Minerva chirurgica · 2014
Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus the classical four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized prospective clinical trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Emre Telciler K, Ilhan E, Yakan S, Cengiz F, Senlikci A, Aktürk Hayat E
Аннотация
AIM: The objectives of this prospective study were to compare the advantages of single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) versus the classical four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) and to discuss these advantages in the light of current literature.
METHODS: Forty eligible patients were randomized to receive SPLC (Group A, N.=20) and CLC (Group B, N.=20), and investigated with regard to age, sex, BMI (body mass index), ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) score, type of surgery, operative time, per-operative complication, indication for conversion to open surgery, indication for additional trocar placement in SPLC technique, post-operative pain score, additional narcotic analgesic requirement, nausea and vomiting, post-operative complication and length of hospital stay. Visual analogue scale (VAS) was used for pain scoring in all cases.
RESULTS: No significant difference was found among patients in Group A and Group B in terms of age, sex, weight/BMI, ASA score, VAS scores, additional analgesic requirement and length of hospital stay (P>0.05). On the other hand, mean operative time in Group A was significantly (P<0.005) greater than that in Group B. Mean operative time in Group A was observed to be reduced after the first 10 operations. Conversion to open surgery was not required in any of the patients; however, additional trocar placement was required in two patients in Group A due to body habitus and adhesions, and operations were completed laparoscopically.
CONCLUSION: We conclude that SPLC is equally effective as CLC. Patient comfort is increased and pain is decreased as the surgeon gets experienced with the technique.
METHODS: Forty eligible patients were randomized to receive SPLC (Group A, N.=20) and CLC (Group B, N.=20), and investigated with regard to age, sex, BMI (body mass index), ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) score, type of surgery, operative time, per-operative complication, indication for conversion to open surgery, indication for additional trocar placement in SPLC technique, post-operative pain score, additional narcotic analgesic requirement, nausea and vomiting, post-operative complication and length of hospital stay. Visual analogue scale (VAS) was used for pain scoring in all cases.
RESULTS: No significant difference was found among patients in Group A and Group B in terms of age, sex, weight/BMI, ASA score, VAS scores, additional analgesic requirement and length of hospital stay (P>0.05). On the other hand, mean operative time in Group A was significantly (P<0.005) greater than that in Group B. Mean operative time in Group A was observed to be reduced after the first 10 operations. Conversion to open surgery was not required in any of the patients; however, additional trocar placement was required in two patients in Group A due to body habitus and adhesions, and operations were completed laparoscopically.
CONCLUSION: We conclude that SPLC is equally effective as CLC. Patient comfort is increased and pain is decreased as the surgeon gets experienced with the technique.