Single-port versus multi-port cholecystectomy for patients with acute cholecystitis: a retrospective comparative analysis

被引:6
|
作者
Dietmar Jacob [1 ]
Roland Raakow [2 ]
机构
[1] Department of Surgery, Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Vivantes Hospital Spandau, Neue Bergstrasse 6, 13585 Berlin, Germany
[2] Department of Surgery, Vivantes Klinikum Am Urban, Dieffenbachstrasse 1, 10967 Berlin, Germany
关键词
laparoscopic surgery; single-port; cholecystectomy; acute cholecystitis;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R657.4 [胆囊、胆管];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100210 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: Trans-umbilical single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy for chronic gallbladder disease is becoming increasingly accepted worldwide. But so far, no reports exist about the challenging single-port surgery for acute cholecystitis. The objective of this study was to describe our experience with single-port cholecystectomy in comparison to the conventional laparoscopic technique. METHODS: Between August 2008 and March 2010, 73 patients with symptomatic gallbladder disease and histopathological signs of acute cholecystitis underwent laparoscopic cholecystec- tomy at our institution. Thirty-six patients were operated on with the single-port technique (SP group) and the data were compared with a control group of 37 patients who were treated with the multi-port technique (MP group). RESULTS: The mean age in the SP group was 61.5 (range 21-81) years and in the MP group was 60 (range 21-94) (P=0.712). Gender, ASA status and BMI were not significantly different. The number of white blood cells was different before [SP: 9.2 (range 2.8-78.4); MP: 13.2 (range 4.4-28.6); P=0.001] and after the operation [SP: 7.8 (range 3.5-184.8); MP: 11.1 (range 5-20.8); P=0.002]. Mean operating time was 88 (range 34-174) minutes in the SP group vs 94 (range 39-209) minutes in the MP group (P=0.147). Four patients (5%) required conversion to an open procedure (SP: 1; MP: 3; P=0.320). During the follow- up period of 332 (range 29-570) days in the SP group and 428 (range 111-619) days in the MP group (P=0.044), eleven (15%) patients developed postoperative complications (P=0.745) and two patients in the SP group required reoperation (P=0.154). CONCLUSIONS: Trans-umbilical single-port cholecystectomy for beginning acute cholecystitis is feasible and the complicationrate is comparable with the standard multi-port operation. In spite of our good results, these operations are difficult to perform and should only be done in high-volume centers for laparoscopic surgery with experience in single-port surgery.
引用
收藏
页码:521 / 525
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Single-port versus multi-port cholecystectomy for patients with acute cholecystitis: a retrospective comparative analysis
    Jacob, Dietmar
    Raakow, Roland
    [J]. HEPATOBILIARY & PANCREATIC DISEASES INTERNATIONAL, 2011, 10 (05) : 521 - 525
  • [2] Single-Port Cholecystectomy Versus Multi-Port Cholecystectomy: A Prospective Cohort Study with 222 Patients
    Markus J. Wagner
    Hans Kern
    Alexander Hapfelmeier
    Jan Mehler
    Michael H. Schoenberg
    [J]. World Journal of Surgery, 2013, 37 : 991 - 998
  • [3] Single-Port Cholecystectomy Versus Multi-Port Cholecystectomy: A Prospective Cohort Study with 222 Patients
    Wagner, Markus J.
    Kern, Hans
    Hapfelmeier, Alexander
    Mehler, Jan
    Schoenberg, Michael H.
    [J]. WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2013, 37 (05) : 991 - 998
  • [4] Laparoscopic Single-Port Versus Traditional Multi-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
    Casaccia, Marco
    Palombo, Denise
    Razzore, Andrea
    Firpo, Emma
    Gallo, Fabio
    Fornaro, Rosario
    [J]. JSLS-JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC SURGEONS, 2019, 23 (03)
  • [5] Oxidative stress in multi-port and single-port cholecystectomy
    Pappas-Gogos, George
    Tellis, Constantinos C.
    Trypsianis, Grigorios
    Tsimogiannis, Konstantinos E.
    Tsimoyiannis, Evangelos C.
    Simopoulos, Constantinos E.
    Pitiakoudis, Michael
    Tselepis, Alexandros D.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH, 2015, 194 (01) : 101 - 106
  • [6] Single-Port Cholecystectomy for Cholecystitis Versus Non-Cholecystitis
    Casaccia, Marco
    Ponzano, Marta
    Testa, Tommaso
    Martigli, Sofia Paola
    Contratto, Cecilia
    De Cian, Franco
    [J]. JSLS-JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC SURGEONS, 2022, 26 (03)
  • [7] Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study
    Junwei Li
    Yizhen Sima
    Changdong Hu
    Xiaojuan Wang
    Zhiying Lu
    Keqin Hua
    Yisong Chen
    [J]. BMC Surgery, 22
  • [8] Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study
    Li, Junwei
    Sima, Yizhen
    Hu, Changdong
    Wang, Xiaojuan
    Lu, Zhiying
    Hua, Keqin
    Chen, Yisong
    [J]. BMC SURGERY, 2022, 22 (01)
  • [9] Single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer in elderly patients
    Tokuoka, Masayoshi
    Ide, Yoshihito
    Takeda, Mitsunobu
    Hirose, Hajime
    Hashimoto, Yasuji
    Matsuyama, Jin
    Yokoyama, Shigekazu
    Fukushima, Yukio
    Sasaki, Yo
    [J]. ONCOLOGY LETTERS, 2016, 12 (02) : 1465 - 1470
  • [10] Multi-port versus single-port cholecystectomy: results of a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial (MUSIC trial)
    Alberto Arezzo
    Roberto Passera
    Alberto Bullano
    Yoav Mintz
    Asaf Kedar
    Luigi Boni
    Elisa Cassinotti
    Riccardo Rosati
    Uberto Fumagalli Romario
    Mario Sorrentino
    Marco Brizzolari
    Nicola Di Lorenzo
    Achille Lucio Gaspari
    Dario Andreone
    Elena De Stefani
    Giuseppe Navarra
    Salvatore Lazzara
    Maurizio Degiuli
    Kirill Shishin
    Igor Khatkov
    Ivan Kazakov
    Rudolf Schrittwieser
    Thomas Carus
    Alessio Corradi
    Guenther Sitzman
    Antonio Lacy
    Selman Uranues
    Amir Szold
    Mario Morino
    [J]. Surgical Endoscopy, 2017, 31 : 2872 - 2880