Comparative Evaluation of Gall Bladder Retrieval from Epigastric vs Umbilical Port After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Background: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has now become gold standard treatment for gallstone diseases. Although few recent articles suggest that after laparoscopic cholecystectomy gall bladder (GB) retrieval from umbilical port is better, but the evidence is inconsistent. The objective of this stud...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Amit Nehra, Surender Verma, Shubham Kochar, Umesh Yadav, Somya Godara, Rajesh Godara
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2024-08-01
Series:Medical Journal of Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth
Subjects:
Online Access:https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/mjdrdypu.mjdrdypu_225_23
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850264906943692800
author Amit Nehra
Surender Verma
Shubham Kochar
Umesh Yadav
Somya Godara
Rajesh Godara
author_facet Amit Nehra
Surender Verma
Shubham Kochar
Umesh Yadav
Somya Godara
Rajesh Godara
author_sort Amit Nehra
collection DOAJ
description Background: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has now become gold standard treatment for gallstone diseases. Although few recent articles suggest that after laparoscopic cholecystectomy gall bladder (GB) retrieval from umbilical port is better, but the evidence is inconsistent. The objective of this study was to compare specimen retrieval from epigastric vs. umbilical port in terms of postoperative pain, time taken, and ease of retrieval. Methods: Total 200 patients aged 16-80 years were randomized by drawing lottery slips by a third person from a box containing 200 sealed envelopes (100 for each group). Those with acute cholecystitis, empyema, mucocele, suspected malignancy, and conversion to open and chronic analgesic users were excluded. Surgery was done by consultant surgeon under standard general anesthesia with four-port technique and GB was extracted either through epigastric or umbilical port as per draw. The difficulty in specimen retrieval was graded by operating surgeon on subjective linear scale and postoperative port site pain was assessed by resident blinded to intervention with Visual Analog Scale. Results: Both groups were well matched regarding age, sex, body mass index, and comorbidities. Mean time taken to retrieve in epigastric group was 36.76 ± 6.26 vs. 22.48 ± 5.76 seconds in umbilical group (P < .01). We observed easy retrieval via umbilical port compared to epigastric (score 2.72 ± 1.42 vs. 6.48 ± 1.32, P. 001). Epigastric group patients had Visual Analog Scale 6.56±0.768, 5.60 ± 1.225, 4.56 ± 1.325, and 2.72 ± 1.308 vs. 4.16 ± 1.214, 2.72 ± 1.275, 1.76 ± 1.234, and. 92±0.759 at 1, 6, 12, and 24 hours in umbilical group. The P value at different timings were. 001, thus indicating less pain in umbilical group. Conclusion: Umbilical port is better than epigastric port in terms of time taken for GB retrieval, ease of retrieval, and postoperative pain.
format Article
id doaj-art-e58792a66fc34919ada542f8de21ee16
institution OA Journals
issn 2589-8302
2589-8310
language English
publishDate 2024-08-01
publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
record_format Article
series Medical Journal of Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth
spelling doaj-art-e58792a66fc34919ada542f8de21ee162025-08-20T01:54:34ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsMedical Journal of Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth2589-83022589-83102024-08-0117474174410.4103/mjdrdypu.mjdrdypu_225_23Comparative Evaluation of Gall Bladder Retrieval from Epigastric vs Umbilical Port After Laparoscopic CholecystectomyAmit NehraSurender VermaShubham KocharUmesh YadavSomya GodaraRajesh GodaraBackground: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has now become gold standard treatment for gallstone diseases. Although few recent articles suggest that after laparoscopic cholecystectomy gall bladder (GB) retrieval from umbilical port is better, but the evidence is inconsistent. The objective of this study was to compare specimen retrieval from epigastric vs. umbilical port in terms of postoperative pain, time taken, and ease of retrieval. Methods: Total 200 patients aged 16-80 years were randomized by drawing lottery slips by a third person from a box containing 200 sealed envelopes (100 for each group). Those with acute cholecystitis, empyema, mucocele, suspected malignancy, and conversion to open and chronic analgesic users were excluded. Surgery was done by consultant surgeon under standard general anesthesia with four-port technique and GB was extracted either through epigastric or umbilical port as per draw. The difficulty in specimen retrieval was graded by operating surgeon on subjective linear scale and postoperative port site pain was assessed by resident blinded to intervention with Visual Analog Scale. Results: Both groups were well matched regarding age, sex, body mass index, and comorbidities. Mean time taken to retrieve in epigastric group was 36.76 ± 6.26 vs. 22.48 ± 5.76 seconds in umbilical group (P < .01). We observed easy retrieval via umbilical port compared to epigastric (score 2.72 ± 1.42 vs. 6.48 ± 1.32, P. 001). Epigastric group patients had Visual Analog Scale 6.56±0.768, 5.60 ± 1.225, 4.56 ± 1.325, and 2.72 ± 1.308 vs. 4.16 ± 1.214, 2.72 ± 1.275, 1.76 ± 1.234, and. 92±0.759 at 1, 6, 12, and 24 hours in umbilical group. The P value at different timings were. 001, thus indicating less pain in umbilical group. Conclusion: Umbilical port is better than epigastric port in terms of time taken for GB retrieval, ease of retrieval, and postoperative pain.https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/mjdrdypu.mjdrdypu_225_23epigastric portlaparoscopic cholecystectomyumbilical portvisual analog scale
spellingShingle Amit Nehra
Surender Verma
Shubham Kochar
Umesh Yadav
Somya Godara
Rajesh Godara
Comparative Evaluation of Gall Bladder Retrieval from Epigastric vs Umbilical Port After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Medical Journal of Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth
epigastric port
laparoscopic cholecystectomy
umbilical port
visual analog scale
title Comparative Evaluation of Gall Bladder Retrieval from Epigastric vs Umbilical Port After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
title_full Comparative Evaluation of Gall Bladder Retrieval from Epigastric vs Umbilical Port After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
title_fullStr Comparative Evaluation of Gall Bladder Retrieval from Epigastric vs Umbilical Port After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Evaluation of Gall Bladder Retrieval from Epigastric vs Umbilical Port After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
title_short Comparative Evaluation of Gall Bladder Retrieval from Epigastric vs Umbilical Port After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
title_sort comparative evaluation of gall bladder retrieval from epigastric vs umbilical port after laparoscopic cholecystectomy
topic epigastric port
laparoscopic cholecystectomy
umbilical port
visual analog scale
url https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/mjdrdypu.mjdrdypu_225_23
work_keys_str_mv AT amitnehra comparativeevaluationofgallbladderretrievalfromepigastricvsumbilicalportafterlaparoscopiccholecystectomy
AT surenderverma comparativeevaluationofgallbladderretrievalfromepigastricvsumbilicalportafterlaparoscopiccholecystectomy
AT shubhamkochar comparativeevaluationofgallbladderretrievalfromepigastricvsumbilicalportafterlaparoscopiccholecystectomy
AT umeshyadav comparativeevaluationofgallbladderretrievalfromepigastricvsumbilicalportafterlaparoscopiccholecystectomy
AT somyagodara comparativeevaluationofgallbladderretrievalfromepigastricvsumbilicalportafterlaparoscopiccholecystectomy
AT rajeshgodara comparativeevaluationofgallbladderretrievalfromepigastricvsumbilicalportafterlaparoscopiccholecystectomy