• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
    • Why Should You Support SAGES?
    • SAGES Swag
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Annual Meeting
      • 2027 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2027 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Lead Up Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • Innovative Surgical Trends
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Advanced Laparoscopy and Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
    • Foregut Video Atlas
  • Opportunities
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs
  • Learning Hub
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Comparison of Early Morbidity Parameters Between Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy and Classic Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Prospective Controlled Trial

Comparison of Early Morbidity Parameters Between Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy and Classic Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Prospective Controlled Trial

Pankaj Garg, title, Jai D Thakur, MBBS, Rajeev Kumar, MBBS MS, Ashok K Attri, MBBS MS, Jeremy Song, BS. 1. SGHKS Charitable Hospital, Sohana, Mohali, Punjab, India 2. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, USA. 3.Government Medical College, Chandigarh, India. 4. Simches Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA

Aim– To compare pain and early morbidity parameters between SILS Cholecystectomy (SILS-C) and four-port classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC).
Methods – 65 patients (10 men, 55 women) were prospectively enrolled in the study and divided in two groups- SILS-C (n=35) & CLC(n=30). SILS-C was done through a transumbilical incision (2.3 to 2.7 cm) and 3 ports (one 10 mm and two 5 mm ports) were introduced separately through the incision. The surgery was done with conventional straight instruments and utilized retracting sutures through the abdominal wall. The post operative pain scores at 6 hrs, 24 hrs and 1 week were registered using visual analogue scores (VAS). Along with this, post operative nausea, vomiting, commencement of oral intake, hospital stay, days taken to resume normal activities and days taken to return back to work were noted.
Results– The mean age in SILS-C was 45.8±15.3yrs and CLC was 43.7±12.2 yrs. The age, sex, associated co-morbidities like diabetes and hypertension were similar in both the groups. The history of acute cholecystitis, jaundice and pancreatitis were also comparable in both the groups. The operating time was significantly longer in SILS-C group (78.57 ±28.5 mins) than CLC group (50.83 ± 22.6 mins)(p<0.0001, t-test). 10 out of 35 (28%) SILS-C patients required introduction of additional trocars. 5 patients required one, 3 patients required two and 2 patients required three additional trocars. The reasons for putting additional trocars were dense adhesions(5), bleeding(2), confusion in anatomy(2) and a large left lobe of liver(1). None of the patients required conversion to open. The post operative pain scores at 6 hrs (SILS-C-1.71 ± 1.8, CLC-2.00 ± 1.1, p=0.47,non-sig., t-test), 24 hrs (SILS-C-1.86 ± 1.6, CLC-1.62 ± 1.2, p=0.53,non-sig, t-test), and 1 week (SILS-C-1.16 ± 0.4, CLC-1.10 ± 0.3, p=0.57,non-sig., t-test) were similar in both the groups. The other early morbidity parameters- post operative nausea, vomiting, commencement of oral intake (SILS-C-6.06 ± 0.7 hrs, CLC-6.31 ± 1.3 hrs, p=0.48,non-sig., t-test), hospital stay (SILS-C-1.08 ± 0.6 days, CLC-1.21 ± 0.5 days, p=0.20,non-sig., t-test), days taken to resume normal day to day activities (SILS-C-7.81 ± 3.8 days, CLC-8.35 ± 2.2 days, p=0.60,non-sig., t-test) and days taken to return back to professional work (SILS-C-20.99 ± 5.8 days, CLC-20.28 ± 5.0 days, p=0.61,non-sig., t-test) – were also similar in both the groups. The wound infection causing significant morbidity (dressing >15 days) was higher in the SILS-C group [SILS-C- 11%(4/35) vs CLC-0%. P=0.082 ,non-sig., Fisher exact test]. If converted SILS-C cases were analyzed separately (SILS-C=25, CLC-29, SILS converted=10), the pain scores at 6hrs, 24 hrs (SILS-C-2.08 ± 1.9, CLC-1.62 ± 1.2, SILS-converted-1.30 ± 0.4, p=0.31,non-sig, ANOVA test), 1 week and morbidity parameters were still similar in all the three groups.
Conclusions– SILS-Cholecystectomy is a safe and viable option. It can be performed with outcome (post operative pain scores and morbidity parameters) similar to four-port classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy while having obvious cosmetic benefits at the same time. Moreover, conversion of SILS to multiport cholecystectomy (addition of ports) didn’t significantly increase post-operative pain or morbidity.


Session: Poster
Program Number: P216
View Poster

Related



Hours & Info

15821 Ventura Blvd Ste 400
Encino, CA 91436

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2026 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals