-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
Previous Version:
Umbilicus Saving Three-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
-
Other Comments:
This is a retrospective non-randomized study comparing 3-Port (n=18) and 4-Port (n=37) cholecystectomy. There was a high conversion rate (22% in the 4-Port-Group), however, converted patients were not included in the analyses. The fact, that none of the outcome parameters were signifantly different is probable due to a very low sample size.
More to the point, I do not understand why it is of advantage to avoid a scar in or around the umbilicus. The recent experience with Single-Port and NOTES-surgery has demonstrated that a incision in the umbilicus is not associated with increased morbidity. Moreover, the scar in the umbilicus is hidden and the cosmesis of such scars is excellent.
The present study is weak due to its low sample size. The high conversion rate raises questions on the used technique. I do not see why the umbilicus should be saved from incisions and why the proposed technique is of advantage.
-
Competing interests:
No competing interest to declare
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
Yes -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
Yes
-
References:
Cosmesis and Body Image after Single-Port Laparoscopic or Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A multicenter double blinded Randomised Controlled Trial (SPOCC-trial). BMC Surgery [1471-2482] Steinemann yr:2011 vol:11 iss:1 pg:24 -24 -
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
Single-Port and 4-Port lap. Cholecystectomy
- How to cite: Steinemann D .Review on 'umbilicus saving 3-Port laparoscopic cholecystectomy'[Review of the article 'Umbilicus Saving Three-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy ' by Baba H].WebmedCentral 2011;2(9):WMCRW00958
Responded by Dr. Daisuke Hashimoto on 03 Oct 2011 05:58:18 PM
The authors decribe a series of patients operated on two different techniques, 3-port or 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The study is not randomised or controlled. However, no difference in the patient characteristics appears between the two groups.
The main finding of the study is that 3-port LC seems to be as safe as 4-P LC. The study is nicely written and the reviewed literature is well chosen.
Corrections and suggestions:
1. Patients and methods: the authors should describe how they chose one of the two techniques for each patient.
2. Results: the conversion rate with acute cholecystitis patients was very high, with 3-port LC 50% of acute cholecystitis and with 4-port LC 60% of acute cholecystitis patients. The authors should comment this in discussion.
3. Results: To me it does not sound correct to exclude bleeding complications from the final analysis (as was done with the patients that had a conversion to open cholecystectomy). At least the data should be shown, even separately
4. Results and Discussion and Conclusion: there was no STATISTICALLY significant difference in the requirement on analgesia between the two groups. Thus I would suggest that this conclusion is removed from discussion, as well as the last sentence in discussion-section modified by leaving "better post-operative recovery" out.
No
No
None
GI surgeon.
Some own publications related to gall stone disease.
Responded by Dr. Daisuke Hashimoto on 12 Nov 2011 02:57:45 AM