World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery

Register      Login

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2016 ) > List of Articles

REVIEW ARTICLE

Modifications of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

TR John Suresh Kumar

Citation Information : John Suresh Kumar T. Modifications of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. World J Lap Surg 2016; 9 (2):71-74.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1275

Published Online: 01-08-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aims

More than 30 different ways of performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) are described in the literature. These were developed by surgeons with the aim to improve postoperative and esthetic outcome following LC. The modifications included reduction in port size and/or number than what is used in standard LC. The aim of this literature review was to evaluate the technical feasibility of the modifications of LC without compromising safety and the benefits associated with these modifications in terms of safety, postoperative pain, cosmesis, early recovery, and patient satisfaction.

Materials and methods

Literature review was performed on articles describing different techniques of LC, variations in port number and size, and their advantages over one another. The search was made by using search engines like Google, PubMed, Springer link, and HighWire Press.

Observation

Reduction in number of ports and port size especially in epigastric site gave advantages in terms of decreased postoperative pain score and esthesis. There was an increase in the number of transumbilical single-site surgery (TUSS) being performed in recent years with advantages like decreased postoperative pain and increased patient acceptance being documented in various studies. Hybrid technique of using additional ports during single-site laparoscopic surgery (SSLS) may be used as a bridge to single-site surgery while the surgeon is in a learning curve from a multiport surgery to SSLS. Currently NOTES cholecystectomy is under evaluation and not routinely performed. But current literature does not provide enough evidence of any clear benefit of any of these modifications over standard LC.

Conclusion

This literature review showed that even though there are some advantages in postoperative pain score, esthetic outcome, and patient acceptance while doing the different types of LC in selected patients, there is no evidence of any clear benefit over conventional LC. It is not acceptable to compromise the vision and increase the risk of bile duct injury to the patient while doing LC. Hence, modified LC may be performed by surgeons only after gaining enough experience and in selected group of patients without violating the basic principles of laparoscopic surgery.

How to cite this article

Kumar TRJS. Modifications of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. World J Lap Surg 2016;9(2):71-74.


PDF Share
  1. Techniques of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: nomenclature and selection. J Minim Access Surg 2015 Apr-Jun;11(2):113-118.
  2. Three-port versus standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled clinical trial in a community-based teaching hospital in eastern Nepal. JSLS 2007 Jul-Sep;11(3):358-362.
  3. Miniports versus standard ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013 Aug 1;8:CD006804.
  4. Three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute and chronic cholecystitis. BMC Surg 2007 Jun 13;7:8.
  5. The comparison of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and three port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective randomized study. J Korean Surg Soc 2013 Dec;85(6):275-282.
  6. Advantages of mini-laparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg 2005 Dec;140(12):1178-1183.
  7. Two-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2003 Oct;17(10):1624-1627.
  8. Transumbilical laparoscopic cholecystectomy utilizes no incisions outside the umbilicus. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 1999 Aug;9(4):361-364.
  9. Single-incision vs three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective randomized study. World J Gastroenterol 2013 Jan 21;19(3):394-398.
  10. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) vs Conventional multiport cholecystectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2012 May;26(5):1205-1213.
  11. NOTES. Transvaginal cholecystectomy: report of the first case. Surg Innov 2007 Dec;14(4):279-283.
  12. Intermediate results of a prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2012 May;26(5):1296-1303.
  13. Fewer-thanfour ports versus four ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014 Feb 20;2.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.