COMPARATIVE STUDY
EVALUATION STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Safety and feasibility of needlescopic grasper-assisted single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with acute cholecystitis: comparison with three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has been increasing in use steadily, and many researchers have reported the safety and feasibility of SILC. However, most studies were confined to selected patients and excluded patients with acute inflammation. In this study, we evaluated the safety and feasibility of SILC with our technique in patients with acute cholecystitis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-six patients with acute cholecystitis undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy at Uijeonbu St. Mary's Hospital (Uijeongbu, Korea) between October 2011 and December 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. SILC was performed in 49 patients, and conventional three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed in 47 patients. Patient demographics and operative outcomes were compared between groups to evaluate the safety and feasibility of SILC using our technique.

RESULTS: There were no differences between groups in demographics except for the sex ratio. SILC was more often performed in female patients (69% versus 34%, P=.001). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in terms of operation time, critical view of safety identification time, iatrogenic gallbladder perforation, port-site seroma, and postoperative hospital stay, respectively. One patient in each group required conversion to open cholecystectomy because of massive bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that needlescopic grasper-assisted SILC with our technique is acceptable not only in selected patients but also in patients with acute cholecystitis. Lateral and cephalad retraction using a needlescopic grasper and a snake retractor can make SILC safe and easy in acute cholecystitis through better visualization of the triangle of Calot.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app