Outcome of comparative study of mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Authors

  • Abishek H. Karthik Department of Urology, Meenakshi Medical College and Research Institute, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu, India
  • Kundan Gedam Department of General Surgery, MGM Institute of Health Sciences, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
  • Sameer Kadam Department of General Surgery, MGM Institute of Health Sciences, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20222525

Keywords:

Conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy, Mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is considered the gold standard for cholecystectomy procedures. In recent years, many investigators have attempted to further improve the established technique of LC with the goal of minimising invasiveness of this procedure by reducing the number and size of the operating ports and instruments.

Methods: This was a retrospective study done in a tertiary care hospital comparing the safety and efficacy of mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) done during the time period of June 2020 to January 2022 based on the variables like total operating time, post-operative pain, conversion rate to open procedure, duration of hospital stay and cosmetic results.

Results: Out of 40 cases were collected and analysed, MLC has an advantage over CLC like postop pain on postop day 1 (p=0.016) and on postop day 3 (0.025) and postoperative scar (p<0.001). In aspects like duration of hospital stay (p=0.359) and operating time (p=0.805) MLC is equally comparable to CLC. CLC is proved to be better than MLC in one aspect- conversion to open cholecystectomy (p=0.042).

Conclusions: Miniaturised instrumentation is an area of research which is studied for the past 3 decades. Although improved instrument durability and better optics are needed for widespread use of miniport techniques, this MLC approach can be routinely offered to many properly selected patients undergoing elective LC.

Author Biographies

Abishek H. Karthik, Department of Urology, Meenakshi Medical College and Research Institute, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu, India

POST GRADUATE RESIDENT, UROLOGY

Kundan Gedam, Department of General Surgery, MGM Institute of Health Sciences, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

PROFESSOR, DEPT OF GENERAL SURGERY

Sameer Kadam, Department of General Surgery, MGM Institute of Health Sciences, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

PROFESSOR, DEPT OF GENERAL SURGERY

References

Shaffer EA. Epidemiology and risk factors for gallstone disease: has the paradigm changed in the 21st century? Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2005;7:132-40

Glasgow RE, Cho M, Hutter MM. The spectrum and cost of complicated gallstone disease in California. Arch Surg. 2000;135:1021-5.

Shaffer EA. Gallstone disease: epidemiology of gall bladder stone disease. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2006; 20(6):981-96

Tehemton E. Udwadia. Laparoscopy in India- a personal perspective. J Minim Access Surg. 2005;1(2):51-2.

Cheah WK, Lenzi JE, So JB, Kum CK, Goh PM. Randomized trial of needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg. 2001;88(1):45-7.

Look M, Chew SP, Tan Y, Liew SE, Cheong DM, Tan JC, et al. Post-operative pain in needlescopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomised trial. J Royal Coll Surg Edinburgh. 2001;46(3).

Gagner M, Garcia-Ruiz A. Technical aspects of minimally invasive abdominal surgery performed with needlescopic instruments. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1998;8:171-9.

Ainslie WG, Catton JA, Davides D, Dexter S, Gibson J, Larvin M, et al. Micropuncture cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc Other Intervent Tech. 2003;17(5):766-72.

Huang MT, Wang W, Wei PL, Chen RJ, Lee WJ. Minilaparoscopic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study. Arch Surg. 2003;138(9):1017-23.

Reardon PR, Kamelgard JI, Applebaum B, Rossman L, Brunicardi FC. Feasibility of laparoscopic cholecystectomy with miniaturized instrumentation in 50 consecutive cases. World J Surg. 1999;23(2):128-32.

Sarli L, Costi R, Sansebastiano G. Mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2001;15(6):614-8.

Novitsky Y, Kercher K, Czerniach D, Kaban G, Khera S, Gallagher-Dorval K, et al. Advantages of mini-laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Arch Surg. 2005;140(12):1178.

Yuan RH, Lee WJ, Yu SC. Mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a cosmetically better, almost scarless procedure. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 1997;7(4):205-11.

Alponat A, Kum CK, Koh BC, Rajnakova A, Goh PM. Predictive factors for conversion of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. World J Surg. 1997;21(6):629-33.

Atasoy D, Aghayeva A, Özben V, Bayraktar O, Hamzaoğlu I, Baca B. Mini-laparoscopic versus Traditional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: preliminary study. Laparosc Endosc Surg Sci. 2018;24(4):117-21.

Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Kristiansen VB, Callesen T, Schulze S, Kehlet H, et al. Multi-regional local anesthetic infiltration during laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients receiving prophylactic multi-modal analgesia: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. Anesth Analg. 1999;89(4):1017-24.

Leggett PL, Churchman-Winn R, Miller G. Minimizing ports to improve laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2000;14(1):32-6.

Schwenk W, Neudecker J, Mall J, Böhm B, Müller JM. Prospective randomized blinded trial of pulmonary function, pain, and cosmetic results after laparoscopic vs. microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2000;14(4):345-8.

Downloads

Published

2022-09-27

How to Cite

Karthik, A. H., Gedam, K., & Kadam, S. (2022). Outcome of comparative study of mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 10(10), 2209–2215. https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20222525

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles