Skip to main content
Log in

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Post-operative Pain in Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

  • Original Scientific Report
  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

An increasing body of evidence is being published about single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC), but there are no well-powered trials with an adequate evaluation of post-operative pain. This randomized trial compares SILC against four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with post-operative pain as the primary endpoint.

Methods

Hundred patients were randomized to either SILC (n = 50) or LC (n = 50). Exclusion criteria were (1) Acute cholecystitis; (2) ASA 3 or above; (3) Bleeding disorders; and (4) Previous open upper abdominal surgery. Patients and post-operative assessors were blinded to the procedure performed. The site and severity of pain were compared at 4 h, 24 h, 14 days and 6 months post-procedure using the visual analog scale; non-inferiority was assumed when the lower boundary of the 95 % confidence interval of the difference was above −1 and superiority when p ≤ 0.05.

Results

The study arms were demographically similar. At 24 h post-procedure, SILC was associated with less pain at extra-umbilical sites (rest: p = 0.004; movement: p = 0.008). Pain data were inconclusive at 24 h at the umbilical site on movement; SILC was otherwise non-inferior for pain at all other points. Operating duration was longer in SILC (79.46 vs 58.88 min, p = 0.003). 8 % of patients in each arm suffered complications (p = 1.000). Re-intervention rates, analgesic use, return to function, and patient satisfaction did not differ significantly.

Conclusions

SILC has improved short-term pain outcomes compared to LC and is not inferior in both short-term and long-term pain outcomes. The operating time is longer, but remains feasible in routine surgical practice.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Litynski GS (1998) Erich Mühe and the rejection of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (1985): a surgeon ahead of his time. JSLS 2(4):341–346

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Horgan S, Cullen JP, Talamini MA et al (2009) Natural orifice surgery: initial clinical experience. Surg Endosc 23(7):1512–1518

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rao PP, Rao PP, Bhagwat SS (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic surgery—current status and controversies. J Minim Access Surg 7(1):6–16

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Whang SH, Thaler K (2010) Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: where are we going? World J Gastroenterol 16(35):4371–4373

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Coomber RS, Sodergren MH, Clark J et al (2012) Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery applications in clinical practice. World J Gastrointest Endosc 4(3):65–74

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cuschieri A (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic surgery. J Minim Access Surg 7(1):3–5

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yuen ABT, Wai PYC, Kwok EWN (2010) Current developments in natural orifices transluminal endoscopic surgery: an evidence-based review. World J Gastroenterol 16(38):4792–4799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Junker H (1974) Laparoscopic tubal ligation by the single puncture technique (author’s translation). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 34:952–955

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Navarra G, Pozza E, Occhionorelli S et al (1997) One-wound laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 84:695

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hirano Y, Watanabe T, Uchida T et al (2010) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: single institution experience and literature review. World J Gastroenterol 16(2):270–274

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rivas H, Varela E, Scott D (2010) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: initial evaluation of a large series of patients. Surg Endosc 24(6):1403–1412

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Prasad A, Mukherjee KA, Kaul S, Kaur M (2011) Postoperative pain after cholecystectomy: conventional laparoscopy versus single-incision laparoscopic surgery. J Minim Access Surg 7(1):24–27

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Romanelli JR, Roshek TB 3rd, Lynn DC, Earle DB (2010) Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: initial experience. Surg Endosc 24(6):1374–1379

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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(8):1842–1848

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Marks J, Tacchino R, Roberts K et al (2011) Prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: report of preliminary data. Am J Surg 201(3):369–373

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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 

  17. Pisanu A, Reccia I, Porceddu G et al (2012) Meta-analysis of prospective randomized studies comparing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CMLC). J Gastrointest Surg 16(9):1790–1801

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chang SK, Wang YL, Shen L et al (2013) Interim report: a randomized controlled trial comparing postoperative pain in single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Asian J Endosc Surg 6(1):14–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pan MX, Jiang ZS, Cheng Y et al (2013) Single-incision vs three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective randomized study. World J Gastroenterol 19(3):394–398

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Luna RA, Noqueira DB, Varela PS et al (2013) A prospective, randomized comparison of pain, inflammatory response, and short-term outcomes between single port and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 27(4):1254–1259

  21. Madureira FA, Manso JE, Madureira FD et al (2013) Randomized clinical study for assessment of incision characteristics and pain associated with LESS versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 27(3):1009–1015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sajid MS, Ladwa N, Kalra L et al (2012) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg 36(11):2644–2653

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Arezzo A, Scozzari G, Famiglietti F et al (2013) Is single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy safe? Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 27(7):2293–2304

  24. Strasberg SM, Hertl M, Soper NJ (1995) An analysis of the problem of biliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 180(1):101

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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 cholecystectomy vs single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 216(6):1037–1047

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We also acknowledge the contributions of Dr Maria Mayasari, in the collection of data regarding our patients’ pre-operative status and intra-operative events.

Conflict of interest

This study is an investigator-initiated clinical trial. Covidien (Norwalk, USA) provided the SILS™ port, Autosuture Roticulator Endo Grasp™ and Autosuture Roticulator Endo Dissect™ for patients randomized to undergo single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Disclosures

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Kin Yong Chang.

Additional information

www.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01824186.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chang, S.K.Y., Wang, Y.L., Shen, L. et al. A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Post-operative Pain in Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. World J Surg 39, 897–904 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-014-2903-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-014-2903-6

Keywords

Navigation