Three-port vs standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A prospective randomized study

Background: Since the first laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) was reported in 1990, it has met with widespread acceptance as a standard procedure using four trocars. The fourth (lateral) trocar is used to grasp the fundus of the gallbladder so as to expose Calot's triangle. It has been argued t...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Trichak S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: 2014
Online Access:http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0141650718&partnerID=40&md5=6c67f3f8f01118ba4762d7e34ac3fed3
http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/handle/6653943832/2926
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Chiang Mai University
Language: English
id th-cmuir.6653943832-2926
record_format dspace
spelling th-cmuir.6653943832-29262014-08-30T02:25:33Z Three-port vs standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A prospective randomized study Trichak S. Background: Since the first laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) was reported in 1990, it has met with widespread acceptance as a standard procedure using four trocars. The fourth (lateral) trocar is used to grasp the fundus of the gallbladder so as to expose Calot's triangle. It has been argued that the fourth trocar is not necessary in most cases. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the three-port vs the four-port technique. Methods: Between 1998 and 2000, 200 consecutive patients undergoing elective LC for gallstone disease were randomized to be treated via either the three- or four-port technique. Results: There was no difference between the two groups in age, sex, or weight. In terms of outcome, there was no difference between the two groups in success rate, operating time, number of oral analgesic tablets (paracetamol), visual analogue score, or postoperative hospital stay; however, the three-port group required fewer analgesic injections (nalbuphine) (0.4 vs 0.77, p = 0.024). Conclusion: The three-port technique is as safe as the standard four-port one for LC. The main advantages of the three-port technique are that it causes less pain, is less expensive, and leaves fewer scars. 2014-08-30T02:25:33Z 2014-08-30T02:25:33Z 2003 Article 09302794 10.1007/s00464-002-8713-1 12799892 SUREE http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0141650718&partnerID=40&md5=6c67f3f8f01118ba4762d7e34ac3fed3 http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/handle/6653943832/2926 English
institution Chiang Mai University
building Chiang Mai University Library
country Thailand
collection CMU Intellectual Repository
language English
description Background: Since the first laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) was reported in 1990, it has met with widespread acceptance as a standard procedure using four trocars. The fourth (lateral) trocar is used to grasp the fundus of the gallbladder so as to expose Calot's triangle. It has been argued that the fourth trocar is not necessary in most cases. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the three-port vs the four-port technique. Methods: Between 1998 and 2000, 200 consecutive patients undergoing elective LC for gallstone disease were randomized to be treated via either the three- or four-port technique. Results: There was no difference between the two groups in age, sex, or weight. In terms of outcome, there was no difference between the two groups in success rate, operating time, number of oral analgesic tablets (paracetamol), visual analogue score, or postoperative hospital stay; however, the three-port group required fewer analgesic injections (nalbuphine) (0.4 vs 0.77, p = 0.024). Conclusion: The three-port technique is as safe as the standard four-port one for LC. The main advantages of the three-port technique are that it causes less pain, is less expensive, and leaves fewer scars.
format Article
author Trichak S.
spellingShingle Trichak S.
Three-port vs standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A prospective randomized study
author_facet Trichak S.
author_sort Trichak S.
title Three-port vs standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A prospective randomized study
title_short Three-port vs standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A prospective randomized study
title_full Three-port vs standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A prospective randomized study
title_fullStr Three-port vs standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A prospective randomized study
title_full_unstemmed Three-port vs standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A prospective randomized study
title_sort three-port vs standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study
publishDate 2014
url http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0141650718&partnerID=40&md5=6c67f3f8f01118ba4762d7e34ac3fed3
http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/handle/6653943832/2926
_version_ 1681419951703851008