A Comparative Study of Single Incision versus Conventional Four Ports Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy PC06-PC09
Dr. Ranendra Hajong,
Associate Professor, Department of Surgery, NEIGRIHMS, Shillong-793018, Meghalaya, India.
Introduction: Cholelithiasis is one of the most common disorders of the digestive tract encountered by general surgeons worldwide. Conventional or open cholecystectomy was the mainstay of treatment for a long time for this disease. In the 1980s laparoscopic surgery revolutionized the management of biliary tract diseases. It brought about a revolutionary change in the basic concepts of surgical principles and minimal access surgery gradually started to be acknowledged as a safe means of carrying out surgeries.
Aim: To investigate the technical feasibility, safety and benefit of Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (SILC) versus Conventional Four Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (C4PLC).
Materials and Methods: This prospective randomized control trial was conducted to compare the advantages if any between the SILC and C4PLC. Thirty two patients underwent SILC procedure and C4PLC, each. The age of the patients ranged from 16-60years. Other demographic data and indications for cholecystectomy were comparable in both the groups. Simple comparative statistical analysis was carried out in the present study. Results on continuous variables are shown in Mean ± SD; whereas results on categorical variables are shown in percentage (%) by keeping the level of significance at 5%. Intergroup analysis of the various study parameters was done by using Fisher exact test. SPSS version 22 was used for statistical analysis.
Results: The mean operating time was higher in the SILC group (69 ± 4.00 mins vs. 38.53 ± 4.00 mins) which was of statistical significance (p=<0.05). Furthermore, the patients of the SILC group had less post-operative pain, with lesser analgesic requirements (p=<0.05), shorter hospital stay and earlier return to normal activity.
Conclusion: SILC is feasible and safe in trained hands. It did not compromise the procedural safety, or lead to any complication. The operating time was longer otherwise it has almost similar clinical outcomes to those of C4PLC