• 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 / Patient-reported Outcomes After Single-incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy vs Traditional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomized, Prospective Trial

Patient-reported Outcomes After Single-incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy vs Traditional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomized, Prospective Trial

Matthew Sappington, MD, B Todd Moore, MD, Daniel J Margolin, MD, G Brent Sorensen, MD, Fengming Tang, MS, Kimberly M Brown, MD. Saint Luke’s Hospital of Kansas City, Department of Surgery, University of Missouri-Kansas City

 

Introduction: Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is a newer approach that has been shown to be a safe alternative to traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TLC) in retrospective and small prospective studies. We do not yet have accurate data to inform patients about what specific benefits may be expected with SILC compared to TLC. As the demand for single-incision surgery may be driven by patient perceptions of benefits, we designed a prospective randomized study using patient-reported outcomes as our endpoints.

Methods: We performed a randomized, controlled trial comparing patient reported outcomes following SILC or TLC. After obtaining informed consent, patients scheduled to undergo elective cholecystectomy were randomized to SILC or TLC, stratifying for surgeon, diagnosis, body mass index (BMI), and prior abdominal surgery. Patients were blinded to the procedure by using uniform dressings that were maintained for 48 hours after surgery. Preoperative characteristics and perioperative data were recorded. Pain scores were recorded in recovery and at 48 hours. Satisfaction with wound appearance and perceptions of pain at 2 and 4 weeks were reported by patients on a 5-point Likert scale. We used the validated Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) survey preoperatively and at 2 and 4 weeks postoperatively to assess recovery. Procedural and total hospital cost per case were abstracted from hospital billing systems

Results: We enrolled 90 patients and randomized 70 to date. Patients left study because of patient desire for one procedure (12), no surgery was performed (4) or surgeon determined patient was not SILC candidate (4). Complete follow-up data are available for 32 SILC and 27 TLC patients. Mean age was 44 years (+/- 14), 83% were Caucasian, and 78% were female, with no difference between groups. Operative time was longer for SILC (60.1 +/- 22.7 minutes vs 49.4 +/- 13.6 minutes, p=0.036), but mean LOS was similar (6.8 +/- 4.8 hours SILC vs 5.9 +/- 4.7 hours TLC, p=0.47). Operating room cost ($852 +/-$182 SILC vs $879 +/- $153 TLC, p=0.56) and encounter cost ($3035 +/- $1000 SILC vs $3225 +/- $1183 TLC, p=0.541) were similar. GIQLI scores were not significantly different preoperatively, or at 2 or 4 weeks. Patients reported a mean of 9.3 +/-7.2 days from surgery to complete resumption of normal activities with SILC, and 8.7 +/-4.4 days with TLC (p=0.68). Patients reported higher satisfaction with wound appearance at 2 weeks with SILC, but there was no difference at 4 weeks. There were no differences in pain scores in recovery or at 2 or 4 weeks.

Conclusions: SILC is a longer operation, but can be done at the same cost as TLC. Recovery is not faster with SILC, and pain scores are not significantly different. There may be an improvement in patient satisfaction with wound appearance at 2 weeks. While demand for single-incision surgery may be driven by patient perceptions of benefit, further study is needed to accurately inform patients as to what benefit they may derive from SILC over TLC. Both procedures are valid approaches to cholecystectomy.
 


Session Number: SS23 – Plenary II
Program Number: S130

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

Refine Search