Minilaparoscopic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy

A comparative study

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

33 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Hypotheses: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) and to compare the clinical benefits experienced by patients who undergo MLC with those who undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) or 5-mm laparoscopic cholecystectomy (5-mm LC). Design: Prospective consecutive study. Setting: A tertiary referral center. Patients: From September 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001, 90 patients with symptomatic gallstones were randomized to undergo 1 of these 3 procedures. Intervention: Minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy, LC, and 5-mm LC. Main Outcome Measures: Duration of surgery, loss of blood, length of hospital stay, resumption of solid food intake, quantity of analgesic dosage administered, development of complications, degree of pain at ports 24 and 48 hours after surgery, and overall cosmetic result. Results: Subsequent to excluding 6 patients who were converted to LC, there were 30 patients in the LC group, 29 patients in the 5-mm LC group, and 25 patients in the MLC group. The MLC necessitated a longer time to complete the procedure than was the case for the other 2 procedures. There was no notable difference in the mean dosage of the meperidine hydrochloride (Pethidine) administered between the LC and MLC groups, but an apparent increase in the analgesia requirements for the 5-mm LC group was noted when compared with those of the other 2 groups. There was no remarkable difference in terms of blood loss, resumption of solid food intake, hospital stay subsequent to surgery, or surgical-related complication between these 3 groups. The MLC group did have a lower pain score in the subxyphoid port only at 24 hours after surgery compared with the other 2 groups. The cosmetic results were evaluated and no notable difference was noted at 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months after surgery. Conclusions: Although this study has demonstrated the feasibility and safety of the MLC, it does require a longer surgical time and reflects a reasonably high possibility for the conversion to LC. Furthermore, the MLC did not provide any notable clinical benefit for the tested patients compared with those patients in the LC group. We concluded that there is no reason for the MLC to become the universally accepted mode of treatment for symptomatic gallstones before further improvements are made in the technique and instrumentation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1017-1023
Number of pages7
JournalArchives of Surgery
Volume138
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 1 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Cholecystectomy
Length of Stay
Meperidine
Gallstones
Eating
Safety
Pain
Plastic Surgery
Operative Time
Tertiary Care Centers
Cosmetics
Analgesia
Analgesics
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Prospective Studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Minilaparoscopic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy : A comparative study. / Huang, Ming Te; Wang, Weu; Wei, Po Li; Chen, Robert J.; Lee, Wei Jei.

In: Archives of Surgery, Vol. 138, No. 9, 01.09.2003, p. 1017-1023.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9d781f2128a94004a69db29ae3506f53,
title = "Minilaparoscopic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A comparative study",
abstract = "Hypotheses: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) and to compare the clinical benefits experienced by patients who undergo MLC with those who undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) or 5-mm laparoscopic cholecystectomy (5-mm LC). Design: Prospective consecutive study. Setting: A tertiary referral center. Patients: From September 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001, 90 patients with symptomatic gallstones were randomized to undergo 1 of these 3 procedures. Intervention: Minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy, LC, and 5-mm LC. Main Outcome Measures: Duration of surgery, loss of blood, length of hospital stay, resumption of solid food intake, quantity of analgesic dosage administered, development of complications, degree of pain at ports 24 and 48 hours after surgery, and overall cosmetic result. Results: Subsequent to excluding 6 patients who were converted to LC, there were 30 patients in the LC group, 29 patients in the 5-mm LC group, and 25 patients in the MLC group. The MLC necessitated a longer time to complete the procedure than was the case for the other 2 procedures. There was no notable difference in the mean dosage of the meperidine hydrochloride (Pethidine) administered between the LC and MLC groups, but an apparent increase in the analgesia requirements for the 5-mm LC group was noted when compared with those of the other 2 groups. There was no remarkable difference in terms of blood loss, resumption of solid food intake, hospital stay subsequent to surgery, or surgical-related complication between these 3 groups. The MLC group did have a lower pain score in the subxyphoid port only at 24 hours after surgery compared with the other 2 groups. The cosmetic results were evaluated and no notable difference was noted at 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months after surgery. Conclusions: Although this study has demonstrated the feasibility and safety of the MLC, it does require a longer surgical time and reflects a reasonably high possibility for the conversion to LC. Furthermore, the MLC did not provide any notable clinical benefit for the tested patients compared with those patients in the LC group. We concluded that there is no reason for the MLC to become the universally accepted mode of treatment for symptomatic gallstones before further improvements are made in the technique and instrumentation.",
author = "Huang, {Ming Te} and Weu Wang and Wei, {Po Li} and Chen, {Robert J.} and Lee, {Wei Jei}",
year = "2003",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1001/archsurg.138.9.1017",
language = "English",
volume = "138",
pages = "1017--1023",
journal = "JAMA Surgery",
issn = "2168-6254",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Minilaparoscopic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy

T2 - A comparative study

AU - Huang, Ming Te

AU - Wang, Weu

AU - Wei, Po Li

AU - Chen, Robert J.

AU - Lee, Wei Jei

PY - 2003/9/1

Y1 - 2003/9/1

N2 - Hypotheses: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) and to compare the clinical benefits experienced by patients who undergo MLC with those who undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) or 5-mm laparoscopic cholecystectomy (5-mm LC). Design: Prospective consecutive study. Setting: A tertiary referral center. Patients: From September 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001, 90 patients with symptomatic gallstones were randomized to undergo 1 of these 3 procedures. Intervention: Minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy, LC, and 5-mm LC. Main Outcome Measures: Duration of surgery, loss of blood, length of hospital stay, resumption of solid food intake, quantity of analgesic dosage administered, development of complications, degree of pain at ports 24 and 48 hours after surgery, and overall cosmetic result. Results: Subsequent to excluding 6 patients who were converted to LC, there were 30 patients in the LC group, 29 patients in the 5-mm LC group, and 25 patients in the MLC group. The MLC necessitated a longer time to complete the procedure than was the case for the other 2 procedures. There was no notable difference in the mean dosage of the meperidine hydrochloride (Pethidine) administered between the LC and MLC groups, but an apparent increase in the analgesia requirements for the 5-mm LC group was noted when compared with those of the other 2 groups. There was no remarkable difference in terms of blood loss, resumption of solid food intake, hospital stay subsequent to surgery, or surgical-related complication between these 3 groups. The MLC group did have a lower pain score in the subxyphoid port only at 24 hours after surgery compared with the other 2 groups. The cosmetic results were evaluated and no notable difference was noted at 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months after surgery. Conclusions: Although this study has demonstrated the feasibility and safety of the MLC, it does require a longer surgical time and reflects a reasonably high possibility for the conversion to LC. Furthermore, the MLC did not provide any notable clinical benefit for the tested patients compared with those patients in the LC group. We concluded that there is no reason for the MLC to become the universally accepted mode of treatment for symptomatic gallstones before further improvements are made in the technique and instrumentation.

AB - Hypotheses: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) and to compare the clinical benefits experienced by patients who undergo MLC with those who undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) or 5-mm laparoscopic cholecystectomy (5-mm LC). Design: Prospective consecutive study. Setting: A tertiary referral center. Patients: From September 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001, 90 patients with symptomatic gallstones were randomized to undergo 1 of these 3 procedures. Intervention: Minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy, LC, and 5-mm LC. Main Outcome Measures: Duration of surgery, loss of blood, length of hospital stay, resumption of solid food intake, quantity of analgesic dosage administered, development of complications, degree of pain at ports 24 and 48 hours after surgery, and overall cosmetic result. Results: Subsequent to excluding 6 patients who were converted to LC, there were 30 patients in the LC group, 29 patients in the 5-mm LC group, and 25 patients in the MLC group. The MLC necessitated a longer time to complete the procedure than was the case for the other 2 procedures. There was no notable difference in the mean dosage of the meperidine hydrochloride (Pethidine) administered between the LC and MLC groups, but an apparent increase in the analgesia requirements for the 5-mm LC group was noted when compared with those of the other 2 groups. There was no remarkable difference in terms of blood loss, resumption of solid food intake, hospital stay subsequent to surgery, or surgical-related complication between these 3 groups. The MLC group did have a lower pain score in the subxyphoid port only at 24 hours after surgery compared with the other 2 groups. The cosmetic results were evaluated and no notable difference was noted at 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months after surgery. Conclusions: Although this study has demonstrated the feasibility and safety of the MLC, it does require a longer surgical time and reflects a reasonably high possibility for the conversion to LC. Furthermore, the MLC did not provide any notable clinical benefit for the tested patients compared with those patients in the LC group. We concluded that there is no reason for the MLC to become the universally accepted mode of treatment for symptomatic gallstones before further improvements are made in the technique and instrumentation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0041415961&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0041415961&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/archsurg.138.9.1017

DO - 10.1001/archsurg.138.9.1017

M3 - Article

VL - 138

SP - 1017

EP - 1023

JO - JAMA Surgery

JF - JAMA Surgery

SN - 2168-6254

IS - 9

ER -