DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20204669

Three port versus four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective comparative clinical study

Harish Chauhan, Jenish Kothiya, Jignesh Savsaviya

Abstract


Background: Although, traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy is performed using four-port technique, various modifications were made to further enhance the advantages of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Aim of the study is to compare the results of three-port and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy at single centre in terms of technical feasibility, safety of the procedure, operative time, intra-operative complications, postoperative pain and post-operative analgesia requirement.

Methods: It was a prospective comparative study conducted in the department of surgery Smimer medical college Surat, India from July 2018 to July 2019. The study was performed on all adult patients with ultrasound documented cholelithiasis. The total number of patients studied was 50 which were divided into two groups of 25 each.

Results: Demographic data were comparable for both study groups. Patients in the 3-port group had shorter mean operative time (47.3±29.8 min versus 60.8±32.3 min) for the 4-port group (p=0.04). Post-operative requirement of analgesia was less in 3 port group as compared to 4 port group. Pain visual analog scale (VAS) score, intra operative complications, post- operative complications and return to normal activity were significant in our study. Hospital stay and patient satisfaction were non- significant.

Conclusions: The three-port technique is as safe as the standard four-port technique and can be a viable alternative to four port cholecystectomy with an advantage of less analgesic requirement, early post-operative ambulance, early oral feed, and better cosmetic results.


Keywords


Bile, Cholelithiasis, Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, Cystic artery, Cystic duct, Pneumoperitoneum

Full Text:

PDF

References


Litynski GS. Profiles in laparoscopy: Mouret, Dubois, and Perissat: The laparoscopic breakthrough in Europe (1987–1988). JSLS. 1999;3:163-7.

Shea JA, Berlin JA. Indications and outcome of cholecystectomy: a comparison of pre and postlaparoscopic era. Ann Surg. 1998;227:343-50.

Soper NJ, Brunt LM, Kerbl K. Laparoscopic general surgery. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:409-19.

Soper NJ, Stockmann PT, Dunnegan DL. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The new ‘gold standard’? Arch Surg. 1992;127:917-21.

Mouret P. From the first laparoscopic cholecystectomy to frontiers of laparoscopic surgery; the future perspective. Dig Surg. 1991;8:124-5.

Trichak S. Three-port vs standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2003;17:1434-6.

Poon CM, Chan KW, Lee DW, Chan CW, Ko CW, Cheung HY, Lee KW. Two-port versus four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2003;17:1624-7.

Sarli L, Iusco D, Gobbi S, Porrini C, Ferro M, Roncoroni L. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed with mini instruments. Br J Surg. 2003;90:1345-8.

Palanivelu C. History of laproscopic surgery. Palanivelu’s text book of surgical laproscopy. 1st ed. Coimbatore: Gem Digestive Disease Foundation. 2002;3-6.

Udwadia TE. Laparoscopy in India a personal perspective. J Minim Access Surg. 2005;1:51-2.

Kumar M, Agrawal CS, Gupta RK. Three-port versus standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled clinical trial in a community-based teaching hospital in eastern Nepal. JSLS. 2007;11:358-62.

Haribhakti SP, Mistry JH. Techniques of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: nomenclature and selection. J Minim Access Surg. 2015;11:113-8.

Wilkinson TRV, Mehrotra P, Bansod P, Akhtar M. Three-port versus four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy- a prospective study. Int J Med Res Rev. 2017;5:235-41.

Mayir B, Dogan U, Koc U. Safety and effectiveness of three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014;7:2339-42.

Novacek G. Gender and gallstone disease. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2006;156:527-33.

Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Trap R, Kehlet H, Rosenberg J. Pain after microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy. A randomized double blind controlled study. Surg Endosc. 2000;14:340-4.

Sharma PK, Mehta KS. Three port versus standard four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy-a prospective study of 200 patients. 2015;17(1):38-42.

Harsha HS, Gunjiganvi M, Singh C, Moirangthem GS. A study of three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Med Soc. 2013;27:208-11.

Al-Azawi D, Houssein N, Rayis AB, McMahon D, Hehir DJ. Three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute and chronic cholecystitis. BMC Surg. 2007;7:8.