One, two, or three ports in laparoscopic cholecystectomy?

15Citations
Citations of this article
23Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has been compared with 3- or 4-port LC. To our knowledge, there are no studies comparing the 3-, 2-, and 1-port techniques. Patients were randomized into 3 groups: LC 1-port using SILS, LC 2-port using a laparoscope with a working channel, and LC 3-port using the standard ports. Pain was evaluated at recovery, 4 hours, 24 hours, day 5, and day 8, using an analog visual scale. Homogenous groups in their demographic characteristics; all confirmed gallbladder lithiasis. At recovery, there was less pain in group 1 (P = 0.002); at 4 hours pain was similar in all groups (P = 0.899); at 24 hours there was less pain in groups 2 and 3 (P = 0.031); and at days 5 and 8 there was marginal (P = 0.053) and significant (P = 0.003) relevance. In terms of pain perception, LC performed through 1 port does not offer advantages when compared with 2 or 3 ports. More clinical trials are needed to confirm these data.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Justo-Janeiro, J. M., Vincent, G. T., Vázquez de Lara, F., de la Rosa Paredes, R., Orozco, E. P., & Vázquez de Lara, L. G. (2014). One, two, or three ports in laparoscopic cholecystectomy? International Surgery, 99(6), 739–744. https://doi.org/10.9738/INTSURG-D-13-00234.1

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free