Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A prospective, randomized, controlled, trial comparing occult-scar incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and classic three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

This study was designed to evaluate the outcome of laparoscopic cholecystectomy by comparing a new technique using occult-scar incision for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (OSLC) with classic three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). In the occult-scar incision, we moved the subcostal and subxiphoid trocar insertion sites to the suprapubic area so that operative scars were hidden in the pubic hairs and below umbilicus.

Methods

Between July 2009 and 2012, patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized to the OSLC or CLC approach after obtaining informed consent. Outcome was measured by operative time, operative complications, hospital length of stay, cost, analgesia required after surgery, and cosmetic outcomes. The patient satisfaction score (PSS) and visual analog score (VAS) also were used to evaluated the level of cosmetic result and postoperative pain.

Results

A total of 75 patients were randomized into CLC (n = 35) and OSLC (n = 40) groups. No patient was converted to an open procedure in either the CLC or OSLC group. No operative complications were reported within 30 days in either group. The PSS of 7 and 30 days after surgery were both significantly higher in the OSLC group than in the CLC group (5.8 ± 1.5 vs. 8.0 ± 1.1, P = 0.03; 6.5 ± 1.2 vs. 9.2 ± 0.8, P = 0.02). The VAS for pain was significantly lower in the OSLC group on postoperative day 3 compared with the CLC group (2.6 ± 1.2 vs. 6.3 ± 0.9, P = 0.01). There was no significant difference in operative time, hospital stay, and cost between the two groups.

Conclusions

The OSLC is a safe and feasible alternative compared with CLC in experienced hands, and it is superior for outcomes regarding pain control and cosmesis.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Litwin DE, Cahan MA (2008) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Clin North Am 88(6):1295–1313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Leggett PL, Churchman-Winn R, Miller G (2000) Minimizing ports to improve laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 14(1):32–36

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Thakur V, Schlachta CM, Jayaraman S (2011) Minilaparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 253(2):244–258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Auyang ED, Santos BF, Enter DH et al (2011) Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES(R)): a technical review. Surg Endosc 25(10):3135–3148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wong JS, Cheung YS, Fong KW et al (2012) Comparison of postoperative pain between single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective case-control study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 22(1):25–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Garg P, Thakur JD, Singh I et al (2012) A prospective controlled trial comparing single-incision and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: caution before damage control. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 22(3):220–225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Soper NJ, Stockmann PT, Dunnegan DL et al (1992) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The new ‘gold standard’? Arch Surg 127(8):917–921

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tenconi SM, Boni L, Colombo EM et al (2008) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy as day-surgery procedure: current indications and patients’ selection. Int J Surg 6:S86–S88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lehmann KS, Ritz JP, Wibmer A et al (2010) The German registry for natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery: report of the first 551 patients. Ann Surg 252(2):263–270

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lee PC, Lo C, Lai PS et al (2010) Randomized clinical trial of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 97(7):1007–1012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Roy P, De A (2010) Transumbilical multiple-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TUMP-LC): a prospective analysis of 50 initial patients. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 20(3):211–217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fronza JS, Linn JG, Nagle AP et al (2010) A single institution’s experience with single incision cholecystectomy compared to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgery 148(4):731–734; discussion 734–736

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hao LX, Liu MY, Zhu HY et al (2012) Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with uncomplicated gallbladder disease: a meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 22(6):487–497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

Drs. Lei Zhang, Bijay Sah, Jing Ma, Changzhen Shang, Zejian Huang, and Yajin Chen have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510120, Guangdong Province, China

    Lei Zhang, Bijay Sah, Jing Ma, Changzhen Shang, Zejian Huang & Yajin Chen

Authors
  1. Lei Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bijay Sah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jing Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Changzhen Shang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zejian Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yajin Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lei Zhang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zhang, L., Sah, B., Ma, J. et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled, trial comparing occult-scar incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and classic three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 28, 1131–1135 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3289-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3289-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation