Abstract
Background
Currently, researches about single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) are various, but long-term reviews assessing relevant complications after SILC with considerable amount of case series are rare.
Study design
We retrospectively reviewed a large series of 529 patients undergoing SILC to assess the long-term postoperative recovery, including postoperative complications, retained symptoms, and quality of life. Finally, we assessed its associated risk factors related to SILC patients’ recovery in the long term.
Results
During a mean follow-up period of 36.8 ± 8.8 months after SILC, 402 (76.0 %) patients underwent complete resolution. Frequent diarrhea (12.1 %) and recurrent omphalitis (5.9 %) were most commonly seen among other complications and retained symptoms within overall the patients. We identified 1 (0.3 %) incision hernia and 1 (0.3 %) intra-abdominal abscess among overall the patients, while 3 (0.8 %) common bile duct stones and 1 (0.3 %) biliary pancreatitis among the patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis during long-term review period. No significant differences were identified between patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis and gallbladder polyps when considering other incidences (all p > 0.05). Patients undergoing SILC with older age (p = 0.023) or female gender (p = 0.020) contributed to complete resolution.
Conclusions
SILC via traditional devices is feasible and safe with acceptable postoperative incidence rate in the long run. Patients with older age or female gender, who have no severe systemic diseases, tend to benefit more from the surgical intervention.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is an alternative to natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. The overall surgical procedures are performed through only one incision within the umbilicus, which remains an invisible scar postoperatively. Since SILC was first reported by Navarra [1] in 1997, several transumbilical devices have been created to benefit the operation [2–12]. However, one of the most cost-effective methods to establish transumbilical access is the multiport approach, which is performed by multiple fascial punctures through one transumbilical skin incision with traditional trocars. The theoretical advantage of SILC is better in cosmesis [13] with equally fast recovery and light intra-abdominal adhesion [14], comparing with traditional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TMLC), but no gain of postoperative pain and complications [13, 15]. It is also convenient to convert to TMLC when needed [16]. However, the retained abdominal symptoms, complications and cosmetic satisfaction after SILC have not been fully assessed in the long run [14, 17]. Thus, the primary aim was to obtain the exact complication rate and profile of SILC performed by an experienced professional in the long-term review. Secondarily, we investigated the factors predicting patients’ recovery.
Materials and methods
Study design and setting
This is a retrospective study including all patients who underwent SILC in the Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University over a 3-year period between January 2010 and December 2012. After approved by the research ethics committee of our hospital, a telephonic survey was developed to ascertain long-term review data until September 2014, with a minimum 22-month follow-up period after SILC. It was intended to investigate the long-term postoperative incidence, recovery, and satisfaction after SILC. Participants gave written consent after receiving verbal and written information.
Participants
The survey was performed among patients after SILC with an indication for elective cholecystectomy, including symptomatic cholelithiasis, and gallbladder polyps (over 1 cm in diameter). The patients would be excluded, if they complicated with acute cholecystitis (according to TG13 diagnostic criteria [18]), prior upper abdominal surgery, common bile duct stones (CBDS), or severe systemic diseases before surgery. The patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) previously, common bile duct exploration, or subsequent abdominal operations unrelated to SILC were not involved. We also excluded the patients who had severe complications (such as intraoperative biliary duct injury, severe blood loss), which would result in converting to multiport laparoscopic surgery or open surgery. All above exclusions were established in avoiding to influence the accuracy of relevant long-term complication rate.
Data sources
We used administrative and surgical records as basic information. Data from postoperative questionnaires were also recorded, involving patients’ complications, retained symptoms, and surgical satisfaction during the long-term follow-up period. Long-term complications were collected as recurrent omphalitis (defined as long-term infection of the umbilicus after SILC, complicating with the symptoms of periumbilical pain, suppuration, and inflammation, etc.), incision hernia (defined as a palpable or CT scan-verified fascial defect with potential protrusion of intra-abdominal content [19]), intra-abdominal abscess, CBDS, reflux gastritis, and biliary pancreatitis. All these complications were confirmed by physical or chemical examinations during follow-up period. Postoperatively retained symptoms were collected as right upper quadrant pain, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, periumbilical pain, all of which were classified into three degrees of agreement with the symptoms, not agree [1], relatively agree [2], and very agree [3]. The scores of surgical satisfaction and cosmetic satisfaction were determined by a 10-point scale (from 1 to 10), respectively, which represented the degree of agreement with the surgical outcomes of recovery and umbilical incision cosmesis. The validated Short-Form-36 Health Survey questionnaire (SF-36) [20] was used to assess general health perception and well-being before surgical intervention, and long-term benefits from SILC.
Surgical procedure
The operations were performed by an experienced biliary surgeon who majored in laparoscopic surgery. The operations were assisted by resident doctors who had experience in handling the laparoscope. Before January 1, 2010, we had completed over 30 cases via traditional trocar devices [6] to overcome the learning curve of SILC [21]. Following the induction of general endotracheal anesthesia, the abdomen was prepped and draped in the usual sterile fashion. The umbilicus was carefully cleaned. The transumbilical route was established with traditional trocars (TRINOX trocar system, 1 × 10 mm, and 2 × 5 mm, XION GmbH, Berlin, Germany) to create three fascial punctures through one transumbilical skin incision, which were placed in a reverse triangular configuration within the umbilicus, leaving a small bridge of fascia between each trocar. Then, the patient was placed in a reverse Trendelenburg position with a 15° left tilt. All the operative procedures were completed as previously reported [6], which were retrograde dissection. This approach is most convenient to form optimal exposure by grasping the fundus of gallbladder and could successfully avoid the triangulation difficulty of instruments through a single umbilical incision. The gallbladder was dissected to the cystic duct with Harmonic ACE (Ethicon, USA), which was then ligated using two clips after careful identification of the cystic duct and artery. The gallbladder was free, followed by thorough examination of bleeding, and visceral injury, especially biliary injury. The gallbladder was extracted through the umbilical incision together with the three trocars. The fascial incision was firstly closed in a Fig. 8 fashion, and then, running suture was applied to umbilical reconstruction. All layers of the umbilical incision were closed with subcutaneous absorbable stitches (Synthetic absorbable suture, 3–0, Ethicon Inc., New Jersey, USA). Then, adhesive surgical dressing (10 cm × 10 cm) was used to protect the umbilical wound. Routine nursing of incisional wound was carried out among all patients during the postoperative period.
Statistical analysis
Continuous variables were presented as mean, median, standard deviation (SD), and interquartile range (IQR). Categorical variables were presented as absolute numbers and percentages. Comparative analyses of continuous variables were performed using Student’s t tests. Chi-square test was used for comparing categorical variables (Fisher’s exact tests were used as needed). Multivariate linear regression was performed to assess the factors influencing SILC patients’ satisfaction to the surgery and cosmesis during long-term follow-up period. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess the risk factors associated with SILC patients’ complete resolution. Meanwhile, it was also performed to assess the risk factors associated with recurrent omphalitis and frequent diarrhea, both of which were more commonly encountered among all the postoperative complications and retained symptoms (incidence rate >5 %). Odds ratios or β-coefficient was presented with 95 % confidence interval (CI). All analyses were carried out with SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 17.0. Statistical analyses with p < 0.05 (two-tailed) were considered as significant. The risk factors in univariate analyses with p < 0.10 were further considered to undergo multivariate analyses.
Results
In all, 689 patients with gallbladder diseases were identified as having attempted SILC during our defined research period. There were 21 patients who underwent converting to TMLC, due to 20 severe adhesions (including 1 patient complicated with biliary injury as type D, representing lateral injury to extrahepatic bile ducts according to the Strasberg Bile Duct Injury Classification System [22]) and 1 accessory bile duct injury (categorized as type A, representing bile leak from a minor duct still in continuity with the common bile duct according to the Strasberg Bile Duct Injury Classification System [22]), which increased the surgical difficulty in SILC; 28 patients underwent prior ERCP; and 111 patients were lost to follow-up due to absence of available contact information, dead from other diseases, or refusing to answer the questionnaire. Ultimately, 529 patients joined for further analysis with a mean follow-up period of 36.8 ± 8.8 months after SILC, including 392 patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis, and 137 patients with gallbladder polyps.
Basic patient characteristics
The basic information for 529 SILC patients was presented in Table 1. There were 172 males (32.5 %) and 357 females (67.5 %) aged 48.1 ± 12.8 years, and 392 patients (74.1 %) were with symptomatic cholelithiasis; 137 patients (25.9 %) were with gallbladder polyps. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 23.8 ± 3.2 kg/m2. The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score was ≤2 in 493 patients (93.2 %) and ≥3 in 36 patients (6.8 %). There were 213 patients (40.3 %) with education level below basic, 217 patients (41.0 %) with secondary level, and 99 patients (18.7 %) above tertiary level. There were 95 patients (18.0 %) complicated with comorbid diseases (including hypertension, ischemic heart disease, asthma, peptic ulcer, and others), 34 patients (6.4 %) with diabetes mellitus, 73 patients (13.8 %) with prior lower abdominal surgery (including traditional appendectomy, gynecologic surgery). There were 107 patients (20.2 %) with long-term smoking history.
Perioperative variables
All the 529 patients underwent SILC via the transumbilical route with three traditional trocars. The surgical procedures were performed by an experienced biliary surgeon who majored in minimally invasive surgery. He was assisted by residents who were experienced in handling the laparoscope. Overall, the mean operative time was 47.2 ± 18.5 min. The mean intraoperative blood loss was 33.1 ± 35.0 mL. However, the mean postoperative hospital stay was 3.1 ± 1.3 days, which was longer than reported in western countries since day-surgery was not carried out in our hospital, even most hospitals in China, due to different civilization and custom.
Follow-up information
During a mean follow-up period of 36.8 ± 8.8 months, there were 402 patients (76.0 %) who underwent complete resolution. There were 366 patients (69.2 %) intended to avoid fatty food, due to eating habits or abdominal discomfort conditions. It scored 9.6 ± 1.0 in surgical satisfaction and scored 9.7 ± 0.8 in cosmetic satisfaction in the long-term.
Long-term complications postoperatively
Overall, there were 58 patients (11.0 %) suffering complications in the long term, including recurrent omphalitis (31 patients, 5.9 % overall), reflux gastritis (21 patients, 4.0 % overall), incision hernia (1 patient, 0.2 % overall), intra-abdominal abscess (1 patient, 0.2 % overall), CBDS (3 patients, 0.8 % in symptomatic cholelithiasis group), and biliary pancreatitis (1 patient, 0.3 % in symptomatic cholelithiasis group). Details for the long-term complications among patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis and gallbladder polyps are listed in Table 2. The three patients with CBDS were further treated with ERCP. The patient with incision hernia did not undergo further operation. Other complications were treated conservatively.
Long-term retained symptoms postoperatively
Overall, there were 14 patients (2.6 %) complaining about frequent occurrence of right upper quadrant pain, 64 patients (12.1 %) complaining about frequent diarrhea, 3 patients (0.6 %) complaining about frequent nausea/vomiting, and 4 patients (0.8 %) complaining about frequent periumbilical pain. Details for the long-term retained symptoms among patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis and gallbladder polyps are listed in Table 3. No significant differences were identified between patient with symptomatic cholelithiasis and gallbladder polyps referring to these retained symptoms (all p > 0.05).
QoL assessed by SF-36
Figure 1 shows the mean scores for 8 health attributes measured by the SF-36 questionnaire given to patients during their preoperative clinic visit and postoperative long-term follow-up period. These 8 domains of health status include: physical functioning, role limitations—physical, role limitations—emotional, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, and mental health. Significant improvements in the 8 domains of functional health status were revealed among symptomatic cholelithiasis patients and gallbladder polyps patients after SILC during the long-term follow-up period (all p < 0.05), and patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis seemed to benefit more from this surgical intervention, especially in reduced bodily pain, physical limitation, and emotional limitations.
Identification of factors associated with patients’ satisfaction and recovery outcomes
In the univariate analysis, complete resolution was associated with older age (p = 0.069), female gender (p = 0.005), higher BMI (p = 0.008), education level above tertiary (p = 0.043), and longer operative time (p = 0.022). Recurrent omphalitis was more common with increased intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.20), and longer follow-up periods (p = 0.077), whereas frequent diarrhea was more common in B group (p = 0.019), younger age (p = 0.003), non-smoker (p = 0.024), shorter operative time (p = 0.002), fewer intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.061), and shorter follow-up periods (p = 0.021).
In the multivariate logistic regression analysis (Table 4), patients who were of older age (p = 0.023) and female gender (p = 0.020) had more chance to undergo complete resolution. However, patients with increased intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.008) and longer follow-up periods (p = 0.033) had a relatively higher risk of recurrent omphalitis, whereas younger age (p = 0.008), non-smoker (p = 0.001), shorter operative time (p = 0.007) and shorter follow-up period (p = 0.030) were associated with a higher incidence rate of frequent diarrhea. In the multivariate linear regression analysis (Table 5), higher BMI (p = 0.018), shorter postoperative hospital stay (p = 0.024), shorter follow-up period (p = 0.007), no restriction of fatty foods (p = 0.015), more cosmetic satisfactions (p < 0.001), a lower degree of postoperative right upper quadrant pain (p = 0.001), diarrhea (p < 0.001), and nausea (p < 0.001) remained significantly associated with increased surgical satisfaction. Meanwhile, patients complicated with previous diabetes mellitus (p = 0.048), postoperative recurrent omphalitis (p < 0.001), and intra-abdominal abscess (p = 0.039) tended to score less in cosmesis satisfaction.
Discussion
SILC is an alternation of TMLC, which is performed through one single incision via one platform with multiple working channels or via multiple separate ports, and the incision is usually <2.5 cm [23]. SILC achieves a better surgical outcome with less parietal trauma and improved cosmesis, equally as well in decreased incisional pain, faster functional recovery, and shorter hospital stays, with no gain of postoperative complications when compared to TMLC [13, 15, 24, 25]. Ultimately, higher patient satisfaction was revealed, especially for young female individuals and those who cared more about cosmesis. However, the potential disadvantages of SILC are technical difficulty and the costs of instruments [24]. All the instruments enter through a single port, leading to clashing of instruments, which causes a loss of triangulation during operation. Additionally, limited exposure of the surgical field due to instruments in parallel also increases surgical difficulty [26]. But it is controllable with a relatively shorter learning curve for the performing surgeon [21, 27, 28]. Operative costs are higher for SILC procedures, mainly owing to single-port product cost, as related insurance is not provided domestically. A 10-mm trocar and two 5-mm trocars were placed through the same umbilical skin incision with separate fascial punctures; all were traditional and reusable trocars without placing a single-port product, which was cost-effective and feasible. No uncontrollable gas leakage occurred in our cases. It is also convenient in converting to a TMLC or open surgery if the surgeons felt it was unsafe to proceed with SILC.
Current reports about the patients who benefited a lot from SILC were mainly limited in perioperative outcomes; however, many long-term complications, indisposed symptoms, and rehabilitation conditions among most cases would remain undiagnosed. So far, this is the largest case series and first review to evaluate patients’ recovery after SILC with the longest follow-up period. The patients had an apparent improvement in QoL assessed by SF-36 during the long-term follow-up period, and patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis seemed to benefit more from this surgical intervention, especially in reduced bodily pain, physical limitation, and emotional limitations.
The advantages of better cosmetic outcomes have been revealed in SILC compared with TMLC during the short-term follow-up [2, 24, 29–31]. Younger patients may tend to demand SILC because of cosmetic concerns [32]. However, it is skeptical when assessing the cosmetic advantages of SILC versus other minimally invasive cholecystectomy in the long-term follow-up, especially when considering the combination of multiple contributing factors, potential observer bias, and variations in patients’ expectations, all of which contributes to difficulties in assessing cosmetic outcomes [33]. However, patients complicated with prior diabetic mellitus, postoperative omphalitis, and abdominal abscess may result in less cosmetic satisfaction, ultimately, which would affect patients’ surgical satisfaction. It could be reasonably explained by the well-known effect of diabetes mellitus on tissue healing and discomfort condition related to omphalitis and abdominal abscess. Additionally, thin patients usually had difficulty in obscuring the umbilical scars, especially for the patients with a superficial umbilical fossa. It is no wonder higher BMI patients had better surgical satisfaction. A longer postoperative hospital stay might be related to older patients or poor vital signs. We had identified nearly 70 % postoperative patients intended to avoid fatty food, and a number of them were due to dietary habits; others caused by dyspepsia, diarrhea, abdominal pain, or/and other indispositions after fatty food. Many of them complained about avoiding fatty foods, especially when encountering diarrhea or other indispositions. Male patients and those aged ≤45 years also tended to have low compliance in diet [34]. All these factors would contribute to patients’ negative evaluations, in other words, less satisfaction scores to the surgical intervention.
In previously reported follow-up studies, post-cholecystectomy symptoms were present in 12–47 % of patients [35, 36]. We have identified 24.0 % of patients who did not undergo a complete resolution after SILC during the 37-month follow-up. Both morbidity rate of omphalitis (5.9 %) and frequent diarrhea (12.1 %) exceed 5 %, which were most commonly seen among other complications or indispositions (66.4 %). As a result, it was revealed that patients with older age or female gender, who have no systemic disease, might have more chance to recover with little or no postoperatively retained discomforts or complications, and benefited the most from SILC.
The reported rate of umbilical incision infection about SILC ranged from 1 to 14.3 % within the postoperative short-term follow-up [2–5, 10–12, 26, 27, 37–45]. However, we revealed that 5.9 % SILC patients had developed omphalitis due to long-term chronic inflammation in the umbilicus, which may be caused by residual bacterium in the surgical site, even though no apparent surgical site infection was revealed during perioperative period. The SILC patients who were complicated with omphalitis would suffer from wound pus, abscess, periumbilical pain, pruritus, and so on. Both the intraoperative blood loss and the follow-up period were identified as risk factors contributing to omphalitis. The main reason might be explained as the non-common use of protection bags when SILC was initially performed in our hospital. The other reason might be the high degree of gallbladder inflammation (which increased the surgical difficulties, especially in older patients who tended to endure long-term cholecystitis; ultimately, it might encounter with higher intraoperative blood loss). Both may result in pollution of the sterile incision, especially gallbladder ruptured while it was removed via the umbilical incision. The ability of natural defences to infection for the reconstructed umbilicus maybe also weaker than before, and long-time cumulative dirt in the umbilical fossa is a risk factor for omphalitis if no umbilical nursing was performed. As a matter of fact, deep umbilical fossa for high-BMI patients, especially in summer, may also increase surgical site infection. The common pathogens contributed to wound contamination are Escherichia coli, Klebsiell spp., and Streptococcus spp. [46]. However, the effects of a prophylactic antibiotic in prevention of surgical site infection are being questioned [47]. It is important for the doctors and nurses to take care in preoperative umbilical nursing, careful control of blood sugar, intraoperative protection of the umbilical incision using an end catch bag, and postoperative surgical site nursing.
Diarrhea in many post-cholecystectomy is multifactorial in origin [48]. The basic reasons for post-cholecystectomy diarrhea may be associated with, firstly, the malabsorption of bile acid [49–51], which would increase bile acid presenting to the large bowel [52], and secondly, shortening of the gut transit time by accelerating passage through the colon [53]. However, older age, smoking, longer operative time, and follow-up period were identified as protection factors in frequent diarrhea. Patients with gallbladder polyps also tended to complain more about frequent diarrhea. Fisher et al. [54] also pointed out that post-laparoscopic cholecystectomy diarrhea was independently associated with younger age, especially an age <50 years, and postoperative food intolerance, which might be explained as long-term disfunction of gallbladder in absorption and contraction, especially in older patients who complicated with longer term of severe cholelithiasis, whose bowel function might have gradually adapted malabsorption of bile acid, including increased ability of liquid recycling and alternation of transit time presenting to the large bowel. Meanwhile, male patients and those aged ≤45 years tended to have a low compliance [34] with low-fat foods, since cholecystectomy may decrease bowel tolerance toward fatty foods. What is more, nicotine receptors are abundantly present on colonic intrinsic and extrinsic nerves and in pre- and paravertebral ganglia. The lower risk rate of post-cholecystectomy diarrhea in smokers may be related to the effects of nicotine on colonic motility [55]. Smoking tobacco also suppresses appetite, which may be related to endogenous cholinergic control of hypothalamic circuits involved in food intake mediated by the nicotinic receptor [56]. It also benefits the bowel tolerance with less fatty food intake during the postoperative period. However, Fort et al. [53] found that cholecystectomy shortens the gut transit time by accelerating passage through the colon and that these sequelae develop early and persist for at least 4 years after cholecystectomy. In fact, the post-cholecystectomy diarrhea continued to decrease with time during long-term follow-up. Calculi and/or polyp removal with gallbladder preservation through minimally invasive surgery seemed to be an alternative choice for the patients if normal function of the gallbladder was diagnosed, which might greatly decrease the risk of diarrhea with the gallbladder function well preserved [57].
Umbilical hernia was rare, but it might result in serious complications. Small bowel incarceration, obstruction, and ischemia may develop, which requires an urgent laparotomy and sometimes a small bowel resection [58]. A multivariate analysis revealed that fascial incision enlargement, wound infection, diabetes mellitus, and obesity contributed to the risk of developing a trocar site incisional hernia [59]. Uslu et al. [58] also identified that an age >60 years was a significant risk factor since older people usually have weaker fascia and a less muscular abdominal wall. However, no fascial repairs of the umbilical trocar site were performed in this study, which might inevitably increase the hernia rate. This association is related to the weaker anatomic region of the midline of the abdomen combined with the larger diameter of the incision at that level, since frequently fascia dilations were needed to extract the specimen. So, prosthetic closure of the umbilical trocar site after laparoscopic surgery could become the standard method for preventing umbilical hernia in high-risk patients [60]. As reported, a larger transumbilical incision was more likely to increase the incidence of incisional hernias [16, 61–63]. The reported hernia rate ranged from 0.9 to 4.8 % for SILC, but higher incidence might be identified when performed through single-port product [2, 3, 26, 29, 38, 44, 45, 64] than SILC through three traditional ports [40, 65–67]. As a matter of fact, the umbilical hernia rate was 0.2 % in our long-term review, which was much lower than current reported rates. It is reasonable that the fascial incision was much shorter when SILC was performed via fascial puncture with traditional trocars in the umbilical incision, but an 1.5- to 2-cm fasciotomy would be created to insert the single-port product, which carries potential for hernia development and needs fascial suturing. Moreover, it is much easier for the surgeons to close all planes of an umbilical fascial incision within the enlarged skin wound in SILC. No wonder some authors had claimed that SILC bares the benefit of “lessening the risk of an incisional hernia” [26], and SILC performed via three traditional ports seemed to benefit the most.
The rate of retained bile duct stone identified during postoperative period ranged from 0 to 4.76 % among recent SILC studies [2, 26, 27, 31, 32, 38, 39, 65, 68], but with no long-term follow-up which might lead to underreporting of unsuspected stones. Three patients were complicated with CBDS during our long-term review with an incidence rate of 0.8 % among the cholelithiasis patients, 2 were discovered 2 years later after surgery, and 1 was 1 year later. No definite association was identified for the CBDS originating from a retained stone in SILC patients. It also has not been proved that anterograde [27, 38, 39, 65, 68] procedure excels retrograde [31] procedure, in prevention of retained CBDS during a surgical procedure in SILC. It is still controversial if routine intraoperative cholangiography is necessary, since the incidence of retained CBDS is minimal [69].
Our follow-up results suggest that SILC, via fascial puncture with traditional trocars in the umbilical incision, is feasible and safe with acceptable incidence rate of postoperative complications in the long run. SILC provides an alternative to minimally invasive surgery, though not as profound as the application of TMLC which has transformed traditional open surgery to minimal invasion. Indeed, SILC favors the patients who take cosmetic result into account. However, not many surgeons believe that SILC can replace TMLC as the standard procedure for gallbladder surgery [70]. The main limitation for widespread promotion of SILC is technically challenging, such as limited triangulation and freedom of movements of instruments [71–73], and the critical view of the surgical field. The severity of intra-abdominal adhesions should be assessed at the time of surgery with regard to feasibility and safety of SILC [40]. In high-risk patients, surgical safety must be the primary concern rather than the cosmetic result, making TMLC more appropriate. Proper surgical devices may ease surgical performance in SILC, and long-term benefits are expected.
Abbreviations
- SILC:
-
Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy
- TMLC:
-
Traditional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy
- SF-36:
-
Short-Form-36 Health Survey questionnaire
- CBDS:
-
Common bile duct stones
- ERCP:
-
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
- BMI:
-
Body mass index
- ASA:
-
American Society of Anesthesiology
- QoL:
-
Quality of life
- SD:
-
Standard deviation
- IQR:
-
Interquartile range
- CI:
-
Confidence interval
References
Navarra G, Pozza E, Occhionorelli S, Carcoforo P, Donini I (1997) One-wound laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 84(5):695
Phillips MS, Marks JM, Roberts K et al (2012) Intermediate results of a prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 26(5):1296–1303
Reibetanz J, Kim M, Germer CT, Krajinovic K (2012) Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients of advanced age: why not? Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 22(4):361–363
Han HJ, Choi SB, Kim WB et al (2012) Surgical stress response and clinical outcomes of single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective nonrandomized study. Am Surg 78(4):485–491
Lee HY, Roh YH, Kim KH et al (2012) Comparing of the results between single port and three ports in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 59(118):1761
Wu SD, Han JY, Tian Y (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a retrospective comparative study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 21(1):25–28
Lee PC, Lo C, Lai PS et al (2010) Randomized clinical trial of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 97(7):1007–1012
Bucher P, Pugin F, Buchs NC, Ostermann S, Morel P (2011) Randomized clinical trial of laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 98(12):1695–1702
Asakuma M, Hayashi M, Komeda K et al (2011) Impact of single-port cholecystectomy on postoperative pain. Br J Surg 98(7):991–995
Luna RA, Nogueira DB, Varela PS et al (2012) A prospective, randomized comparison of pain, inflammatory response, and short-term outcomes between single port and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 27:1254–1259
Madureira FA, Manso JE, Madureira Fo D, Iglesias AC (2012) Randomized clinical study for assessment of incision characteristics and pain associated with LESS versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 27:1009–1015
Karim MA, Ahmed J, Mansour M, Ali A (2012) Single incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparison of two approaches. Int J Surg 10:368–372
Trastulli S, Cirocchi R, Desiderio J et al (2013) Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 100(2):191–208
Steinemann DC, Raptis DA, Lurje G et al (2011) Cosmesis and body image after single-port laparoscopic or conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a multicenter double blinded randomised controlled trial (SPOCC-trial). BMC Surg 11:24
Markar SR, Karthikesalingam A, Thrumurthy S, Muirhead L, Kinross J, Paraskeva P (2012) Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) versus conventional multiport cholecystectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 26(5):1205–1213
Romanelli JR, Roshek TB 3rd, Lynn DC, Earle DB (2010) Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: initial experience. Surg Endosc 24(6):1374–1379
Sato N, Shibao K, Mori Y, Higure A, Yamaguchi K (2014) Postoperative complications following single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a retrospective analysis in 360 consecutive patients. Surg Endosc 29:708–713
Yokoe M, Takada T, Strasberg SM et al (2012) New diagnostic criteria and severity assessment of acute cholecystitis in revised Tokyo Guidelines. J Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat Sci 19(5):578–585
Helgstrand F, Rosenberg J, Kehlet H, Strandfelt P, Bisgaard T (2012) Reoperation versus clinical recurrence rate after ventral hernia repair. Ann Surg 256(6):955–958
Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30(6):473–483
Solomon D, Bell RL, Duffy AJ, Roberts KE (2010) Single-port cholecystectomy: small scar, short learning curve. Surg Endosc 24(12):2954–2957
Strasberg SM, Hertl M, Soper NJ (1995) An analysis of the problem of biliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 180(1):101–125
Zheng M, Qin M, Zhao H (2012) Laparoendoscopic single-site cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled study. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 21(2):113–117
Lai EC, Yang GP, Tang CN, Yih PC, Chan OC, Li MK (2011) Prospective randomized comparative study of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 202(3):254–258
Leung D, Yetasook AK, Carbray J et al (2012) Single-incision surgery has higher cost with equivalent pain and quality-of-life scores compared with multiple-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized blinded comparison. J Am Coll Surg 215(5):702–708
Ma J, Cassera MA, Spaun GO, Hammill CW, Hansen PD, Aliabadi-Wahle S (2011) Randomized controlled trial comparing single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 254(1):22–27
Cao ZG, Cai W, Qin MF, Zhao HZ, Yue P, Li Y (2011) Randomized clinical trial of single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: short-term operative outcomes. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 21(5):311–313
Kravetz AJ, Iddings D, Basson MD, Kia MA (2009) The learning curve with single-port cholecystectomy. JSLS 13(3):332–336
Marks J, Tacchino R, Roberts K et al (2011) Prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: report of preliminary data. Am J Surg 201(3):369–372 discussion 72–73
Aprea G, Coppola-Bottazzi E, Guida F, Masone S, Persico G (2011) Laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) versus classic video-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized prospective study. J Surg Res 166(2):e109–e112
Sasaki A, Ogawa M, Tono C, Obara S, Hosoi N, Wakabayashi G (2012) Single-port versus multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 22(5):396–399
Alptekin H, Yilmaz H, Acar F, Kafali ME, Sahin M (2012) Incisional hernia rate may increase after single-port cholecystectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 22(8):731–737
Novitsky YW, Kercher KW, Czerniach DR et al (2005) Advantages of mini-laparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg 140(12):1178–1183
Yueh TP, Chen FY, Lin TE, Chuang MT (2014) Diarrhea after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: associated factors and predictors. Asian J Surg 37(4):171–177
Wilson RG, Macintyre IM (1993) Symptomatic outcome after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 80(4):439–441
Ros E, Zambon D (1987) Postcholecystectomy symptoms. A prospective study of gall stone patients before and two years after surgery. Gut 28:1500–1504
Vidal O, Valentini M, Ginesta C et al (2011) Single-incision versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: comparison of surgical outcomes from a single institution. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 21(8):683–686
Saad S, Strassel V, Sauerland S (2012) Randomized clinical trial of single-port, minilaparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 100:339–349
Chang SK, Wang YL, Shen L, Iyer SG, Shaik AB, Lomanto D (2012) Interim report: a randomized controlled trial comparing postoperative pain in single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Asian J Endosc Surg 16:1618–1628
Rupp CC, Farrell TM, Meyer AA (2011) Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy using a “two-port” technique is safe and feasible: experience in 101 consecutive patients. Am Surg 77(7):916–921
Hosogi H, Strassel V, Martin C, Sakai Y, Saad S (2011) Single-port versus needlescopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study. Asian J Endosc Surg. 4(3):120–126
Khaimook A (2012) Single-incision versus conventional multiple-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy at Hat Yai Hospital. J Med Assoc Thai 95(6):771–774
Sasaki K, Watanabe G, Matsuda M, Hashimoto M (2012) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: comparison analysis of feasibility and safety. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 22(2):108–113
Reibetanz J, Ickrath P, Hain J, Germer CT, Krajinovic K (2012) Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus standard multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a case-control study comparing the long-term quality of life and body image. Surg Today 43:1025–1030
van den Boezem PB, Kruyt PM, Cuesta MA, Sietses C (2012) Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a case control study. Acta Chir Belg 112(5):374–377
Grande M, Torquati A, Farinon AM (1992) Wound infection after cholecystectomy. Correlation between bacteria in bile and wound infection after operation on the gallbladder for acute and chronic gallstone disease. Eur J Surg 158(2):109–112
Ruangsin S, Laohawiriyakamol S, Sunpaweravong S, Mahattanobon S (2014) The efficacy of cefazolin in reducing surgical site infection in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind controlled trial. Surg Endosc 29:874–881
Fromm H, Tunuguntla AK, Malavolti M, Sherman C, Ceryak S (1987) Absence of significant role of bile acids in diarrhea of a heterogeneous group of postcholecystectomy patients. Dig Dis Sci 32(1):33–44
Sciarretta G, Furno A, Mazzoni M, Malaguti P (1992) Post-cholecystectomy diarrhea: evidence of bile acid malabsorption assessed by SeHCAT test. Am J Gastroenterol 87(12):1852–1854
Suhr O, Danielsson A, Nyhlin H, Truedsson H (1988) Bile acid malabsorption demonstrated by SeHCAT in chronic diarrhoea, with special reference to the impact of cholecystectomy. Scand J Gastroenterol 23(10):1187–1194
Ford GA, Preece JD, Davies IH, Wilkinson SP (1992) Use of the SeHCAT test in the investigation of diarrhoea. Postgrad Med J 68(798):272–276
Arlow FL, Dekovich AA, Priest RJ, Beher WT (1987) Bile acid-mediated postcholecystectomy diarrhea. Arch Intern Med 147(7):1327–1329
Fort JM, Azpiroz F, Casellas F, Andreu J, Malagelada JR (1996) Bowel habit after cholecystectomy: physiological changes and clinical implications. Gastroenterology 111(3):617–622
Fisher M, Spilias DC, Tong LK (2008) Diarrhoea after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: incidence and main determinants. Anz J Surg 78(6):482–486
Coulie B, Camilleri M, Bharucha AE, Sandborn WJ, Burton D (2001) Colonic motility in chronic ulcerative proctosigmoiditis and the effects of nicotine on colonic motility in patients and healthy subjects. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 15(5):653–663
Jo YH, Talmage DA, Role LW (2002) Nicotinic receptor-mediated effects on appetite and food intake. J Neurobiol 53(4):618–632
Tan YY, Zhao G, Wang D, Wang JM, Tang JR, Ji ZL (2013) A new strategy of minimally invasive surgery for cholecystolithiasis: calculi removal and gallbladder preservation. Dig Surg 30(4–6):466–471
Uslu HY, Erkek AB, Cakmak A et al (2007) Trocar site hernia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 17(5):600–603
Comajuncosas J, Hermoso J, Gris P et al (2014) Risk factors for umbilical trocar site incisional hernia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective 3-year follow-up study. Am J Surg 207(1):1–6
Armananzas L, Ruiz-Tovar J, Arroyo A et al (2014) Prophylactic mesh vs suture in the closure of the umbilical trocar site after laparoscopic cholecystectomy in high-risk patients for incisional hernia. A randomized clinical trial. J Am Coll Surg 218(5):960–968
Helgstrand F, Rosenberg J, Bisgaard T (2011) Trocar site hernia after laparoscopic surgery: a qualitative systematic review. Hernia 15(2):113–121
Elsey JK, Feliciano DV (2010) Initial experience with single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 210(5):620–624
Navarra G, La Malfa G, Bartolotta G, Curro G (2008) The invisible cholecystectomy: a different way. Surg Endosc 22(9):2103
Vilallonga R, Barbaros U, Sumer A et al (2012) Single-port transumbilical laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomised comparison of clinical results of 140 cases. J Minim Access Surg 8(3):74–78
Gangl O, Hofer W, Tomaselli F, Sautner T, Fugger R (2011) Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC)-a matched pair analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 396(6):819–824
Joseph S, Moore BT, Sorensen GB et al (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparison with the gold standard. Surg Endosc 25(9):3008–3015
Bagloo MB, Dakin GF, Mormino LP, Pomp A (2011) Single-access laparoscopic cholecystectomy with routine intraoperative cholangiogram. Surg Endosc 25(5):1683–1688
Khambaty F, Brody F, Vaziri K, Edwards C (2011) Laparoscopic versus single-incision cholecystectomy. World J Surg 35(5):967–972
Massarweh NN, Flum DR (2007) Role of intraoperative cholangiography in avoiding bile duct injury. J Am Coll Surg 204(4):656–664
Chang SK, Tay CW, Bicol RA, Lee YY, Madhavan K (2011) A case-control study of single-incision versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. World J Surg 35(2):289–293
Merchant AM, Cook MW, White BC, Davis SS, Sweeney JF, Lin E (2009) Transumbilical Gelport access technique for performing single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS). J Gastrointest Surg. 13(1):159–162
Abe N, Takeuchi H, Ueki H et al (2009) Single-port endoscopic cholecystectomy: a bridge between laparoscopic and translumenal endoscopic surgery. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 16(5):633–638
Bucher P, Pugin F, Buchs N, Ostermann S, Charara F, Morel P (2009) Single port access laparoscopic cholecystectomy (with video). World J Surg 33(5):1015–1019
Acknowledgments
Tingting Cui Jr, Wenbin Hou Jr, Wanying Huang Jr, Shuang Xie Jr, Jing Liu Jr, Tian Wang Jr, Yijiao Wang Jr, Yunyun Xiao Jr, Hongyang Xu Jr, and Wenqian Yu Jr served as clinical investigators.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosures
Shuodong Wu, Chao Lv Jr, Yu Tian, Ying Fan, Hong Yu, Jing Kong, Yongnan Li Jr, Xiaopeng Yu Jr, Dianbo Yao Jr, Yongsheng Chen Jr, and Jinyan Han Jr have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wu, S., Lv, C., Tian, Y. et al. Transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: long-term review from a single center. Surg Endosc 30, 3375–3385 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4618-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4618-7