Kumar Manoj, Agrawal Chandra Shekhar, Gupta Rakesh Kumar
Department of Surgery, B P Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal.
JSLS. 2007 Jul-Sep;11(3):358-62.
With increasing surgeon experience, laparoscopic cholecystectomy has undergone many refinements including reduction in port number and size. Three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been reported to be safe and feasible in various clinical trials. However, whether it offers any additional advantages remains controversial. This study reports a randomized trial that compared the clinical outcomes of 3-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Seventy-five consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized to undergo either the 3-port or the 4-port technique. Four surgical tapes were applied to standard 4-port sites in both groups at the end of the operation. All dressings were kept intact until the first follow-up 1 week after surgery. Postoperative pain at the 4 sites was assessed on the first day after surgery by using a 10-cm unscaled visual analog scale (VAS). Other outcome measures included analgesia requirements, length of the operation, postoperative stay, and patient satisfaction score on surgery and scars.
Demographic data were comparable for both groups. Patients in the 3-port group had shorter mean operative time (47.3+/-29.8 min vs 60.8+/-32.3 min) for the 4-port group (P=0.04) and less pain at port sites (mean score using 10-cm unscaled VAS: 2.19+/-1.06 vs 2.91+/-1.20 (P=0.02). Overall pain score, analgesia requirements, hospital stay, and patient satisfaction score (mean score using 10-cm unscaled VAS: 8.2+/-1.7 vs 7.8+/-1.7, P=0.24) on surgery and scars were similar between the 2 groups.
Three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy resulted in less individual port-site pain and similar clinical outcomes with fewer surgical scars and without any increased risk of bile duct injury compared with 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Thus, it can be recommended as a safe alternative procedure in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
随着外科医生经验的增加,腹腔镜胆囊切除术有了许多改进,包括减少切口数量和尺寸。在各种临床试验中,三孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术已被报道是安全可行的。然而,它是否具有任何额外优势仍存在争议。本研究报告了一项随机试验,比较了三孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术与传统四孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术的临床结果。
连续75例行择期腹腔镜胆囊切除术的患者被随机分为接受三孔或四孔技术组。两组在手术结束时均在标准的四个四孔部位粘贴四条手术胶带。所有敷料在术后1周首次随访前保持完整。术后第一天使用10厘米无刻度视觉模拟量表(VAS)评估四个部位的术后疼痛。其他结果指标包括镇痛需求、手术时间、术后住院时间以及患者对手术和瘢痕的满意度评分。
两组的人口统计学数据具有可比性。三孔组患者的平均手术时间比四孔组短(47.3±29.8分钟对60.8±32.3分钟,P = 0.04),且切口部位疼痛较轻(使用10厘米无刻度VAS的平均评分:2.19±1.06对2.91±1.20,P = 0.02)。两组在手术和瘢痕方面的总体疼痛评分、镇痛需求、住院时间以及患者满意度评分(使用10厘米无刻度VAS的平均评分:8.2±1.7对7.8±1.7,P = 0.24)相似。
与四孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术相比,三孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术导致个体切口部位疼痛较轻,临床结果相似,手术瘢痕较少,且胆管损伤风险未增加。因此,在择期腹腔镜胆囊切除术中,它可被推荐为一种安全的替代手术。