The effect of using a larger port on reducing the complications of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized trial


Toktaş O. , Çıkman Ö. , Peksen C. , Elasan S. , Yuzkat N.

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND ANALYTICAL MEDICINE, cilt.10, ss.311-315, 2019 (ESCI İndekslerine Giren Dergi) identifier

  • Cilt numarası: 10 Konu: 3
  • Basım Tarihi: 2019
  • Doi Numarası: 10.4328/jcam.6150
  • Dergi Adı: JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND ANALYTICAL MEDICINE
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.311-315

Özet

Aim: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard treatment method for cholelithiasis. There are many complications related to LC and many different microinvasive interventions have been performed to decrease the complication rate. In this study, we aimed to demonstrate the surgical results of the LC that was performed with a 15-mm port tool. Material and Method: Two-hundred patients who underwent LC in our clinic were included in this study. These cases were randomized as 10-mm port tool group (n-100) and 15-mm port tool group (n-100) according to the port-tool diameter that was used in LC. The gallbladder extraction time, port site complications, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain and cosmesis scores were compared between two groups.Results: The gallbladder extraction time was 135.3 sec in the 10-mm port tool group and 13.4 sec in the 15-mm port tool group (p<0.05). The complication rate was 53% (53cases) in the 10-mm port tool group and 13% (13cases) in the 15-mm port tool group (p<0.05). The duration of hospitalization was the same in both groups. The port site pain was 5.4 (2-9) in the 10-mm port tool group and 4.3 (1-7) in the 15-mm port tool group (p<0.05). None of the patients in either group had port site hernias or infections, and there was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to the port site incision scarring. Discussion: It was thought that it can reduce the operation time, the need for fascial expansion, gallbladder perforations during removal, and postoperative port site pain. Moreover, it does not increase the risk of a port site infection or a hernia and is not different from wound scarring.