Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quality-of-life measures after single-access versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of single-access laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SALC) and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC).

Methods

In a prospective study, patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis were randomized to SALC or CLC with follow-up at 1 week, 1 and 6 months. The primary end point of this study was to assess the total outcomes of quality of life using the EuroQoL EQ-5D questionnaire. The secondary end points were postoperative pain, analgesia requirement and duration of use, operative time, perioperative complications, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, cosmesis outcome, and number of days required to return to normal activities.

Results

A total of 269 patients were prospectively randomized into two groups (125 in each group after excluding 19 patients for various reasons). The SALC procedure was done safely without intraoperative or major postoperative complications. In four SALC patients, an extra epigastric port was inserted to enhance exposure. There was no open conversion in either group. SALC patients reported better results among four of the EuroQoL EQ-5D dimensions (mobility, self-care, activity, and pain/discomfort) at 1 week after surgery, an improved pain profile at 4, 12, and 24 h, better cosmetic outcome at 1 and 6 months (P ≤ 0.01), shorter duration of need for analgesia (P ≤ 0.02), and earlier return to normal activities (P ≤ 0.026). Operative times, hospital stay, QOL at 1 and 6 months postoperatively, and estimated blood loss were similar for both procedures.

Conclusion

This study supports other studies that show that SALC is a feasible and promising alternative to traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in selected patients with better cosmesis, QOL, and improved postoperative pain results, and it can be performed with the existing laparoscopic instruments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kaiser AM, Corman ML (2001) History of laparoscopy. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 10(3):483–492

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Pelosi MA, Pelosi MA (1992) Laparoscopic appendectomy using a single umbilical puncture (minilaparoscopy). J Reprod Med 37:588–594

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. McGee MF, Rosen MJ, Marks J et al (2006) A primer on natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: building a new paradigm. Surg Innov 13:86–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rattner D, Kalloo A, ASGE/SAGES Working (2006) ASGE/SAGES Working group on natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery. October 2005. Surg Endosc 20:329–333

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hirano Y, Watanabe T, Uchida T et al (2010) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: single institution experience and literature review. World J Gastroenterol 16(2):270–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lee PC, Lo C, Lai PS et al (2010) Randomized clinical trial of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 97(7):1007–1012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Navarra G, Pozza E, Occhionorelli S, Carcoforo P, Donini I (1997) One-wound laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 84:695

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Strasberg SM, Hertl M, Soper NJ (1995) An analysis of the problem of biliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 180:101–125

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kind P (1996) The EuoroQol instrument: an index of health-related quality of life. In: Spilker B (ed) Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials, 2nd edn. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, pp 191–201

    Google Scholar 

  10. Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FRH, Botman YAM et al (2004) The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:1960–1965

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A (2009) Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 41:1149–1160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bresadola F, Pasqualucci A, Donini A et al (1999) Elective transumbilical compared with standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Eur J Surg 165:29–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Fronza JS, Linn JG, Nagle AP, Soper NJ (2010) A single institution’s experience with single incision cholecystectomy compared to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgery 148(4):731–734

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Marks J, Tacchino R, Roberts K et al (2011) Prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: report of preliminary data. Am J Surg 254(1):22–27

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lirici MM, Califano AD, Angelini P, Corcione F (2011) Laparoendoscopic single site cholecystectomy versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a pilot randomized trial. Am J Surg 202:45–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ma J, Cassera MA, Spaun GO, Hammill CW, Hansen PD, Aliabadi-Wahle S (2011) Randomized controlled trial comparing single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 254(1):22–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tsimoyiannis EC, Tsimogiannis KE, Pappas-Gogos G et al (2010) Different pain scores in single transumbilical incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 24(8):1842–1848

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bucher P, Pugin F, Buchs NC, Ostermann S, Morel P (2011) Randomized clinical trial of laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 98(12):1695–1702

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hong TH, You YK, Lee KH (2009) Transumbilical single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: scarless cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 23:1393–1397

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kuon Lee S, You YK, Park JH, Kim HJ, Lee KK, Kim DG (2009) Single-port transumbilical laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a preliminary study in 37 patients with gallbladder disease. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 19:495–499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Prasad A (2010) Single-incision laparoscopic surgery. World J Gastroenterol 16:2705–2706

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Chang SK, Tay CW, Bicol RA, Lee YY, Madhavan K (2011) A case-control study of single-incision versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. World J Surg 35:289–293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Soper NJ, Dunnegan DL (1991) Does intraoperative gallbladder perforation influence the early outcome of laparoscopic cholecystectomy? Surg Endosc 1:156–161

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Guzman-Valdivia G (2008) Routine administration of antibiotics to patients suffering accidental gallbladder perforation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy is not necessary. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 18:547–550

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gold-Deutch R, Mashiach R, Boldur I et al (1996) How does infected bile affect the postoperative course of patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy? Am J Surg 172:272–274

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Cuesta MA, Berends F, Veenhof AA (2008) The “invisible cholecystectomy”: a transumbilical operation without a scar. Surg Endosc 22:1211–1213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Langwieler T, Nimmesgern T, Back M (2009) Single-port access in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 23:1138–1141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

Drs. Mohamed E. Abd Ellatif, Waleed A. Askar, Ashraf E. Abbas, Nashat Noaman, Ahmad Negm, Gamal El-Morsy, Ayman Elnakeeb, Alaa Magdy, and Mahmoud Amin have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Mansoura University Hospital, Gihan El Sadat St., Dakahliya, Mansoura, Egypt

    Mohamed E. Abd Ellatif

  2. General Surgical Department, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

    Ashraf E. Abbas, Nashat Noaman, Ahmed Negm, Gamal El-Morsy, Alaa Magdy & Mahmoud Amin

  3. Gastroenterology Center, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

    Waleed A. Askar & Ayman El Nakeeb

Authors
  1. Mohamed E. Abd Ellatif
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Waleed A. Askar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ashraf E. Abbas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nashat Noaman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ahmed Negm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gamal El-Morsy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ayman El Nakeeb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Alaa Magdy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mahmoud Amin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohamed E. Abd Ellatif.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ellatif, M.E.A., Askar, W.A., Abbas, A.E. et al. Quality-of-life measures after single-access versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc 27, 1896–1906 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2625-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2625-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation