Skip to main content


Log in

Long-term incisional hernia rate after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is significantly higher than that after standard three-port laparoscopy: a cohort study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Hernia Aims and scope Submit manuscript



Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is a feasible technique that provides comparable results to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). However, despite the theoretical advantages of minor wound complications and cosmetic results, SILC usually requires a larger incision, which may increase the incidence of incisional hernias. This study evaluated SILC and standard multiport cholecystectomy with respect to perioperative outcomes, hospital stay, cosmetic results, and postoperative complications, including the 5-year incisional hernia rate.


A cohort study was performed with patients who underwent elective laparoscopic surgery for noncomplicated cholelithiasis at our hospital between July 2009 and June 2011. During the study period, there were 45 nonselected patients who underwent SILC, and these patients were compared with a control group of 140 patients who underwent LC using the standard three-trocar technique during the same period. Both patient groups were comparable in age, gender, BMI and ASA classification.


The mean follow-up was 58.7 ± 10.9 (range 3–80) months. There were no differences between groups in terms of hospital stay, rate and severity of complications, wound infection, and patient cosmetic satisfaction. However, the operating time (57.8 versus 35.2 min) and long-term incisional hernia rate (13.3% versus 4.7%) were significantly higher in the SILC group.


SILC is associated with a statistically significantly higher long-term incisional hernia rate at the umbilical port site than the standard multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Our data show there was no relevant advantage regarding the postoperative course, hospital stay or cosmetic satisfaction. To date, widespread use of SILC cannot be recommended. Registration number: NCT03768661 (

Trial registration

This study has been registered at The ID number is: NCT03768661.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Kuhry E, Schwenk W, Gaupset R et al (2008) Long-term results of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Antoniou SA, Pointner R, Granderath FA (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 25:367–377.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fung AKY, Aly EH (2012) Systematic review of single-incision laparoscopic colonic surgery. Br J Surg 99:1353–1364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hoyuela C, Juvany M, Carvajal F (2017) Single-incision laparoscopy versus standard laparoscopy for colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg 214:127–140.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Marks JM, Phillips MS, Tacchino R et al (2013) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with improved cosmesis scoring at the cost of significantly higher hernia rates: 1-year results of a prospective randomized, multicenter, single-blinded trial of traditional multiport laparoscopic. J Am Coll Surg 216:1037–1047.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Poon JTC, Cheung C-W, Fan JKM et al (2012) Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic colectomy for colonic neoplasm: a randomized, controlled trial. Surg Endosc 26:2729–2734.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Park HJ, Kim DH, Jeong J et al (2014) The real-world application of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Int J Surg 12:1254–1257.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 24:1842–1848.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Aprea G, Coppola Bottazzi E, Guida F et al (2011) Laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) versus classic video-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized prospective study. J Surg Res 166:e109–e112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hoyuela C, Ardid J, Martrat A et al (2011) Hemicolectomía derecha laparoscópica por incisión única por carcinoma de colon: técnica quirúrgica y resultados preliminares. Cir Esp 89:551–553.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. American Society of Anesthesiologists (2016) ASA physical status classification system. Accessed 20 Sept 2016

  13. Agha RA, Borrelli MR, Vella-Baldacchino M et al (2017) The STROCSS statement: strengthening the reporting of cohort studies in surgery. Int J Surg 46:198–202.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Clavien PA, Barkun J, De Oliveira ML et al (2009) The Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250:187–196.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2013) National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Procedure-Associated (PA) module: surgical site infection (SSI) event; 2013. Accessed 20 Sept 2016

  16. Sample Size and Power Calculator (2012) (Version 7.12). Institut Municipal d’Investigació Mèdica, Barcelona, Spain. Accessed Sept 2018

  17. Pietrabissa A, Sbrana F, Morelli L et al (2012) Overcoming the challenges of single-incision cholecystectomy with robotic single-site technology. Arch Surg 147:709–714.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Evers L, Bouvy N, Branje D, Peeters A (2016) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 31:3437–3448.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Cao ZG, Cai W, Qin MF et al (2011) Randomized clinical trial of single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: short-term operative outcomes. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech 21:311–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jørgensen LN, Rosenberg J, Al-Tayar H et al (2014) Randomized clinical trial of single-versus multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 101:347–355.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bingener N, J, (PC) Skaran P, McConico A, et al (2015) A double-blinded randomized trial to compare the effectiveness of minimally invasive procedures using patient-reported outcomes. J Am Coll Surg 221:111–121.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Chang SKY, Wang YL, Shen L et al (2015) A randomized controlled trial comparing post-operative pain in single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. World J Surg 39:897–904.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Arezzo A, Passera R, Bullano A et al (2017) Multi-port versus single-port cholecystectomy: results of a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial (MUSIC trial). Surg Endosc 31:2872–2880.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Arezzo A, Passera R, Forcignanò E et al (2018) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is responsible for increased adverse events: results of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Antoniou SA, Morales-Conde S, Antoniou GA et al (2016) Single-incision laparoscopic surgery through the umbilicus is associated with a higher incidence of trocar-site hernia than conventional laparoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Hernia 20:1–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Antoniou SA, García-Alamino JM, Hajibandeh S et al (2018) Single-incision surgery trocar-site hernia: an updated systematic review meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis by the minimally invasive surgery synthesis of interventions outcomes network (MISSION). Surg Endosc 32:14–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Alptekin H, Yilmaz H, Acar F et al (2012) Incisional hernia rate may increase after single-port cholecystectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 22:731–737.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Muysoms FE, Antoniou SA, Bury K et al (2015) European Hernia Society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions. Hernia 19:1–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. García-Ureña MÁ, López-Monclús J, Hernando LAB et al (2015) Randomized controlled trial of the use of a large-pore polypropylene mesh to prevent incisional hernia in colorectal surgery. Ann Surg 261:876–881.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Borab ZM, Shakir S, Lanni MA et al (2017) Does prophylactic mesh placement in elective, midline laparotomy reduce the incidence of incisional hernia? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgery (United States) 161:1149–1163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Luján JA, Soriano MT, Abrisqueta J et al (2015) Colectomía mediante puerto único vs colectomía mediante laparoscopia multipuerto. Revisión sistemática y metaanálisis de más de 2800 procedimientos. Cir Esp 93:307–319.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Podda M, Saba A, Porru F, Pisanu A (2016) Systematic review with meta-analysis of studies comparing single-incision laparoscopic colectomy and multiport laparoscopic colectomy. Surg Endosc 30:4697–4720.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Markar SR, Karthikesalingam A, Thrumurthy S et al (2012) Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) vs. conventional multiport cholecystectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 26:1205–1213.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lirici MM, Tierno SM, Ponzano C (2016) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: does it work? A systematic review. Surg Endosc 30:4389–4399.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Connell MB, Selvam R, Patel SV (2018) Incidence of incisional hernias following single-incision versus traditional laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis. Hernia.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Gonzalez A, Murcia CH, Romero R et al (2016) A multicenter study of initial experience with single-incision robotic cholecystectomies (SIRC) demonstrating a high success rate in 465 cases. Surg Endosc 30:2951–2960.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Garcia A, Carr A (2018) Single-incision robotic cholecystectomy. In: Patel AD, Oleynikov D (eds) The SAGES manual of robotic surgery. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 243–251

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Bucher P, Pugin F, Buchs NC et al (2011) Randomized clinical trial of laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 98:1695–1702.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Vilallonga R, Sümer A, Demirel T et al (2012) Single-port transumbilical laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomised comparison of clinical results of 140 cases. J Minim Access Surg 8:74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Ellatif MEA, Askar WA, Abbas AE et al (2013) Quality-of-life measures after single-access versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc 27:1896–1906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Guo W, Liu Y, Han W et al (2015) Randomized trial of immediate postoperative pain following single-incision versus traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Chin Med J (Engl) 128:3310–3316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lurje G, Raptis DA, Steinemann DC et al (2015) Cosmesis and body image in patients undergoing single-port versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 262:728–735.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Ye G, Qin Y, Xu S et al (2015) Comparison of transumbilical single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and fourth-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Int J Clin Exp Med 8:7746–7753

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. He G-L, Jiang Z-S, Cheng Y et al (2015) Tripartite comparison of single-incision and conventional laparoscopy in cholecystectomy: a multicenter trial. World J Gastrointest Endosc 7:540–546.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Zhao L, Wang Z, Xu J et al (2016) A randomized controlled trial comparing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy using a novel instrument to that using a common instrument. Int J Surg 32:174–178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Omar MA, Redwan AA, Mahmoud AG (2017) Single-incision versus 3-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in symptomatic gallstones: a prospective randomized study. Surgery (United States) 162:96–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This study did not receive any specific Grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



CH designed the study and drafted the article. All authors contributed equally to the study development and data acquisition. All authors participated in revising the article critically for intellectual content and gave their final approval of the version submitted for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Hoyuela.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

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

Ethical approval

This study was developed under an Institutional Review approved protocol (Hospital Plató).

Human and animal rights

All procedures were performed according to ethical standards and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Hospital Plató. Any procedure was not performed in animals by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Written informed consents were obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (MP4 261332 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hoyuela, C., Juvany, M., Guillaumes, S. et al. Long-term incisional hernia rate after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is significantly higher than that after standard three-port laparoscopy: a cohort study. Hernia 23, 1205–1213 (2019).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: