Three-port versus standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled clinical trial in a community-based teaching hospital in eastern Nepal
- PMID: 17931519
- PMCID: PMC3015828
Three-port versus standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled clinical trial in a community-based teaching hospital in eastern Nepal
Abstract
Objectives: With increasing surgeon experience, laparoscopic cholecystectomy has undergone many refinements including reduction in port number and size. Three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been reported to be safe and feasible in various clinical trials. However, whether it offers any additional advantages remains controversial. This study reports a randomized trial that compared the clinical outcomes of 3-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Methods: Seventy-five consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized to undergo either the 3-port or the 4-port technique. Four surgical tapes were applied to standard 4-port sites in both groups at the end of the operation. All dressings were kept intact until the first follow-up 1 week after surgery. Postoperative pain at the 4 sites was assessed on the first day after surgery by using a 10-cm unscaled visual analog scale (VAS). Other outcome measures included analgesia requirements, length of the operation, postoperative stay, and patient satisfaction score on surgery and scars.
Results: Demographic data were comparable for both groups. Patients in the 3-port group had shorter mean operative time (47.3+/-29.8 min vs 60.8+/-32.3 min) for the 4-port group (P=0.04) and less pain at port sites (mean score using 10-cm unscaled VAS: 2.19+/-1.06 vs 2.91+/-1.20 (P=0.02). Overall pain score, analgesia requirements, hospital stay, and patient satisfaction score (mean score using 10-cm unscaled VAS: 8.2+/-1.7 vs 7.8+/-1.7, P=0.24) on surgery and scars were similar between the 2 groups.
Conclusion: Three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy resulted in less individual port-site pain and similar clinical outcomes with fewer surgical scars and without any increased risk of bile duct injury compared with 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Thus, it can be recommended as a safe alternative procedure in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Similar articles
-
Three-port versus four-port technique for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.BJS Open. 2022 Mar 8;6(2):zrac013. doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrac013. BJS Open. 2022. PMID: 35357417 Free PMC article.
-
Three-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy as a Safe and Feasible Alternative to the Conventional Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.Cureus. 2024 Jan 13;16(1):e52196. doi: 10.7759/cureus.52196. eCollection 2024 Jan. Cureus. 2024. PMID: 38347985 Free PMC article.
-
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.
-
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
-
Meta-analysis of single-port versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy comparing body image and cosmesis.Br J Surg. 2017 Aug;104(9):1141-1159. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10574. Epub 2017 Jun 1. Br J Surg. 2017. PMID: 28569406 Review.
Cited by
-
Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of three-port vs four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (level 1 evidence).Updates Surg. 2021 Apr;73(2):451-471. doi: 10.1007/s13304-021-00982-z. Epub 2021 Feb 15. Updates Surg. 2021. PMID: 33587285
-
Single Port Access (SPA) laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: initial report of 30 cases.Surg Endosc. 2010 Jul;24(7):1557-61. doi: 10.1007/s00464-009-0810-y. Epub 2010 Jan 1. Surg Endosc. 2010. PMID: 20044766
-
Three-port versus four-port technique for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.BJS Open. 2022 Mar 8;6(2):zrac013. doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrac013. BJS Open. 2022. PMID: 35357417 Free PMC article.
-
Risk Factors for Difficult Three-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.Cureus. 2024 Oct 17;16(10):e71680. doi: 10.7759/cureus.71680. eCollection 2024 Oct. Cureus. 2024. PMID: 39553107 Free PMC article.
-
Three-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy as a Safe and Feasible Alternative to the Conventional Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.Cureus. 2024 Jan 13;16(1):e52196. doi: 10.7759/cureus.52196. eCollection 2024 Jan. Cureus. 2024. PMID: 38347985 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Trichak S. Three-port vs standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2003; 17 (9): 1434–1436 - PubMed
-
- Poon CM, Chan KW, Lee DW, et al. Two-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2003; 17 (10): 1624–1627 - PubMed
-
- 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 (11): 1345–1348 - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources