Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 188–192 | Cite as

Laparoendoscopic Single Site (LESS) Cholecystectomy

  • Steven E. Hodgett
  • Jonathan M. Hernandez
  • Connor A. Morton
  • Sharona B. Ross
  • Michael Albrink
  • Alexander S. Rosemurgy
2008 ssat poster presentation

Abstract

Introduction

The journey from conventional “open” operations to truly “minimally invasive” operations naturally includes progression from operations involving multiple trocars and multiple incisions to operations involving access through the umbilicus alone. Laparoscopic operations through the umbilicus alone, laparoendoscopic single site surgery (LESS), offer improved cosmesis and hopes for less pain and improved recovery. This study was undertaken to evaluate our initial experience with LESS cholecystectomy and to compare our initial experience to concurrent outcomes with more conventional multiport, multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods

All patients referred for cholecystectomy over a 6-month period were offered LESS. Outcomes, including blood loss, operative time, complications, and length of stay were recorded. Outcomes with our first LESS cholecystectomies were compared to an uncontrolled group of concurrent patients undergoing multiport, multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy at the same hospital by the same surgeon.

Results

Twenty-nine patients of median age 50 years undergoing LESS cholecystectomy from November 2007 until May 2008 were compared to 29* patients, median age 48 years, undergoing standard multiport, multiple-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy over the same time period. Median operative time for patients undergoing LESS cholecystectomy was 72 min and was not different from that of patients undergoing multiport, multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (p = 0.81). Median length of hospital stay was 1.0 day for patients undergoing LESS cholecystectomy and was not different from patients undergoing standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy (p = 0.46). Operative estimated blood loss was less than 100 cc for all patients. No patients undergoing attempted LESS cholecystectomy had conversions to “open” operations; two patients had an additional trocar(s) placed distant from the umbilicus to aid in exposure. Three patients undergoing LESS cholecystectomy had complications: two were troubled by pain control and another had urinary retention.

Conclusions

LESS cholecystectomy is a safe and effective alternative to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. It can be undertaken without the expense of added operative time and provides patients with minimal, if any, apparent scarring. We believe LESS cholecystectomy will be driven by consumer demand, and therefore, laparoscopic surgeons will need to become proficient with LESS procedures.

Keywords

Laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) Surgery Cholecystectomy Minimally invasive Umbilicus Laparoscopic cholecystectomy 

References

  1. 1.
    Osborne D, Boe B, Rosemurgy AS, Zervos EE. Twenty-millimeter laparoscopic cholecystectomy: fewer ports results in less pain, shorter hospitalization, and faster recovery. Am Surg 2005;71:298–302.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marescaux J, Dallemagne B, Perretta S, Wattiez A, Mutter D, Coumaros D. Surgery without scars: report of transluminal cholecystectomy in a human being. Arch Surg 2007;142:823–827. doi:10.1001/archsurg.142.9.823.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cuesta M, Berends F, Veenhof A. The “invisible cholecystectomy”: a transumbilical laparoscopic operation without a scar. Surg Endosc 2007;22:1211–1213. doi:10.1007/s00464-007-9588-y.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Navarra G, Pozza E, Occhionorelli S et al. One-wound laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 1997;84:695. doi:10.1002/bjs.1800840536.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ng WT, Kong CK, Wong YT. One-wound laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 1997;84:1627.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Powell JJ, Siriwardena AK. One-wound laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 1997;84:1626. doi:10.1002/bjs.1800841126 (author reply).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Park PO, Bergstrom M, Ikeda K, Fritscher-Ravens A, Swain P. Experimental studies of transgastric gallbladder surgery: cholecystectomy and cholecystogastric anastomosis. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;61:601–606. doi:10.1016/S0016-5107(04)02774-9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kagaya T. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy via two ports, using the “twin-port” system. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2001;8:76–80. doi:10.1007/s005340170053.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Palanivelu C, Rajan PS, Rangarajan M, Parthasarathi R, Senthilnathan P, Praveenraj P. Transumbilical flexible endoscopic cholecystectomy in humans: first feasibility study using a hybrid technique. Endoscopy 2008;40:428–433. doi:10.1055/s-2007-995742.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zehetner J, Wayand WU. NOTES—a new era? Hepatogastroenterology 2008;55:8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Forgione A, Maggioni D, Sansonna F, Ferrari C, Di Lernia S, Citterio D, Magistro C, Frigerio L, Pugliese R. Transvaginal endoscopic cholecystectomy in human beings: preliminary results. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2008;18:345–351. doi:10.1089/lap.2007.0203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Decarli L, Zorron R, Branco A, Lima FC, Tang M, Pioneer SR, Zanin I Jr, Schulte AA, Bigolin AV, Gagner M. Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) transvaginal cholecystectomy in a morbidly obese patient. Obes Surg 2008;18:886–889.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Palanivelu C, Rajan PS, Rangarajan M, Parthasarathi R, Senthilnathan P, Praveenraj P. Transumbilical flexible endoscopic cholecystectomy in humans: first feasibility study using a hybrid technique. Endoscopy 2008;40:428–431. doi:10.1055/s-2007-995742.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Allori AC, Leitman IM, Heitman E. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: lessons learned from the laparoscopic revolution. Arch Surg 2008;143:333–334. doi:10.1001/archsurg.143.4.333.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Simopoulos C, Kouklakis G, Zezos P, Ypsilantis P, Botaitis S, Tsalikidis C, Pitiakoudis M. Peroral transgastric endoscopic procedures in pigs: feasibility, survival, questionings, and pitfalls. Surgical Endoscopy; 2008 (in press).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Strasberg SM, Hertl M, Soper NJ. An analysis of the problem of biliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 1995;180:101–125.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven E. Hodgett
    • 1
  • Jonathan M. Hernandez
    • 1
  • Connor A. Morton
    • 1
  • Sharona B. Ross
    • 1
  • Michael Albrink
    • 1
  • Alexander S. Rosemurgy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of South Florida, Tampa General HospitalTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations