We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Evaluation Studies
Journal Article
Comparison study of clinical outcomes between single-site robotic cholecystectomy and single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Asian Journal of Surgery 2017 November
BACKGROUND: Multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the standard surgical procedure for symptomatic gallbladder diseases. The latest evolution is single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC). Single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) overcomes several limitations of manual SILC. The aim of this study is to present our initial experiences in SSRC and to compare its clinical outcomes with those of SILC.
METHODS: This study retrospectively reviewed data for patients who received SSRC or SILC from February 2014 to September 2015. The following variables were analyzed: age, sex, body mass index, indications, pain scale, length of stay, and complications. The data were analyzed with Student t test or by Fisher exact test.
RESULTS: The analysis included 51 SSRC (33 women, 18 men) and 63 SILC patients (40 women, 23 men). Patients in both groups had similar demographic features and indications for surgery. The SSRC group required no conversions to conventional laparoscopy and no additional trocars, whereas the SILC group had two (3.17%) cases. Length of stay did not significantly differ between the SSRC and SILC groups (4.29 ± 0.72 vs. 4.13 ± 0.93 days, respectively; p = 0.823). However, the SSRC group had shorter operative time (71.30 ± 48.88 vs. 74.70 ± 30.16 minutes; p = 0.772), less perioperative bile spillage (9.81% vs. 19.05%; p = 0.189), and less postoperative bile leakage (0% vs. 3.17%; p = 0.501). However, the parameters mentioned above were not statistically significant, whereas pain scale scores were significantly lower in the SSRC group (2.11 ± 0.76 vs. 3.98 ± 0.84; p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Both SSRC and SILC are safe and feasible procedures for performing single incision cholecystectomy. SSRC, however, has the advantage of significantly decreased postoperative pain.
METHODS: This study retrospectively reviewed data for patients who received SSRC or SILC from February 2014 to September 2015. The following variables were analyzed: age, sex, body mass index, indications, pain scale, length of stay, and complications. The data were analyzed with Student t test or by Fisher exact test.
RESULTS: The analysis included 51 SSRC (33 women, 18 men) and 63 SILC patients (40 women, 23 men). Patients in both groups had similar demographic features and indications for surgery. The SSRC group required no conversions to conventional laparoscopy and no additional trocars, whereas the SILC group had two (3.17%) cases. Length of stay did not significantly differ between the SSRC and SILC groups (4.29 ± 0.72 vs. 4.13 ± 0.93 days, respectively; p = 0.823). However, the SSRC group had shorter operative time (71.30 ± 48.88 vs. 74.70 ± 30.16 minutes; p = 0.772), less perioperative bile spillage (9.81% vs. 19.05%; p = 0.189), and less postoperative bile leakage (0% vs. 3.17%; p = 0.501). However, the parameters mentioned above were not statistically significant, whereas pain scale scores were significantly lower in the SSRC group (2.11 ± 0.76 vs. 3.98 ± 0.84; p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Both SSRC and SILC are safe and feasible procedures for performing single incision cholecystectomy. SSRC, however, has the advantage of significantly decreased postoperative pain.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System: From History to Practice of a Secular Topic.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 5
Albumin: a comprehensive review and practical guideline for clinical use.European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2024 April 13
Revascularization Strategy in Myocardial Infarction with Multivessel Disease.Journal of Clinical Medicine 2024 March 27
Clinical practice guidelines on the management of status epilepticus in adults: A systematic review.Epilepsia 2024 April 13
Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review.JAMA 2024 April 23
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app