Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 1689–1694 | Cite as

Comparison between single-incision and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective trial of the Club Coelio

  • Philippe HautersEmail author
  • Sylvain Auvray
  • Jean Luc Cardin
  • Marc Papillon
  • Jean Delaby
  • André Dabrowski
  • Dominique Framery
  • Alain Valverde
  • Raphaël Rubay
  • Frank Siriser
  • Philippe Malvaux
  • Jacques Landenne
Article

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC).

Method

Patients’ inclusion criteria were uncomplicated gallstones, BMI ≤30, ASA score ≤2, and no past surgery in the upper abdomen. Five surgeons performed only SILC and seven only CLC. Data analyzed included operative time, morbidity, quality of life (QOL), cosmetic result, and global patient satisfaction. The last three parameters were evaluated 3 months after surgery. QOL was assessed with the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) questionnaire. Cosmetic result and patient satisfaction were rated using a 5-grade Likert scale.

Results

This study included 104 patients operated on between April and June 2010. A SILC was performed in 35 patients and a CLC in 69. The preoperative characteristics of the two groups were similar. Median operative time for SILC was higher than that for CLC: 55 versus 40 min (p < 0.001). Postoperative complications (0 vs. 2) and postoperative GIQLI scores (123 ± 13 vs. 121 ± 18) were not significantly different between groups. Cosmetic result and patient satisfaction were better for SILC than for CLC. The percentages of results rated as excellent were 68 versus 37 % (p < 0.006) and 80 versus 57 % (p < 0.039), respectively. For the whole group, multivariate statistical analysis revealed that postoperative GIQLI score and cosmetic result were independent predictive factors of patient satisfaction. The percentages of satisfaction rated as excellent were greater in patients who had a postoperative GIQLI score ≥130 (92 vs. 49 %, odds ratio [OR] = 4, p < 0.001) and in patients who had an excellent cosmetic result (82 vs. 47 %, OR = 7, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Compared to CLC, SILC is associated with a longer operative time, an equivalent morbidity and QOL, and a better cosmetic result. The improved aesthetic result also leads to a better global patient satisfaction.

Keywords

Single incision Laparoscopic cholecystectomy Quality of life Satisfaction SILS LESS 

Notes

Conflict of interest

Drs. Hauters, Auvray, Cardin, Papillon, Delaby, Dabrowski, Framery, Valverde, Rubay, Siriser, Malvaux, and Landenne have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Chamberlain R, Sakpal S (2009) A comprehensive review of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) techniques for cholecystectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 9:1733–1740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Navarra G, Pozza E, Occhionorelli S, Carcoforo P, Donini I (1997) One-wound laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 84:695PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bokobza B, Valverde A, Magne E et al (2010) Single umbilical incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the early experience of the Club Coelio. J Visc Surg 147:253–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Edwards C, Bradshaw A, Ahearne P et al (2010) Single-incision laparoscpic cholecystectomy is feasible: initial experience with 80 patients. Surg Endosc 24:2241–2247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hernandez J, Morton C, Ross S, Albrink M, Rosemurgy A (2009) Laparoendoscopic single site cholecystectomy: the first 100 patients. Am Surg 75:681–685PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rivas H, Varela E, Scott D (2010) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: initial evaluation of a large series of patients. Surg Endosc 24:1403–1412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Erbella J, Bunch G (2010) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the first 100 outpatients. Surg Endosc 24:1958–1961PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Curcillo P, Wu A, Podolsky E et al (2010) Cholecystectomy: a multi-institutional report of the first 297 cases. Surg Endosc 24:1854–1860PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Slim K, Bousquet J, Kwiatkowski F, Lescure G, Pezet D, Chipponi J (1999) First validation of the French version of the gastrointestinal quality of life index (GIQLI). Gastroenterol Clin Biol 23:25–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eypasch E, Willians J, Wood-Daphinee S et al (1995) Gastrointestinal quality of life index: development, validation and application of a new instrument. Br J Surg 82:216–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    National Institutes of Health (1993) Consensus conference: gallstones and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JAMA 269:1018–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Keus F, Gooszen HG, van Laarhoven C (2010) Open, small-incision, or laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. an overview of Cochrane hepato-biliary group reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD008318Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Connor S (2009) Single-port-access cholecystectomy: history should not be allowed to repeat. World J Surg 33:1020–1021PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tsimoyiannis E, Tsimogiannis K, Pappas-Gogos G et al (2010) Different pain scores in single transumbilical incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 24:1842–1848PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fronza J, Linn J, Nagle A, Soper N (2010) A single institution’s experience with single incision cholecystectomy compared to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgery 148:731–734PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee P, Lo C, Lai P, Chang J, Huang S, Lin M, Lee P (2010) Randomised clinical trial of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus minlaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 97:1007–1012PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aprea G, Coppola E, Guida F, Masone S, Persico G (2011) Laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) versus classic video-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized prospective study. J Surg Res 166:109–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Asakuma M, Hayashi M, Komeda K et al (2011) Impact of single-port cholecystectomy on post-operative pain. Br J Surg 98:991–995PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marks J, Tacchino R, Roberts K et al (2011) Prospective randomised controlled trial of traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Report of preliminary data. Am J Surg 201:369–373PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Prasad A, Mukherjee K, Kaul S, Kaur M (2011) Postoperative pain after cholecystectomy: conventional laparoscopy versus single incision laparoscopic surgery. J Minim Access Surg 7:24–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wu S, Han J, Tian Y (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a retrospective comparative study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 21:25–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ma J, Cassera M, Spaun G, Hammil C, Hansen P, Aliabadi-Whale S (2011) Randomised controlled trial comparing single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 254:22–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lirici MM, Califano AD, Angelini P, Corcione F (2011) Laparoendoscopic single site cholecystectomy versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a pilot randomized trial. Am J Surg 202:45–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lai EC, Yang GP, Tang CN, Yih PC, Chan OC, Li MK (2011) Prospective randomized comparative study of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 202:254–258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Joseph B, Todd Moore B, Brent Sorensen G et al (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparison with the gold standard. Surg Endosc 25:3008–3015PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chow A, Purkayastha S, Omer A, Pefanis D, Paraskevas P (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic surgery. A retrospective comparison with 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Arch Surg 145:1187–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vidal O, Valentini M, Ginesta C et al (2011) Single-incision versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: comparison of surgical outcomes from a single institution. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 21:683–686PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Joseph S, Philips M, Farrel T, Rupp C (2012) Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with a higher bile duct injury rate: a review and a word of caution. Ann Surg 256:1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Waage A, Nilsson M (2006) Iatrogenic bile duct injury: a population-based study of 152,776 cholecystectomies in the Swedish inpatient registry. Arch Surg 141:1207–1213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nuzzo G, Giuliante F, Giovannini I et al (2005) Bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of an Italian national survey on 56,591 cholecystectomies. Arch Surg 140:986–992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Markar S, Karthikesalingam A, Thurmurthy S, Muirhead L, Kinross J, Paraskeva P (2012) Single-incision laparoscopic (SILS) vs. conventional multiport cholecystectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 26:1205–1213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Buemi A, Swaelens C, Gherardi D, Malvaux P, Landenne J, Hauters P (2012) Comparison between single incision and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy for uncomplicated cholelithiasis. Acta Chir Belg Suppl 112(3):33Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hauters P, Sorrentino J, Papillon M et al (2000) Assessment of quality of life after antireflux surgery. Ann Chir 125:948–953PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philippe Hauters
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sylvain Auvray
    • 2
  • Jean Luc Cardin
    • 3
  • Marc Papillon
    • 4
  • Jean Delaby
    • 5
  • André Dabrowski
    • 6
  • Dominique Framery
    • 7
  • Alain Valverde
    • 8
  • Raphaël Rubay
    • 9
  • Frank Siriser
    • 2
  • Philippe Malvaux
    • 1
  • Jacques Landenne
    • 1
  1. 1.CH wapi site Notre-DameTournaiBelgium
  2. 2.CHP Saint-MartinCaenFrance
  3. 3.Polyclinique du MaineLavalFrance
  4. 4.Clinique CharcotSainte Foy Les LyonFrance
  5. 5.Clinique de l’AnjouAngersFrance
  6. 6.Clinique Saint-OmerBlendecquesFrance
  7. 7.CMC de la baie de Morlay, La Vierge NoireMorlaixFrance
  8. 8.Groupe Hospitalier Diaconesses Croix Saint-SimonParisFrance
  9. 9.Clinique Saint-JeanBruxellesBelgium

Personalised recommendations