Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed with mini-instruments

被引:58
作者
Sarli, L
Iusco, D
Gobbi, S
Porrini, C
Ferro, M
Roncoroni, L
机构
[1] Univ Parma, Sch Med, Inst Gen Surg & Surg Therapy, I-43100 Parma, Italy
[2] Univ Parma, Sch Med, Serv Anaesthesiol, I-43100 Parma, Italy
关键词
D O I
10.1002/bjs.4315
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The outcomes after traditional laparoscopic cholecystcetomy (LC; one 10-mm. port, one 12-mm port and two 5-mm ports) and minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC; three 3-mm ports and one 12-mm. port) for gallstone disease were compared. Methods: The study was a randomized, single-blind trial comparing LC with MLC. Only elective patients were eligible for inclusion. LC was a routine procedure at the institution in which the study was performed, whereas MLC was introduced after a short training period. The randomization period was from January to December 2001. Results: Of 175 patients who had elective minimal access cholecystectomy during the randomization period, 135 entered the trial: 68 underwent LC and 67 underwent MLC. The groups were matched for age, sex and preoperative characteristics. Median (range) operating times for LC and MLC were similar (45 (20-120) and 50 (20-170) min respectively). Intraoperative and postoperative complication rates, the time for the patient to resume walking, eating and passing stools, and median hospital stay were the same in the two groups. The level of postoperative pain was lower in the MLC group at 1 h (P = 0.011), 3 h (P = 0.012), 6 h (P = 0.003), 12 h (P = 0.052) and 24 h (P = 0.034). Patients who had MLC received fewer injections of analgesic (P = 0.036) and more patients in this group expressed satisfaction with the cosmetic result (P = 0.001). Conclusion: MLC took a similar time to perform and caused less postoperative pain than the standard laparoscopic procedure. Reducing the port size further enhanced the advantages of laparoscopic over open cholecystectomy.
引用
收藏
页码:1345 / 1348
页数:4
相关论文
共 9 条
[1]  
Davis R L, 1997, HMO Pract, V11, P13
[2]   CELIOSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY - PRELIMINARY-REPORT OF 36 CASES [J].
DUBOIS, F ;
ICARD, P ;
BERTHELOT, G ;
LEVARD, H .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 1990, 211 (01) :60-62
[3]   Technical aspects of minimally invasive abdominal surgery performed with needlescopic instruments [J].
Gagner, M ;
Garcia-Ruiz, A .
SURGICAL LAPAROSCOPY & ENDOSCOPY, 1998, 8 (03) :171-179
[4]   Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using fine-caliber instruments [J].
Kimura, T ;
Sakuramachi, S ;
Yoshida, M ;
Kobayashi, T ;
Takeuchi, Y .
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 1998, 12 (03) :283-286
[5]   Minimizing ports to improve laparoscopic cholecystectomy [J].
Leggett, PL ;
Churchman-Winn, R ;
Miller, G .
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY-ULTRASOUND AND INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2000, 14 (01) :32-36
[6]   Feasibility of laparoscopic cholecystectomy with miniaturized instrumentation in 50 consecutive cases [J].
Reardon, PR ;
Kamelgard, JI ;
Applebaum, B ;
Rossman, L ;
Brunicardi, FC .
WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 1999, 23 (02) :128-132
[7]   Routine intravenous cholangiography, selective ERCP and endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones before laparoscopic cholecystectomy [J].
Sarli, L ;
Pietra, N ;
Franze, A ;
Colla, G ;
Costi, R ;
Gobbi, S ;
Trivelli, M .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 1999, 50 (02) :200-208
[8]   Mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy - A matched case-control study [J].
Sarli, L ;
Costi, R ;
Sansebastiano, G .
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2001, 15 (06) :614-618
[9]  
VANDERLINDEN W, 1980, SURGERY, V87, P258