Advertisement

World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 25–32 | Cite as

Single-incision and NOTES Cholecystectomy, Are There Clinical or Cosmetic Advantages When Compared to Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy? A Case–control Study Comparing Single-incision, Transvaginal, and Conventional Laparoscopic Technique for Cholecystectomy

  • Peter B. van den Boezem
  • Simone Velthuis
  • Harm J. Lourens
  • Miguel A. Cuesta
  • Colin Sietses
Article

Abstract

Background

The aim of the present study was to compare the clinical and cosmetic results of transvaginal hybrid cholecystectomy (TVC), single-port cholecystectomy (SPC), and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). Recently, single-incision laparoscopic surgery and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery have been developed as minimally invasive alternatives for CLC. Few comparative studies have been reported.

Methods

Female patients with symptomatic gallstone disease who were treated in 2011 with SPC, TVC, or CLC were entered into a database. Patients were matched for age, body mass index, and previous abdominal surgery. After the operation all patients received a survey with questions about recovery, cosmesis, and body image.

Results

A total of 90 patients, 30 in each group, were evaluated. Median operative time for CLC was significantly shorter (p < 0.001). There were no major complications. Length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, and postoperative complications were not significantly different. The results for cosmesis and body image after the transvaginal approach were significantly higher. None of the sexually active women observed postoperative dyspareunia.

Conclusions

Both SPC and TVC are feasible procedures when performed in selected patients. CLC is a faster procedure, but other clinical outcomes and complication rates were similar. SPC, and especially TVC, offer a better cosmetic result. Randomized trials are needed to specify the role of SPC and TVC in the treatment of patients with symptomatic gallstone disease.

Keywords

Body Image Bile Duct Injury Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Transvaginal Approach Symptomatic Gallstone Disease 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Zornig C, Mofid H, Siemssen L et al (2009) Transvaginal NOTES hybrid cholecystectomy: feasibility results in 68 cases with mid-term follow-up. Endoscopy 41:391–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Navarra G, Rando L, La Malfa G et al (2009) Hybrid transvaginal cholecystectomy: a novel approach. Am J Surg 197:e69–e72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Navarra G, Pozza E, Occhionorelli S et al (1997) One-wound laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 84:695PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cuesta MA, Berends F, Veenhof AA (2008) The “invisible cholecystectomy”: a transumbilical laparoscopic operation without a scar. Surg Endosc 22:1211–1213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee PC, Lo C, Lai PS et al (2010) Randomized clinical trial of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 97:1007–1012PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bucher P, Pugin F, Buchs NC et al (2011) Randomized clinical trial of laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 98:1695–1702PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tsimoyiannis EC, Tsimogiannis KE, Pappas-Gogos G et al (2010) Different pain scores in single transumbilical incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 24:1842–1848PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van den Boezem PB, Sietses C (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery, experience with 50 consecutive cases. J Gastrointest Surg 15:1989–1994PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van den Boezem PB, Kruyt FM, Stommel MW et al (2011) Cholecystectomy without visible scars: the transvaginal method. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 155(44):A3617PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chow A, Purkayastha S, Aziz O et al (2010) Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for cholecystectomy: an evolving technique. Surg Endosc 24:709–714PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Strasberg SM, Brunt LM (2010) Rationale and use of the critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 211:132–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dunker MS, Stiggelbout AM, van Hogezand RA et al (1998) Cosmesis and body image after laparoscopic-assisted and open ileocolic resection for Crohn’s disease. Surg Endosc 12:1334–1340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Curcillo PG, Wu AS, Podolsky ER et al (2010) Single-port-access (SPA) cholecystectomy: a multi-institutional report of the first 297 cases. Surg Endosc 24:1854–1860PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kilian M, Raue W, Menenakos C et al (2011) Transvaginal-hybrid vs. single-port-access vs. ‘conventional’ laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective observational study. Langenbecks Arch Surg 396:709–715PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Voitk AJ, Tsao SG (2001) The umbilicus in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 15:878–881PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Joseph M, Phillips MR, Farrell TM et al (2012) Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with a higher bile duct injury rate: a review and a word of caution. Ann Surg 256:1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chow A, Purkayastha S, Dosanjh D et al (2011) Patient reported outcomes and their importance in the development of novel surgical techniques. Surg Innov 19:327–334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bucher P, Pugin F, Ostermann S et al (2011) Population perception of surgical safety and body image trauma: a plea for scarless surgery? Surg Endosc 25:408–415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Steinemann DC, Raptis DA, Lurje G et al (2011) Cosmesis and body image after single-port laparoscopic or conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a multicenter double blinded randomised controlled trial (SPOCC-trial). BMC Surg 11:24PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Olweny EO, Mir SA, Best SL et al (2011) Importance of cosmesis to patients undergoing renal surgery: a comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS), laparoscopic and open surgery. BJU Int 110:268–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lamade W, Friedrich C, Ulmer C et al (2011) Impact of body image on patients’ attitude towards conventional, minimal invasive, and natural orifice surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 396:331–336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lind MY, Hop WC, Weimar W et al (2004) Body image after laparoscopic or open donor nephrectomy. Surg Endosc 18:1276–1279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Park SK, Olweny EO, Best SL et al (2011) Patient-reported body image and cosmesis outcomes following kidney surgery: comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site, laparoscopic, and open surgery. Eur Urol 60:1097–1104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Durani P, McGrouther DA, Ferguson MW (2009) Current scales for assessing human scarring: a review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 62:713–720PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bignell M, Hindmarsh A, Nageswaran H et al (2011) Assessment of cosmetic outcome after laparoscopic cholecystectomy among women 4 years after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: is there a problem? Surg Endosc 25:2574–2577PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Joseph S, Todd Moore B, Brent Sorensen G et al (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparison with the gold standard. Surg Endosc 15:3009–3015Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Trastulli S, Cirocchi R, Desiderio J et al (2013) Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 100:191–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zornig C, Siemssen L, Emmermann A et al (2010) NOTES cholecystectomy: matched-pair analysis comparing the transvaginal hybrid and conventional laparoscopic techniques in a series of 216 patients. Surg Endosc 25:1822–1826PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bucher P, Ostermann S, Pugin F et al (2011) Female population perception of conventional laparoscopy, transumbilical LESS, and transvaginal NOTES for cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 25:2308–2315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Strickland AD, Norwood MG, Behnia-Willison F et al (2010) Transvaginal natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): a survey of women’s views on a new technique. Surg Endosc 24:2424–2431PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Love KM, Durham CA, Meara MP et al (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a cost comparison. Surg Endosc 25:1553–1558PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter B. van den Boezem
    • 1
  • Simone Velthuis
    • 1
  • Harm J. Lourens
    • 2
  • Miguel A. Cuesta
    • 3
  • Colin Sietses
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryGelderse Vallei HospitalEdeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of AnaesthesiologyGelderse Vallei HospitalEdeThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryVrije Universiteit Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations