World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery

Register      Login

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE 1 ( January-April, 2017 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparison of Three-port vs Four-port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in a Medical College in the Periphery

Muzzafar Zaman, Riki Singal

Citation Information : Zaman M, Singal R. Comparison of Three-port vs Four-port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in a Medical College in the Periphery. World J Lap Surg 2017; 10 (1):12-16.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1294

Published Online: 01-04-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aims and objectives

To compare three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with four-port LC in chronic calculous cholecystitis patients. We compared the feasibility of the procedure, total operative time, postoperative pain, incidence of complications, and cosmetic results.

Materials and methods

The present study was conducted in the Department of Surgery at Maharishi Markandeshwar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Mullana, Ambala. Totally, 200 adult patients of cholelithiasis with chronic cholecystitis were included in the study. These cases were randomly divided into two groups (I and II) consisting of 100 cases in each group. The study was conducted for a period of 1 year from April 2014 to March 2015. Three-port LC was performed in group I patients and four-port LC was performed in group II. The cosmetic results, incidence of postoperative complications, and operative time were noted in both the groups.

The present study is being undertaken to compare the various merits and demerits of three-port LC vs four-port LC performed by the same surgical team in the same scenario, in terms of parameters mentioned subsequently and assess the feasibility of both the procedures in our setup in a medical college.

Results

Gallstone disease is found to be more common in the 4th and 5th decades. Mean age of presentation was 41 years. Three-port LC is difficult in cases of dense adhesions. There were significant differences in operative time (93.16 minutes for three-port LC and 50.66 minutes for four-port LC). There was no significant difference due to type of operation. Cosmetic appearances for both the procedures were comparable.

Conclusion

We concluded that both three-port and four-port cholecystectomies are equally good procedures in the hands of experienced laparoscopic surgeons. The complications, operative time, hospital stay, cosmesis, and disability days were comparable in both groups. The four-port technique should be accepted and adopted only by beginners in minimal access surgery. The operator who performs three-port LC should be prepared for placement of an additional port or conversion to open laparotomy whenever complication arises.

How to cite this article

Singal R, Goyal P, Zaman M, Mishra RK. Comparison of Three-port vs Four-port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in a Medical College in the Periphery. World J Lap Surg 2017;10(1):12-16.


PDF Share
  1. Two port laparoscopic assisted appendicectomy versus three port laparoscopic appendicectomy: a prospective study of 50 cases. Trop J Med Res 2015 Jan-Jun;18(1).
  2. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: is it a plausible alternative to the traditional four-port laparoscopic approach? Minim Invasive Surg 2012;2012:347607.
  3. Biliary system. In: Sabiston DC, editor. Textbook of surgery. 13th ed. Philadelphia: WD Saunders Company; 2012. p. 0612.
  4. Pathogenesis of gallstones. Surg Clin North Am 2009;70:1197-1216.
  5. Epidemiology and natural history of gallstone disease. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2011;20:1-19.
  6. A comparison between singleincision and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2012 Jun;22(5):443-447.
  7. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) vs conventional multiport cholecystectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2012 May;26(5):1205-1213.
  8. Safety and effectiveness of three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Int J Clin Exp Med 2014 Aug;7(8):2339-2342.
  9. Three ports versus four port (standard) laparoscopic cholecystectomy – comparative study of 60 cases of cholelithiasis. IOSR J Dent Med Sci 2016;15:138-141.
  10. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be performed safely with only three ports in the majority of cases. Chir Ital 2009 Sep-Dec;61(5-6):613-616.
  11. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopy surgery: a review. World J Gastroenterol 2011 Sep;17(33):3795-3801.
  12. Complications of spilled gallstones following laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a case report and literature overview. J Med Case Rep 2009 Jul;3:8626.
  13. Multiple abdominal granuloma caused by spilled gallstones with imaging findings that mimic malignancy. Am J Surg 2010 Feb;199(2):e23-e24.
  14. A study of three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Med Soc 2013 Sep;27(3):208-211.
  15. Miniport versus standard ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010 Mar:CD006804.
  16. Comparison of open and closed entry techniques for creation of pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic surgery in terms of time consumption, entry related complications and failure of techgnique. World J Laparos Sur 2015 Sep-Dec;8(3):69-71.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.