JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons · 2017
Hybrid Single-Port Cholecystectomy Vs Four-Port Cholecystectomy in Children.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Seifarth Federico G, Liu Michael H, Ayala Dimaris, Worley Sarah, Moslim Maitham A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Evidence is increasing that single-port or single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a safe and feasible alternative for cholecystectomy in children. In this study, we sought to compare the single-port hybrid technique, which we originally reported in 2012, with the conventional 4-port approach, in regards of complications, outcome, operative time and cost.
METHODS: A retrospective, single-center comparison of hybrid single-port versus conventional 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed in 98 consecutive pediatric patients between January 2010 and October 2014. Patient characteristics, intra- and postoperative outcomes, operative costs, and total hospitalization costs were compared between the 2 approaches using univariate and multivariate analyses.
RESULTS: The single-port technique was utilized in 56 (57%) pediatric patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The operative time for single-port procedures was shorter than that of the conventional technique (median, 85 minutes vs 114 minutes; P = .003). Patients with single-port procedures were less likely to have a cholangiogram compared to patients who underwent 4-port cholecystectomy. (9% vs 40%; P < .001). No statistically significant differences between the 2 cohorts were observed for intra- or postoperative outcomes. Although the 2 groups shared nearly the same median duration of hospitalization (22 hours vs 21 hours; P = .70), the single-port group demonstrated a lower total cost of hospitalization (median cost, $7438 vs $8783; P = .030) and lower operative cost (median, $3918 vs $4647; P < .001).
CONCLUSION: Hybrid single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in children with uncomplicated gallbladder disease is feasible and equally safe, with similar intra- and postoperative outcomes compared with the conventional 4-port approach. It can contribute to global cost reduction because of lower operative and total hospitalization costs.
METHODS: A retrospective, single-center comparison of hybrid single-port versus conventional 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed in 98 consecutive pediatric patients between January 2010 and October 2014. Patient characteristics, intra- and postoperative outcomes, operative costs, and total hospitalization costs were compared between the 2 approaches using univariate and multivariate analyses.
RESULTS: The single-port technique was utilized in 56 (57%) pediatric patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The operative time for single-port procedures was shorter than that of the conventional technique (median, 85 minutes vs 114 minutes; P = .003). Patients with single-port procedures were less likely to have a cholangiogram compared to patients who underwent 4-port cholecystectomy. (9% vs 40%; P < .001). No statistically significant differences between the 2 cohorts were observed for intra- or postoperative outcomes. Although the 2 groups shared nearly the same median duration of hospitalization (22 hours vs 21 hours; P = .70), the single-port group demonstrated a lower total cost of hospitalization (median cost, $7438 vs $8783; P = .030) and lower operative cost (median, $3918 vs $4647; P < .001).
CONCLUSION: Hybrid single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in children with uncomplicated gallbladder disease is feasible and equally safe, with similar intra- and postoperative outcomes compared with the conventional 4-port approach. It can contribute to global cost reduction because of lower operative and total hospitalization costs.