Advantages of Mini-laparoscopic vs Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Results of a Prospective Randomized Trial | Gastrointestinal Surgery | JAMA Surgery | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.153.100.128. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Litwin  DEGirotti  MJPoulin  ECMamazza  JNagy  AG Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: trans-Canada experience with 2201 cases.  Can J Surg 1992;35291- 296PubMedGoogle Scholar
2.
McMahon  AJRussell  ITBaxter  JN  et al.  Laparoscopic versus minilaparotomy cholecystectomy: a randomised trial.  Lancet 1994;343135- 138PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Berggren  UGordh  TGrama  DHaglund  URastad  JArvidsson  D Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy: hospitalization, sick leave, analgesia and trauma responses.  Br J Surg 1994;811362- 1365PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Trondsen  EReiertsen  OAndersen  OKKjaersgaard  P Laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized study.  Eur J Surg 1993;159217- 221PubMedGoogle Scholar
5.
Unger  SWParamo  JCPerez  M Microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy: less invasive gallbladder surgery.  Surg Endosc 2000;14336- 339PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Reardon  PRKamelgard  JIApplebaum  BRossman  LBrunicardi  FC Feasibility of laparoscopic cholecystectomy with miniaturized instrumentation in 50 consecutive cases.  World J Surg 1999;23128- 132PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Ngoi  SSGoh  PKok  KKum  CKCheah  WK Needlescopic or minisite cholecystectomy.  Surg Endosc 1999;13303- 305PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Schwenk  WNeudecker  JMall  JBohm  BMuller  JM Prospective randomized blinded trial of pulmonary function, pain, and cosmetic results after laparoscopic vs microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy.  Surg Endosc 2000;14345- 348PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Look  MChew  SPTan  YC  et al.  Post-operative pain in needlescopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomised trial.  J R Coll Surg Edinb 2001;46138- 142PubMedGoogle Scholar
10.
Lai  ECFok  MChan  AS Needlescopic cholecystectomy: prospective study of 150 patients.  Hong Kong Med J 2003;9238- 242PubMedGoogle Scholar
11.
Huang  MTWang  WWei  PLChen  RJLee  WJ Minilaparoscopic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study.  Arch Surg 2003;1381017- 1023PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Bisgaard  TKlarskov  BTrap  RKehlet  HRosenberg  J Microlaparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind trial.  Surg Endosc 2002;16458- 464PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Alponat  ACubukcu  AGonullu  NCanturk  ZOzbay  O Is minisite cholecystectomy less traumatic? prospective randomized study comparing minisite and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomies.  World J Surg 2002;261437- 1440PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Ainslie  WGCatton  JADavides  D  et al.  Micropuncture cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial.  Surg Endosc 2003;17766- 772PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Noether  GE Sample size determination for some common nonparametric tests.  J Am Stat Assoc 1987;82645- 647Google ScholarCrossref
16.
Novitsky  YWLDCallery  MP The net immunologic advantage of laparoscopic surgery.  Surg Endosc 2004;181411- 1419PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Kimura  TSakuramachi  SYoshida  MKobayashi  TTakeuchi  Y Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using fine-caliber instruments.  Surg Endosc 1998;12283- 286PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Gagner  MGarcia-Ruiz  A Technical aspects of minimally invasive abdominal surgery performed with needlescopic instruments.  Surg Laparosc Endosc 1998;8171- 179PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Tagaya  NKita  JTakagi  K  et al.  Experience with three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.  J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 1998;5309- 311PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Leggett  PLBissell  CDChurchman-Winn  R Cosmetic minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy.  Surg Endosc 2001;151229- 1231PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Leggett  PLChurchman-Winn  RMiller  G Minimizing ports to improve laparoscopic cholecystectomy.  Surg Endosc 2000;1432- 36PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Poon  CMChan  KWLee  DW  et al.  Two-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.  Surg Endosc 2003;171624- 1627PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Sherwood  RBerci  GAustin  EMorgenstern  L Minilaparoscopy for blunt abdominal trauma.  Arch Surg 1980;115672- 673PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Mamazza  JSchlachta  CMSeshadri  PACadeddu  MOPoulin  EC Needlescopic surgery: a logical evolution from conventional laparoscopic surgery.  Surg Endosc 2001;151208- 1212PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Tagaya  NRokkaku  KKubota  K Splenectomy using a completely needlescopic procedure: report of three cases.  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2002;12213- 216PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Gill  ISSoble  JJSung  GTWinfield  HNBravo  ELNovick  AC Needlescopic adrenalectomy–the initial series: comparison with conventional laparoscopic adrenalectomy.  Urology 1998;52180- 186PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Chiasson  PMPace  DESchlachta  CMPoulin  ECMamazza  J “Needlescopic” Heller myotomy.  Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2003;1367- 70PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Chiasson  PMPace  DEMustard  RAMamazza  JPoulin  ECSchlachta  CM “Needlescopic” sigmoid resection.  Surg Endosc 2002;16715PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Mostafa  GMatthews  BDSing  RFKercher  KWHeniford  BT Mini-laparoscopic versus laparoscopic approach to appendectomy.  BMC Surg 2001;14PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Yuan  RHLee  WJYu  SC Mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a cosmetically better, almost scarless procedure.  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 1997;7205- 211PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Cheah  WKLenzi  JESo  JBKum  CKGoh  PM Randomized trial of needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy.  Br J Surg 2001;8845- 47PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Sarli  LIusco  DGobbi  SPorrini  CFerro  MRoncoroni  L Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed with mini-instruments.  Br J Surg 2003;901345- 1348PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Bisgaard  TKlarskov  BRosenberg  JKehlet  H Characteristics and prediction of early pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.  Pain 2001;90261- 269PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Bisgaard  TKlarskov  BTrap  RKehlet  HRosenberg  J Pain after microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized double-blind controlled study.  Surg Endosc 2000;14340- 344PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Article
December 1, 2005

Advantages of Mini-laparoscopic vs Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Results of a Prospective Randomized Trial

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester.

Arch Surg. 2005;140(12):1178-1183. doi:10.1001/archsurg.140.12.1178
Abstract

Hypothesis  The use of smaller instruments during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has been proposed to reduce postoperative pain and improve cosmesis. However, despite several recent trials, the effects of the use of miniaturized instruments for LC are not well established. We hypothesized that LC using miniports (M-LC) is safe and produces less incisional pain and better cosmetic results than LC performed conventionally (C-LC).

Design  A patient- and observer-blinded, randomized, prospective clinical trial.

Setting  A tertiary care, university-based hospital.

Patients  Seventy-nine patients scheduled for an elective LC who agreed to participate in this trial were randomized to undergo surgery using 1 of the 2 instrument sets. The criteria for exclusion were American Society of Anesthesiologists class III or IV, age older than 70 years, liver or coagulation disorders, previous major abdominal surgical procedures, and acute cholecystitis or acute choledocholithiasis.

Intervention  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed with either conventional or miniaturized instruments.

Main Outcome Measures  Patients’ age, sex, operative time, operative blood loss, intraoperative complications, early and late postoperative incisional pain, and cosmetic results.

Results  Thirty-three C-LCs and 34 M-LCs were performed and analyzed. There were 8 conversions (24%) to the standard technique in the M-LC group. No intraoperative or major postoperative complications occurred in either group. The average incisional pain score on the first postoperative day was significantly less in the M-LC group (3.9 vs 4.9; P = .04). No significant differences occurred in the mean scores for pain on postoperative days 3, 7, and 28. However, 90% of patients in the M-LC group and only 74% of patients in the C-LC group had no pain (visual analog scale score of 0) at 28 days postoperatively (P = .05). Cosmetic results were superior in the M-LC group according to both the study nurse’s and the patients’ assessments (38.9 vs 28.9; P<.001, and 38.8 vs 33.4; P = .001, respectively).

Conclusions  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be safely performed using 10-mm umbilical, 5-mm epigastric, 2-mm subcostal, and 2-mm lateral ports. The use of mini-laparoscopic techniques resulted in decreased early postoperative incisional pain, avoided late incisional discomfort, and produced superior cosmetic results. Although improved instrument durability and better optics are needed for widespread use of miniport techniques, this approach can be routinely offered to many properly selected patients undergoing elective LC.

×