Two-port needlescopic cholecystectomy: prospective study of 100 cases.

OBJECTIVE

To test the feasibility of needlescopic cholecystectomy using a two-port technique with 3-mm miniaturised instruments.

DESIGN

Prospective study.

SETTING

Regional hospital, Hong Kong.

PATIENTS

One hundred consecutive patients undergoing elective cholecystectomy from September 2001 to August 2002.

INTERVENTION

Two-port needlescopic cholecystectomy all performed or supervised by a single laparoscopic surgeon.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Conversion of the procedure, the operating time, postoperative analgesic requirement, pain score using the 10-cm visual analog scale, complications, and the postoperative stay. To determine the technical difficulty of this new technique, the data from the first 50 patients were compared with those of the latter 50. Outcome variables were also compared with a group of 58 patients operated on with the standard two-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a previous randomised trial.

RESULTS

One conversion to open cholecystectomy was reported. Three patients required the enlargement of epigastric port to a size of 5 mm and six patients required an additional port to complete the operation. The median operating time was 62 minutes (range, 33-168 minutes). The median pain score was 3.5 (range, 0-9) and the median postoperative stay was 2 days (range, 1-14 days). Six patients had postoperative complications. When the first 50 patients were compared with the latter 50, there were no differences in the conversion rate, operating time, complication rate, and duration of hospital stay. However, the latter 50 patients had significantly lower pain scores (median, 3.5 vs 4.9; P=0.007) and faster resumption of diet (median, 5 vs 9 hours; P<0.001). The median operating time of needlescopic cholecystectomy was notably longer (62 vs 46 minutes; P<0.001) compared with that of the two-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients undergoing needlescopic cholecystectomy had a better resumption of diet (median, 5 vs 7 hours; P<0.001) and less postoperative pain (overall pain score, median, 3.5 vs 4.8; P=0.052) than the two-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy group. Pain scores at individual port sites were also lower in needlescopic cholecystectomy group (umbilical port: median, 3 vs 4.4, P=0.015; epigastric port: median, 2.0 vs 3.6, P=0.036).

CONCLUSION

Two-port needlescopic cholecystectomy is technically feasible and may further improve the surgical outcomes in terms of postoperative pain and cosmesis. It can be considered for routine practice by surgeons who are familiar with the two-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy technique.