Comparison of Two-port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy with Four-port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

PURPOSE: In spite of its safety and fesibility, it is not completely certain whether two-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be applied for the same indications as four-port cholecystectomy. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the prospectively collected data of the patients who had undergone either two-port or four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy at the Department of Surgery, Daejeon St. Mary's Hospital between March 2007 and August 2009. A total of 341 patients were included. For our two-port cholecystectomy, combining a transumbilical wound retractor with a surgical glove on which there was a 11 mm trocar and two pipes were attached comprised an umbilical common channel, and another port was inserted through the epigastrium. The overall procedure was similar to four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. RESULTS: The patients were classified into the four-port group (n=261) and the two-port group (n=80) according to the operative method. All the two-port cholecystectomies were followed by four-port procedures. The operative indications for these two procedures were identical. No significant difference was observed for the mean operation time, the conversion rate, the postoperative hospital stay and the complications between each group. Multivariate analysis revealed that the factors making two-port surgery longer than the 75 percentile of the overall operation time were the development of intraoperative complications (RR 14.3; p=0.005; C.I. 2.255-90.853), a operation for the patients who visited the emergency room (RR 10.4; p=0.012; C.I. 1.684-63.798), open conversion or making additional port(s) (RR 9.9; p=0.032; C.I. 1.219-80.958) and a body-mass index greater than 25 (RR 5.5; p=0.025; C.I. 1.244-24.731). CONCLUSION: This study documents that our two-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy seems to have the potential to replace the conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Comparison of Two-port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy with Four-port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

PURPOSE: In spite of its safety and fesibility, it is not completely certain whether two-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be applied for the same indications as four-port cholecystectomy. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the prospectively collected data of the patients who had undergone either two-port or four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy at the Department of Surgery, Daejeon St. Mary's Hospital between March 2007 and August 2009. A total of 341 patients were included. For our two-port cholecystectomy, combining a transumbilical wound retractor with a surgical glove on which there was a 11 mm trocar and two pipes were attached comprised an umbilical common channel, and another port was inserted through the epigastrium. The overall procedure was similar to four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. RESULTS: The patients were classified into the four-port group (n=261) and the two-port group (n=80) according to the operative method. All the two-port cholecystectomies were followed by four-port procedures. The operative indications for these two procedures were identical. No significant difference was observed for the mean operation time, the conversion rate, the postoperative hospital stay and the complications between each group. Multivariate analysis revealed that the factors making two-port surgery longer than the 75 percentile of the overall operation time were the development of intraoperative complications (RR 14.3; p=0.005; C.I. 2.255-90.853), a operation for the patients who visited the emergency room (RR 10.4; p=0.012; C.I. 1.684-63.798), open conversion or making additional port(s) (RR 9.9; p=0.032; C.I. 1.219-80.958) and a body-mass index greater than 25 (RR 5.5; p=0.025; C.I. 1.244-24.731). CONCLUSION: This study documents that our two-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy seems to have the potential to replace the conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.