Three-port vs standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy
- PMID: 12799892
- DOI: 10.1007/s00464-002-8713-1
Three-port vs standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy
Abstract
Background: Since the first laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) was reported in 1990, it has met with widespread acceptance as a standard procedure using four trocars. The fourth (lateral) trocar is used to grasp the fundus of the gallbladder so as to expose Calot's triangle. It has been argued that the fourth trocar is not necessary in most cases. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the three-port vs the four-port technique.
Methods: Between 1998 and 2000, 200 consecutive patients undergoing elective LC for gallstone disease were randomized to be treated via either the three- or four-port technique.
Results: There was no difference between the two groups in age, sex, or weight. In terms of outcome, there was no difference between the two groups in success rate, operating time, number of oral analgesic tablets (paracetamol), visual analogue score, or postoperative hospital stay; however, the three-port group required fewer analgesic injections (nalbuphine) (0.4 vs 0.77, p = 0.024).
Conclusion: The three-port technique is as safe as the standard four-port one for LC. The main advantages of the three-port technique are that it causes less pain, is less expensive, and leaves fewer scars.
Comment in
-
Three port vs standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Surg Endosc. 2005 Jan;19(1):153. doi: 10.1007/s00464-004-8195-4. Surg Endosc. 2005. PMID: 15531970 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Is the fourth port routinely required for laparoscopic cholecystectomy? Our three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy experience.Ir J Med Sci. 2016 Nov;185(4):909-912. doi: 10.1007/s11845-016-1493-8. Epub 2016 Aug 31. Ir J Med Sci. 2016. PMID: 27582090
-
Two-port needlescopic cholecystectomy: prospective study of 100 cases.Hong Kong Med J. 2005 Feb;11(1):30-5. Hong Kong Med J. 2005. PMID: 15687513
-
Two-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Surg Endosc. 2003 Oct;17(10):1624-7. doi: 10.1007/s00464-002-8718-9. Epub 2003 Jul 21. Surg Endosc. 2003. PMID: 12874694 Clinical Trial.
-
Comparative analysis of the four-port and three-port trocar access of the conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy--review of the literature.Khirurgiia (Sofiia). 2013;(3):26-38. Khirurgiia (Sofiia). 2013. PMID: 24459764 Review. Bulgarian, English.
-
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE FOUR-PORT AND THE THREE-PORT TROCAR ACCESS AND THE SINGLE PORT ACCESS IN LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY--REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.Khirurgiia (Sofiia). 2014;(4):47-56. Khirurgiia (Sofiia). 2014. PMID: 26152065 Review. Bulgarian, English.
Cited by
-
Is there still any role for minilaparoscopic-cholecystectomy? A general surgeons' last five years experience over 932 cases.Updates Surg. 2012 Mar;64(1):31-6. doi: 10.1007/s13304-011-0123-2. Epub 2011 Nov 11. Updates Surg. 2012. PMID: 22076602
-
Review of 100 cases of single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.J Korean Surg Soc. 2012 Mar;82(3):179-84. doi: 10.4174/jkss.2012.82.3.179. Epub 2012 Feb 27. J Korean Surg Soc. 2012. PMID: 22403752 Free PMC article.
-
Preliminary results of transumbilical single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Updates Surg. 2010 Oct;62(2):105-9. doi: 10.1007/s13304-010-0024-9. Epub 2010 Sep 22. Updates Surg. 2010. PMID: 20859718
-
Routine cholangiography during rigid-hybrid transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic cholecystectomy.Surg Endosc. 2014 Mar;28(3):910-7. doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-3246-3. Epub 2013 Oct 19. Surg Endosc. 2014. PMID: 24141474
-
Three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.World J Surg. 2009 Sep;33(9):1904-8. doi: 10.1007/s00268-009-0108-1. World J Surg. 2009. PMID: 19597878
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous