Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, 600 N. Wolfe St. Blalock 655, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, The University of Arizona, 1295 N. Martin, Drachman Hall A232, Tucson, AZ, 85724, USA.
J Robot Surg. 2023 Feb;17(1):147-154. doi: 10.1007/s11701-022-01410-z. Epub 2022 Apr 11.
Multiple studies have suggested that three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy is both feasible and safe. However, this approach has failed to gain acceptance outside of clinical trials, leaving adopters of this approach vulnerable to medico-legal scrutiny. We hypothesized that the three-port approach to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is safe and efficient in experienced hands. All LC (including robotic) cases were performed on patients 18 years and older between November 2018 and March 2020. Operations utilizing three ports were compared to those performed using more than three ports. The primary outcomes measured were total operative time, conversion-to-open rate, and the complication rate. A two-sample test was performed to compare operative times, and a Fisher's exact test was used to compare conversion-to-open and complication rates. Linear regression models were used to account for the effect of confounders. 924 total LCs were performed by 30 surgeons in the study period (71 three-port, 853 four or more ports). The mean operative time was 10 min shorter in the three-port group in comparison (64.1 ± 1.4 min vs. 74.4 ± 1.8 min, p < 0.01), despite a threefold higher rate of intraoperative cholangiogram in these cases (23.0% vs. 7.9%, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in either the conversion-to-open rate (1.6% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.35), or the overall complication rate (7.1% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.82). Operative time for LC performed through three ports was significantly less than those performed through the traditional four port approach, despite utilizing intraoperative cholangiogram nearly three times as often. There was no difference in the conversion-to open rate or complication rate. These results provide considerable evidence that three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy is comparable to four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in operative duration, conversion-to-open rate, and complication rate.
多项研究表明,三孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术既可行又安全。然而,这种方法在临床试验之外并未得到认可,使得采用这种方法的人容易受到医疗法律审查。我们假设在有经验的手中,三孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)的方法是安全有效的。所有年龄在 18 岁及以上的患者均在 2018 年 11 月至 2020 年 3 月期间接受了 LC(包括机器人)手术。使用三个端口的手术与使用三个以上端口的手术进行了比较。主要测量的结果是总手术时间、中转开腹率和并发症发生率。采用两样本检验比较手术时间,采用 Fisher 确切检验比较中转开腹率和并发症发生率。采用线性回归模型来考虑混杂因素的影响。在研究期间,30 名外科医生共进行了 924 例 LC(71 例三孔,853 例四孔或以上)。与四孔或以上组相比,三孔组的平均手术时间缩短了 10 分钟(64.1±1.4 分钟比 74.4±1.8 分钟,p<0.01),尽管这些病例中术中胆管造影的比例高了三倍(23.0%比 7.9%,p<0.001)。中转开腹率(1.6%比 5.1%,p=0.35)或总并发症发生率(7.1%比 8.7%,p=0.82)均无显著差异。尽管三孔组术中胆管造影的使用率几乎高出三倍,但 LC 经三孔操作的手术时间明显短于传统四孔操作。中转开腹率或并发症率无差异。这些结果提供了相当多的证据,表明三孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术在手术时间、中转开腹率和并发症率方面与四孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术相当。