Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Micropuncture cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background:The aim of this study was to compare micropuncture laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MPLC), with three 3.3-mm cannulas and one 10-mm cannula with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). Methods: Patients were randomized to undergo either CLC or MPLC. The duration of each operative stage and the procedure were recorded. Interleukin-6 (IL-6), adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), and vasopressin were sampled for 24 h. Visual analogue pain scores (VAPS) and analgesic consumption were recorded for 1 week. Pulmonary function and quality of life (EQ-5D) were monitored for 4 weeks. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann–Whitney test or Fisher’s exact test. Results are expressed as median (interquartile range). Results: Forty-four patients entered the study, but four were excluded due to unsuspected choledocholithiasis (n = 3) or the need to reschedule surgery (n = 1). The groups were comparable in terms of age, duration of symptoms, and indications for surgery. Total operative time was similar (CLC, 63 [52–81] min vs MPLC 74 [58–95] min; p = 0.126). However, time to place the cannulas after skin incision (CLC, 5:42 [3:45–6:37] min vs MPLC, 7:38 [5:57–10:15] min; p = 0.015) and to clip the cystic duct after cholangiography (CLC, 1:05 [0:40–1:35] min vs MPLC, 3:45 [2:26–7:49] min; p < 0.001) were significantly longer for MPLC. Six CLC patients and one MPLC patient required postoperative parenteral opiates (p = 0.04). Oral analgesic consumption was similar in both groups (p = 0.217). Median VAPS were lower at all time points for MPLC, but this finding was not significant (p = 0.431). There were no significant differences in postoperative stay, IL-6, ACTH or vasopressin responses, pulmonary function, or EQ-5D scores. Conclusions: The thinner instruments did not significantly increase the total duration of the procedure. MPLC reduced the use of parenteral analgesia postoperatively, which may prove beneficial for day case patients, but it did not have a significant impact on laboratory variables, lung function or quality of life.

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

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. WG Ainslie M Larvin IG Martin MJ McMahon (2000) ArticleTitleLiver retraction techniques for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 14 311 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s004640000063 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c3gtlGjsw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10741457

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. G Berci (1998) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic cholecystectomy using fine-caliber instruments: smaller is not necessarily better. Surg Endosc 12 197 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s004649900632 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c7mvFGlsQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9502693

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. T Bisgaard B Klarskov R Trap H Kehlet J Rosenberg (2002) ArticleTitleMicrolaparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind trial. Surg Endosc 16 458–464 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s00464-001-9026-5 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD387psFShtg%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11928028

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. T Bisgaard B Klarskov R Trap H Kehlet J Rosenberg (2000) ArticleTitlePain after microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 14 340–344 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s004640020014 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c3ltlyntA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10790551

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. R Brooks . EuroQOL group (1996) ArticleTitleEuroQOL: the current state of play. Health Policy 37 53–72 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BymB1c7mt1Q%3D Occurrence Handle10158943

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. WK Cheah JE Lenzi JBY So CK Kum P Goh (2001) ArticleTitleRandomized trial of needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 88 45–47 Occurrence Handle10.1046/j.1365-2168.2001.01636.x Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M7isFGnsA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11136308

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. D Davides SPL Dexter A Vezakis M Larvin P Moran MJ McMahon (1999) ArticleTitleMicropuncture laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 13 236–238 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s004649900953 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1M7msF2jsw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10064754

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. M Gagner A Garcia-Ruiz (1998) ArticleTitleTechnical aspects of minimally invasive abdominal surgery performed with needlescopic instruments. Surg Endosc Laparosc 8 171–179 Occurrence Handle10.1097/00019509-199806000-00002 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1czhtFeksA%3D%3D

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. J Hunter (1998) ArticleTitleEditorial comment. Am J Surg 176 372

    Google Scholar 

  10. T Kimura S Sakuramachi M Yoshida T Kobayashi Y Takeuchi (1998) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic cholecystectomy using fine-caliber instrument. Surg Endosc 12 283–286 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s004649900654 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c7mvFGrtw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9502715

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. M Look SP Chew YC Tan SE Liew DMO Cheong JCH Tan SB Wee CH The CH Low (2001) ArticleTitlePost-operative pain in needlescopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomised trial. J R Coll Surg Edinb 46 138–142 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MvjtVOmsw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11478009

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. IG Martin PJ Holdsworth J Asker B Battas MT Glinatsis H Sue-Ling J Gibson D Johnston MJ McMahon (1992) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic cholecystectomy as a routine procedure for gallstones: results of an ‘all-comers’ policy. Br J Surg 79 807–810 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByyD3cnpvVQ%3D Occurrence Handle1393479

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. JNS Matthews DG Altman MJ Campbell P Royston (1990) ArticleTitleAnalysis of serial measurements in medical research. Br Med J 300 230–235 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By%2BC1c7mvFQ%3D

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. PR Reardon JI Kamelgard B Applebaum L Rossman FC Brunicardi (1999) ArticleTitleFeasibility of laparoscopic cholecystectomy with miniaturized instrumentation in 50 consecutive cases. World J Surg 23 128–132 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1M%2FpslWnsw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9880420

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. W Schwenk J Neudecker J Mall B Böhm JM Müller (2000) ArticleTitleProspective randomised blinded trial of pulmonary function, pain, and cosmetic results after laparoscopic vs microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 14 345–348 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s004640020063 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c3ltlyntQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10790552

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. J Tanaka H Andoh K Koyama (1998) ArticleTitleMinimally invasive needlescopic cholecystectomy. Surg Today Jpn J Surg 28 111–113 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s005950050090 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c7ms1agsg%3D%3D

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. LW Traverso KP Koo K Hargrave SW Unger (1998) ArticleTitleStandardising laparoscopic procedure time and determining the effect of patient age/gender and presence or absence of surgical residents during operation. Surg Endosc 11 226–229 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s004649900331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. RG Twycross A Wilcock S Thorp (1998) Analgesics: palliative care formulary. Radcliffe Medical Press Oxford (UK)

    Google Scholar 

  19. SW Unger J Paramo M Perez (2000) ArticleTitleMicrolaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 14 336–339 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s004640020059 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c3ltlyntw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10790550

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Y Watanabe M Sato S Ueda Y Abe A Horuichi T Doi K Kawachi (1997) ArticleTitleMicrolaparoscopic cholecystectomy—the first 20 cases: is it an alternative to conventional LC? Eur J Surg 164 623–625

    Google Scholar 

  21. R Yuan W Lee S Yu (1997) ArticleTitleMini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a cosmetically better, almost scarless procedure. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 7 205–211 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c7gslyjsQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9448114

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Academic Unit of Surgery, The University of Leeds and the Leeds Institute for Minimally Invasive Therapy (LIMIT), The General Infirmary at Leeds, Great George Street, Leeds, LS1 3EX, United Kingdom

    W. G. Ainslie, J. A. Catton, D. Davides, S. Dexter, M. Larvin, M. J. McMahon & A. Vezakis

  2. Department of Anesthesia, The General Infirmary at Leeds, Great George Street, Leeds, LS1 3EX, United Kingdom

    J. Gibson, M. Moore & S. Smith

Authors
  1. W. G. Ainslie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. A. Catton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. Davides
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Dexter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. Gibson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Larvin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. J. McMahon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. M. Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. S. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. A. Vezakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. G. Ainslie.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ainslie, W., Catton, J., Davides, D. et al. Micropuncture cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy . Surg Endosc 17, 766–772 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-002-8568-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-002-8568-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation