan D, Hehir DJ. Three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute and chronic cholecystitis. BMC Surg. 2007;7(1):8.

Hosogi H, Strassel V, Martin C, Sakai Y, Saad S. Single-port versus needlescopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2011;4(3):120-6.

de Carvalho LFA, Fierens K, Kint M. Mini-laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2013;23(2):109-16.

Mattila A, Mrena J, Kautiainen H, Nevantaus J, Kellokumpu I. Daycare laparoscopic cholecystectomy with diathermy hook versus fundusfirst ultrasonic dissection: a randomized study. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(9):3867-72.

Tiryaki C, Bayhan Z, Kargi E, Alponat A. Ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A single center experience. J Minim Access Surg. 2016;12 (1):47-53.

Agalianos C, Pikoulas P, Boutsikos GM, Giaourakis G. Thomaidis D, Davides. Day case surgery: to overcome prejudice. Hellenic J Surg. 2013;85(4): 249-53.

Ali A, Chawla T, Jamal A. Ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Is it safe and cost effective?. J Min Access Surg. 2009;5(1):8-13.

Al-Omani S, Almodhaiberi H, Ali B, Alballa A, Alsowaina K, Alhasan I, et al. Feasibility and safety of day-surgery laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a single-institution 5-year experience of 1140 cases. Korean J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2015;19(3): 109-12.

Zirpe D, Swain SK, Das S, Gopakumar CV, Kollu S, Patel D, et al. Shortstay daycare laparoscopic cholecystectomy at a dedicated daycare centre: Feasible or futile. J Min Access Surg. 2016;12(4): 350-4.

Wasowicz-Kemps DK, Slootmaker SM, Kemps HM, Borel-Rinkes H, Biesma DH, van Ramshorst B. Resumption of daily physical activity after day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2009; 23:2034-40.

Abd Ellatif ME, Askar WA, Abbas AE, Noaman N, Negm A, El-Morsy G, et al. Quality-of-life measures after single-access versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(6):1896-906.

Sulu B, Yildiz BD, Ilingi ED, Gunerhan Y, Cakmur H, Anuk T, et al. Single port vs. four port cholecystectomy-randomized trial on quality of life. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2015;24(3):469-73.