Short-term outcomes of single-site robotic cholecystectomy versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial

被引:44
|
作者
Pietrabissa, Andrea [1 ]
Pugliese, Luigi [1 ,3 ]
Vinci, Alessio [1 ]
Peri, Andrea [1 ]
Tinozzi, Francesco Paolo [1 ]
Cavazzi, Emma [1 ]
Pellegrino, Eugenia [1 ]
Klersy, Catherine [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Pavia, Dept Surg, Fdn IRCCS Policlin San Matteo, I-27100 Pavia, Italy
[2] Fdn IRCCS Policlin San Matteo, Res Dept, Serv Biometry & Stat, Pavia, Italy
[3] Univ Pavia, Unit Gen Surg 2, Fdn IRCCS Policlin San Matteo, Piazzale Golgi 19, I-27100 Pavia, Italy
来源
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES | 2016年 / 30卷 / 07期
关键词
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy; Robotic; Trial; Single-site; INCISION CHOLECYSTECTOMY; SURGERY; PORT; CAUTION; NOCEBO; COST; PAIN;
D O I
10.1007/s00464-015-4601-3
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Randomized studies could not demonstrate significant outcome benefit after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared to classic four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). The new robotic single-site platform might offer potential benefits on local inflammation and postoperative pain due to its technological advantages. This prospective randomized double-blind trial compared the short-term outcomes between single-incision robotic cholecystectomy (SIRC) and CLC. Two groups of 30 eligible patients were randomized for SIRC or CLC. During the first postoperative week, patients and study monitors were blinded to the type of procedure performed by four dressing tapes applied on the abdomen. Pain was assessed at 6 h and on day 1, 7 and 30 after surgery, along with a 1-10 cosmetic score. No significant difference in postoperative pain occurred in the two groups at any time point nor for any of the abdominal sites. Nineteen (63 %) SIRC patients reported early postoperative pain in extra-umbilical sites. Intraoperative complications which might influence postoperative pain, such as minor bleeding and bile spillage, were similar in both groups and no conversions occurred. The cosmetic score 1 month postoperatively was higher for SIRC (p < 0.001). Two SIRC patients had wound infection, one of which developed an incisional hernia. SIRC does not offer any significant reduction of postoperative pain compared to CLC. SIRC patients unaware of their type of operation still report pain in extra-umbilical sites like after CLC. The cosmetic advantage of SIRC should be balanced against an increased risk of incisional hernias and higher costs.
引用
收藏
页码:3089 / 3097
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Short-term outcomes of single-site robotic cholecystectomy versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial
    Andrea Pietrabissa
    Luigi Pugliese
    Alessio Vinci
    Andrea Peri
    Francesco Paolo Tinozzi
    Emma Cavazzi
    Eugenia Pellegrino
    Catherine Klersy
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2016, 30 : 3089 - 3097
  • [2] Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Single-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy and Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
    Ma, Jun
    Cassera, Maria A.
    Spaun, Georg O.
    Hammill, Chet W.
    Hansen, Paul D.
    Aliabadi-Wahle, Shaghayegh
    ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2011, 254 (01) : 22 - 27
  • [3] Single-incision versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an ambulatory surgery setting: A prospective randomised double-blind controlled trial
    Subirana, Helena
    Javier Rey, Francisco
    Barri, Joan
    Robres, Joaquim
    Parra, Lourdes
    Martin, Montserrat
    Memba, Robert
    Maria Mullerat, Josep
    Jorba, Rosa
    JOURNAL OF MINIMAL ACCESS SURGERY, 2021, 17 (03) : 311 - 317
  • [4] Intermediate results of a prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy
    Phillips, Melissa S.
    Marks, Jeffrey M.
    Roberts, Kurt
    Tacchino, Roberto
    Onders, Raymond
    DeNoto, George
    Rivas, Homero
    Islam, Arsalla
    Soper, Nathaniel
    Gecelter, Gary
    Rubach, Eugene
    Paraskeva, Paraskevas
    Shah, Sajani
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2012, 26 (05): : 1296 - 1303
  • [5] Prospective randomized comparative study of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy
    Lai, Eric C. H.
    Yang, George P. C.
    Tang, Chung Ngai
    Yih, Patricia C. L.
    Chan, Oliver C. Y.
    Li, Michael K. W.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2011, 202 (03): : 254 - 258
  • [6] Intermediate results of a prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy
    Melissa S. Phillips
    Jeffrey M. Marks
    Kurt Roberts
    Roberto Tacchino
    Raymond Onders
    George DeNoto
    Homero Rivas
    Arsalla Islam
    Nathaniel Soper
    Gary Gecelter
    Eugene Rubach
    Paraskevas Paraskeva
    Sajani Shah
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2012, 26 : 1296 - 1303
  • [7] A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: is the fourth port really required?
    Liu, Enyu
    Li, Zequn
    Wang, Na
    Yan, Hua
    Xu, Zongquan
    Zhao, Chuanzong
    Wang, Ben
    Hong, Jianguo
    Niu, Zhengchuan
    Peng, Cheng
    Niu, Jun
    Zhi, Xuting
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2016, 9 (02): : 3055 - 3061
  • [8] Laparoscopic cholecystolithotomy versus laparoscopic (single-port and four-port) cholecystectomy
    Klimenko, V. M.
    Syvolap, D., V
    ZAPOROZHYE MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2018, (02) : 172 - 177
  • [9] Single-port and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: difference in outcomes
    Kunkala, M.
    Bingener, J.
    Park, M.
    Harmsen, W. Scott
    McConico, A.
    Lombardo, K. Reid
    MINERVA CHIRURGICA, 2013, 68 (02) : 155 - 162
  • [10] Two-port vs four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy - A prospective randomized controlled trial
    Poon, CM
    Chan, KW
    Lee, DWH
    Chan, KC
    Ko, CW
    Cheung, HY
    Lee, KW
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2003, 17 (10): : 1624 - 1627