• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • COVID-19 Annoucements
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Who is SAGES?
    • SAGES Mission Statement
    • Advocacy
    • Strategic Plan, 2020-2023
    • Committees
      • Request to Join a SAGES Committee
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Full Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
    • Donate to the SAGES Foundation
    • Awards
      • George Berci Award
      • Pioneer in Surgical Endoscopy
      • Excellence In Clinical Care
      • International Ambassador
      • IRCAD Visiting Fellowship
      • Social Justice and Health Equity
      • Excellence in Community Surgery
      • Distinguished Service
      • Early Career Researcher
      • Researcher in Training
      • Jeff Ponsky Master Educator
      • Excellence in Medical Leadership
      • Barbara Berci Memorial Award
      • Brandeis Scholarship
      • Advocacy Summit
      • RAFT Annual Meeting Abstract Contest and Awards
  • Meetings
    • NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2024 Scientific Session Call For Abstracts
      • 2024 Emerging Technology Call For Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • Industry
      • Advertising Opportunities
      • Exhibit Opportunities
      • Sponsorship Opportunities
    • Future Meetings
    • Past Meetings
      • SAGES 2022
      • SAGES 2021
    • Related Meetings Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Applications
      • Active Membership
      • Affiliate Membership
      • Associate Active Membership
      • Candidate Membership
      • International Membership
      • Medical Student Membership
    • Member News
      • Member Spotlight
      • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find a SAGES Member
  • Publications
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • SCOPE – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Annoucements
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • OpiVoid.org
    • SAGES.TV Video Library
    • Safe Cholecystectomy Program
      • Safe Cholecystectomy Didactic Modules
    • Masters Program
      • SAGES Facebook Program Collaboratives
      • Acute Care Surgery
      • Bariatric
      • Biliary
      • Colorectal
      • Flexible Endoscopy (upper or lower)
      • Foregut
      • Hernia
      • Robotics
    • Educational Opportunities
    • HPB/Solid Organ Program
    • Courses for Residents
      • Advanced Courses
      • Basic Courses
    • Video Based Assessments (VBA)
    • Robotics Fellows Course
    • MIS Fellows Course
    • Facebook Livestreams
    • Free Webinars For Residents
    • SMART Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video
    • SAGES at Cine-Med
      • SAGES Top 21 MIS Procedures
      • SAGES Pearls
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
      • SAGES Tips & Tricks of the Top 21
  • Opportunities
    • NEW-Area of Concentrated Training Seal (ACT)-Advanced Flexible Endoscopy
    • SAGES Fellowship Certification for Advanced GI MIS and Comprehensive Flexible Endoscopy
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • SAGES Research Opportunities
    • Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery
    • Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery
    • Fundamental Use of Surgical Energy
    • Job Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
  • Store
    • “Unofficial” Logo Products
  • Log In

Mini-laparoscopic vs Traditional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Preliminary Report

Deniz Atasoy, Afag Aghayeva, Turgut Bora Cengiz, Volkan Ozben, Onur Bayraktar, Ismail Hamzaoglu, Tayfun Karahasanoglu, Bilgi Baca. Acibadem Mehmet Ali Aydinlar University, School of Medicine

Intorduction: Laparoscopy is evolving towards less invasiveness. Not only the quality and ergonomics but also the diameter of the instruments is improving. The use of thinner instruments has been hypothesized to reduce pain and increase cosmesis. Since the introduction of mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) in 1997, it gained little interest that could be attributed to decreased durability of the reduced size instruments, poorer optical resolution and smaller jaws of the instrument tips.

Our aim was to compare the outcomes of MLC with traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TLC).

Methods and Procedures : From 6 February 2016 to 26 October 2016 patients who were performed MLC were included to this study. As a comparison group, patients who were performed TLC during the same time period were retrieved. Open and robotic cholecystectomies were excluded. Data were recovered retrospectively from a prospective registry. The variables studied were operation time (OT), blood loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), early (<30 day) complication rate, and postoperative pain (visual analog scale (VAS) score).

MLCs were performed using one 10-mm, one 5-mm, and two 2.4-mm ports (cumulative port size 19.8-mm). TLCs were performed using one 10-mm and three 5-mm ports (cumulative port size 25-mm).

Results: A total of 16 MLC and 75 TLC were performed during the study period. Mean age was 41±12.36 and 46±14.86 for MLC and TLC patients, respectively (p=0.203). Groups were similar regarding gender distribution. The average operating time was 47±15.15 and 70±40.04 min in the MLC and TLC groups, respectively (p=0.021). The average blood loss was 1.88±1.86 and 10±22.19 mL (p=0.005), LOS was 1.19±0.40 and 1.47±1.09 days, and VAS score was 30±19.66 and 32±21.59 in the MLC and TLC groups, respectively. No patients were converted to open. There were two postoperative complications in TLC patients (p=1). One developed choledocholithiasis on postoperative day one and after ERCP the course was uneventful. The other patient developed choledocholithiasis and acute pancreatitis on the sixth postoperative day and was treated conservatively. The stone in the ampulla had fallen by itself without a need for ERCP.

Conclusion: According to the preliminary results of this study, MLC is a safe and feasible technique for the management of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Further comparative studies are needed before any conclusive statements. 


Presented at the SAGES 2017 Annual Meeting in Houston, TX.

Abstract ID: 88157

Program Number: P715

Presentation Session: iPoster Session (Non CME)

Presentation Type: Poster

53

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • WhatsApp
  • Reddit

Related

« Return to SAGES 2018 abstract archive

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064
1-310-437-0544
sagesweb@sages.org
Monday - Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Important Links

SAGES 2023 Meeting Information

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals

 

  • taTME Study Info
  • Foundation
  • SAGES.TV
  • MyCME
  • Educational Activities

Copyright © 2023 Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons