Laparoscopic cholecystolithotomy versus laparoscopic (single-port and four-port) cholecystectomy

The purpose of the study is a comparative analysis of laparoscopic cholecystolithotomy and (single-port and four-port) cholecystectomy in patients with cholecystolithiasis with isolated gallstones. Material and methods. 136 patients with cholecystolithiasis were involved in a one-center open pros...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: V. M. Klimenko, D. V. Syvolap
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Zaporizhzhia State Medical and Pharmaceutical University 2018-04-01
Series:Zaporožskij Medicinskij Žurnal
Subjects:
Online Access:http://zmj.zsmu.edu.ua/article/view/124932/124575
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850223225780305920
author V. M. Klimenko
D. V. Syvolap
author_facet V. M. Klimenko
D. V. Syvolap
author_sort V. M. Klimenko
collection DOAJ
description The purpose of the study is a comparative analysis of laparoscopic cholecystolithotomy and (single-port and four-port) cholecystectomy in patients with cholecystolithiasis with isolated gallstones. Material and methods. 136 patients with cholecystolithiasis were involved in a one-center open prospective study, aged between 22 and 78 years, mean age was 48.9 ± 12.6 years, among them 79.41 % were women. Depending on the method of treatment, the patients were divided into three groups. The first group consisted of 53 patients who underwent laparoscopic four-port cholecystectomy (4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy – 4PLC), the second – 50 patients who underwent single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC), the third group – 33 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystolithotomy (LCLT). Groups of patients were comparable in age. The operating time, the terms of activation after surgery, the hospital length of stay, the duration of hyperthermia, intraoperative and postoperative complications presence were analyzed. Results. The mean duration of laparoscopic four-port cholecystectomy was 42.83 ± 16.97 minutes, that was significantly greater than the mean duration of SILC (36.60 ± 14.37 minutes), (P = 0.039), but shorter than the mean duration of laparoscopic cholecystolythotomy (61.06 ± 13.27 minutes), (P = 0.001). The shortest hospital length of stay was in LCLT group. The hyperthermia duration after surgical interventions did not depend on the type of operation (P > 0.05) and did not exceed one day for all types of operations. In 42.6 % (58/126) of the total number of operated patients temperature rise was not observed at all, among them 23 patients in the 4PLC group, 21 patients in the SILC group and 14 patients in the LCLT group. Conclusions. Laparoscopic cholecystolithotomy allows gall bladder-preserving and postcholecystectomy syndrome development preventing in patients with cholecystolithiasis, reducing the number of postoperative complications and the hospital length of stay. Reduction of recurrent stones formation in the bile ducts after operations on the gall bladder is associated with organ-preserving interventions, namely cholecystolythotomy.
format Article
id doaj-art-5e220707c47549759d302995c15b0197
institution OA Journals
issn 2306-4145
2310-1210
language English
publishDate 2018-04-01
publisher Zaporizhzhia State Medical and Pharmaceutical University
record_format Article
series Zaporožskij Medicinskij Žurnal
spelling doaj-art-5e220707c47549759d302995c15b01972025-08-20T02:06:03ZengZaporizhzhia State Medical and Pharmaceutical UniversityZaporožskij Medicinskij Žurnal2306-41452310-12102018-04-01217217710.14739/2310-1210.2018.02.124932Laparoscopic cholecystolithotomy versus laparoscopic (single-port and four-port) cholecystectomyV. M. Klimenko D. V. SyvolapThe purpose of the study is a comparative analysis of laparoscopic cholecystolithotomy and (single-port and four-port) cholecystectomy in patients with cholecystolithiasis with isolated gallstones. Material and methods. 136 patients with cholecystolithiasis were involved in a one-center open prospective study, aged between 22 and 78 years, mean age was 48.9 ± 12.6 years, among them 79.41 % were women. Depending on the method of treatment, the patients were divided into three groups. The first group consisted of 53 patients who underwent laparoscopic four-port cholecystectomy (4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy – 4PLC), the second – 50 patients who underwent single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC), the third group – 33 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystolithotomy (LCLT). Groups of patients were comparable in age. The operating time, the terms of activation after surgery, the hospital length of stay, the duration of hyperthermia, intraoperative and postoperative complications presence were analyzed. Results. The mean duration of laparoscopic four-port cholecystectomy was 42.83 ± 16.97 minutes, that was significantly greater than the mean duration of SILC (36.60 ± 14.37 minutes), (P = 0.039), but shorter than the mean duration of laparoscopic cholecystolythotomy (61.06 ± 13.27 minutes), (P = 0.001). The shortest hospital length of stay was in LCLT group. The hyperthermia duration after surgical interventions did not depend on the type of operation (P > 0.05) and did not exceed one day for all types of operations. In 42.6 % (58/126) of the total number of operated patients temperature rise was not observed at all, among them 23 patients in the 4PLC group, 21 patients in the SILC group and 14 patients in the LCLT group. Conclusions. Laparoscopic cholecystolithotomy allows gall bladder-preserving and postcholecystectomy syndrome development preventing in patients with cholecystolithiasis, reducing the number of postoperative complications and the hospital length of stay. Reduction of recurrent stones formation in the bile ducts after operations on the gall bladder is associated with organ-preserving interventions, namely cholecystolythotomy.http://zmj.zsmu.edu.ua/article/view/124932/124575laparoscopic cholecystolithotomylaparoscopic cholecystectomy
spellingShingle V. M. Klimenko
D. V. Syvolap
Laparoscopic cholecystolithotomy versus laparoscopic (single-port and four-port) cholecystectomy
Zaporožskij Medicinskij Žurnal
laparoscopic cholecystolithotomy
laparoscopic cholecystectomy
title Laparoscopic cholecystolithotomy versus laparoscopic (single-port and four-port) cholecystectomy
title_full Laparoscopic cholecystolithotomy versus laparoscopic (single-port and four-port) cholecystectomy
title_fullStr Laparoscopic cholecystolithotomy versus laparoscopic (single-port and four-port) cholecystectomy
title_full_unstemmed Laparoscopic cholecystolithotomy versus laparoscopic (single-port and four-port) cholecystectomy
title_short Laparoscopic cholecystolithotomy versus laparoscopic (single-port and four-port) cholecystectomy
title_sort laparoscopic cholecystolithotomy versus laparoscopic single port and four port cholecystectomy
topic laparoscopic cholecystolithotomy
laparoscopic cholecystectomy
url http://zmj.zsmu.edu.ua/article/view/124932/124575
work_keys_str_mv AT vmklimenko laparoscopiccholecystolithotomyversuslaparoscopicsingleportandfourportcholecystectomy
AT dvsyvolap laparoscopiccholecystolithotomyversuslaparoscopicsingleportandfourportcholecystectomy