Is mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy any better than the gold standard?: A comparative study

Robotic Cholecystectomies: What Are They Good for? - A Retrospective Study - Robotic versus Conventional Cases

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted cholecystectomies are often criticized as expensive with uncertain benefit to patients. Characterization of robotic surgery benefits, as well as specific factors that drive cost, has the potential to shape the current debate.

METHODS

The surgical cost and outcomes among patients who underwent robotic (n = 283) or non-robotic (n = 1438) laparoscopic cholecystectomies between 2012 and 2018 at a single academic institution were examined retrospectively. All cholecystectomies were primary surgical procedures with no secondary procedures. We also examined the subset of robotic (n = 277) and non-robotic (n = 1108) outpatient procedures.

RESULTS

Robotic cholecystectomies were associated with higher median total cost compared to conventional procedures, largely attributable to variable costs and surgical costs. Patients who underwent conventional cholecystectomy had longer mean lengths of stays (1.7 versus 1.1 days) compared to robotic procedures-with over 10 times as many requiring hospital admission.

CONCLUSIONS

At present, robotic cholecystectomies have a little value to patients and institutions outside of surgical training. Prior to narrowing the analysis to outpatient cases, difference in total cost between procedures was less pronounced due to more frequent inpatient management following conventional procedures. Future optimization of robotic consumables and free market competition among system manufacturers may increase financial feasibility by decreasing variable costs associated with robotic surgery.

Feasibility and Safety of Three-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Compared to Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Background

The standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard procedure. The various clinical trials and reports in the literature have suggested that the three-port technique LC can be done safely with acceptable results.

Still, that the three-port LC offers any added benefits to the patient is a controversial issue especially in view of safety and feasibility. In this study, we report the experience of three-port LC compared to four-port LC technique, its safety, feasibility and outcomes.

Materials and methods

A prospective randomized study was conducted between two groups which included 165 cases - 93 patients were included in three-port LC (Group A) and 72 patients in four-port LC (Group B). Operative time, intraoperative complications, postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, analgesics requirement, conversion to open and return to normal activities were parameters of evaluation.

Results

Demographic data was comparable in both the groups. Three-port LC Group A had lesser post-operative pain and analgesics requirements. The mean postoperative pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score on day 1 was (4.16 and 6.24), on day 7 was (1.26 and 1.81) in three-port group and in four-port LC group, respectively. The mean days of analgesics requirement were 2.56 days and 4.21 days among three-port group and four-port group, respectively

Length of hospital stay was less and returning to work was early in three-port group. There was no statistical difference in operative time. The mean operative time among three-port LC group A and four-port LC group B was 36+/-8.6 minutes (30-68) and 39+/-7 minutes (30-90), respectively. The overall outcomes were comparable to four-port LC.

Conclusion

Three-port LC is a feasible and safe procedure for LC with satisfactory outcomes like lesser postoperative pain, postoperative stay and less scars, when performed by experienced hands, especially in acute cholecystitis. The use of fourth port should be done when required in a difficult situation.

Mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: evolution of a new technique

BACKGROUND

Since the first laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in 1985, there has been much advancement in laparoscopic surgery in terms of reduction in number and size of ports. We report a new technique of performing mini laparoscopic cholecystectomy using only three ports, 5 mm each. The indications of this procedure include GB polyps, GB dyskinesia, microlithiasis, and idiopathic pancreatitis.

CASE PRESENTATION

In this case report, we present a new technique that has been performed safely in a 49-year-old male patient with pancreatitis caused by microlithiasis. This was performed using a novel three port procedure consisting of only 5 mm ports, and he was discharged as a day case without complications. Informed patient consent was obtained.

CONCLUSIONS

The fundamentals of this mini-LC technique remain the same as that of a standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy throughout the procedure. It is a feasible option in selected cases, and it has the potential to further augment the inherent benefits of minimal access surgery namely less analgesia, improved cosmesis and faster recovery. Further trials will help ascertain its potential advantages.

The Comparison of Postoperative Pain, Nausea, and Vomiting between Veress Needle Entry and Direct Trocar Entry Methods in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting are the most common side effects of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). In the present study, we investigated the differences in postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting between Veress needle and direct trocar entry methods among patients undergoing LC.

METHODS

96 patients with gallstones were studied. They were randomly divided into two groups: the patients in the first group (n = 48) were insufflated 8.1 liters per minute CO₂ gas by direct trocar port, and the patients in another group (n = 48) were insufflated 2.1 liters per minute CO₂ gas by Veress needle. Pain intensity, nausea, and vomiting were assessed at 20 minutes, 4 hours, and 12 hours after the operations.

RESULTS

The duration of CO₂ gas insufflation in Veress needle was 88.7 ± 10.7 seconds and indirect trocar was 16.6 ± 1.6 seconds. Visual analog scale (VAS) score significantly reduced in Veress needle compared with direct trocar (0.39 ± 0.98 vs. 1.68 ± 1.48) at 20 min after the operation, while there was no difference at 4 hours and 12 hours after the operation. The requirement and dose of pethidine injection were significantly lower in Veress needle than direct trocar. In addition, nausea and vomiting occurred in Veress needle less than direct trocar at 20 min, 4 hours, and 12 hours after LC.

CONCLUSION

Pain intensity just in the short term after LC in the group with CO₂ gas insufflation in Veress needle was significantly less than the other group, while nausea and vomiting were significantly less during the whole follow-up periods in the group with CO₂ gas insufflation in Veress needle.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy with two incisions: an improved, feasible and safe technique with superior cosmetic outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) is usually performed with four incisions. Minimally invasive surgery for gallbladder disease with less pain and smaller scars has become increasingly popular. This study reported a new, two-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TILC) using conventional instruments.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 43 patients were recruited to undergo TILC and were compared with 43 historical cases undergoing CLC. We evaluated operative time, postoperative pain, cosmesis and complications.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in gender, age, body mass index, bile duct damage, blood loss and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups. The mean operation time was longer with TILC than with CLC, but the difference was not statistically different. Postoperative pain scores were significantly lower with TILC than with CLC. The mean cosmetic satisfaction score was significantly higher with TILC than that with CLC. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Our work demonstrates that TILC generates less postoperative pain and significantly improved cosmesis for patients. TILC is a safe and feasible alternative to CLC.