Objective: To compare the perioperative results of single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) with those of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), and to analyze whether there were any differences between both techniques in our patients.
Materials And Methods: A retrospective, observational analysis was carried out in non-homogeneous groups of patients under 15 years of age undergoing LC and SPLC over a 6-year period. LC was conducted using four ports, while SPLC was performed through an umbilical incision using a wound retractor to which a surgical glove was coupled for the insertion of 3 ports and instruments curved as required. 15 clinical, surgical, and economic variables were compared by means of a univariate and bivariate analysis.
Results: 11 patients underwent surgery - 5 through SPLC and 6 through LC. No significant differences were found in terms of mean operating time (SPLC: 144 minutes vs. LC: 139, P= 0.855) or hospital stay, but a slight increase in hospital cost was noted (SPLC: 1,160 € vs. LC: 1,177 €). The cost of LC was 1,322 € vs. 1,367 € for SPLC, with a premium of 44.30 € owing to the use of the wound retractor. None of the patients had perioperative complications, and all of them felt the cosmetic result was excellent.
Conclusions: In our limited experience, the differences between SPLC and LC do not clearly support one or the other. SPLC could provide patients with a better cosmetic result and allow surgeons to improve their skills. However, we believe cholecystectomy is not the most adequate procedure to start a career in single-port laparoscopy because potential complications may be severe.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.54847/cp.2023.02.13 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!