Résumé
Objective: The objective of this study is to compare the outcome of three vs four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and detect safety of three port laparoscopic cholecystectomy [LC] as routine procedure
Study Design: Simple comparative study
Setting: One year starting from June 2010 to May 2011. Sample size: 100 patients
Methods: All patients were divided into two groups. Group A: three port laparoscopic cholecystectomy was done. Group B: Conventional four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy was done. Outcome is determined in terms of postoperative pain [determined by visual pain scale] and complications [bleeding, infection, bile duct injury]
Results: 35 patients in Group A had low pain score and 15 were high pain score. In group B, 24 had low pain score and 26 high pain score. In group A only 10 patient needed nalbuphine as compared to 35 patient in group B. Both groups have almost same operating time [48.5min A and 48min B]. Hospital stay is same [48h]. Complications like port site bleeding [2 patient in A and 4 in B], wound infection [2 in A and 3 patients in B], abdominal pain [3 in group A and 4 in group B] of three port laparoscopic cholecystectomy are comparable with four port cholecystectomy. No patient in both groups suffered bile duct injury
Conclusion: The three-port technique is as safe as the standard four-port for LC. The main advantages of the three-port technique are that it is less painful, safe, less chances of wound infection and leaves fewer scars