Loading…
Transvaginal-hybrid vs. single-port-access vs. ‘conventional’ laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective observational study
Purpose In the recent past, access to the peritoneal cavity has involved primarily ‘natural orifice transluminal’ and ‘single-port access’ techniques, which are based on laparoscopy. The most frequently performed procedure using these new developments is cholecystectomy. Few studies compare more tha...
Saved in:
Published in: | Langenbeck's archives of surgery 2011-06, Vol.396 (5), p.709-715 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c343t-22e2d53a532e4d4f59de648f11d3d71d8eb2d70f9a8f044da000a02ac5b1afd03 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c343t-22e2d53a532e4d4f59de648f11d3d71d8eb2d70f9a8f044da000a02ac5b1afd03 |
container_end_page | 715 |
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 709 |
container_title | Langenbeck's archives of surgery |
container_volume | 396 |
creator | Kilian, Maik Raue, Wieland Menenakos, Charalambos Wassersleben, Brit Hartmann, Jens |
description | Purpose
In the recent past, access to the peritoneal cavity has involved primarily ‘natural orifice transluminal’ and ‘single-port access’ techniques, which are based on laparoscopy. The most frequently performed procedure using these new developments is cholecystectomy. Few studies compare more than one ‘new’ method with the ‘golden standard’ of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Here we present the results of the first prospective observational study comparing standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy with single-port cholecystectomy as well as transvaginal-hybrid cholecystectomy.
Methods
Fifty-one patients were included in a prospective observational study (20 four-trocar laparoscopic, 15 transvaginal-hybrid, 16 single-port cholecystectomies). Endpoints of the study were operative time, length of hospital stay and postoperative level of pain (numeric analogue score, while coughing). Conversion rates and complications are reported as well.
Results
Median operating times did not differ among all three access methods [55 (35–135) min vs. 65 (35–95) min vs. 68 (35–98) min]. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the transvaginal-hybrid group [3 (3–12) days] and in the single-port group [3 (1–9) days], compared to the four-trocar laparoscopic group [4 (2–17) days]. Pain score was significantly diminished in the transvaginal-hybrid group during the early postoperative course.
Conclusions
Concerning the length of hospital stay, transvaginal-hybrid cholecystectomy and single-port cholecystectomy appear to be superior to ‘conventional’ laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Additionally, transvaginal-hybrid access is associated with significantly less pain in the early postoperative course. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00423-011-0769-8 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_868769863</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>868769863</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c343t-22e2d53a532e4d4f59de648f11d3d71d8eb2d70f9a8f044da000a02ac5b1afd03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1u1TAQhS1ERUvhAdig7Fi5-C-JLztU8SdV6qZdWxN7cpsqNw6eJFJ25S3g9fokuKR02dV4Zs45Gn-MvZPiTApRfyQhjNJcSMlFXe24fcFOpNElV6aUL5_eRh-z10S3Qoiq3plX7FhJbY209Qn7dZVgoAX23QA9v1mb1IViobOCumHfIx9jmjh4j0T_xvd3v30cFhymLmbH_d2foocRUiQfx84X_ib26Fea0E_xsH4qoBjzcsxtt2ARG8K0wGYuaJrD-oYdtdATvn2sp-z665er8-_84vLbj_PPF9xroyeuFKpQaii1QhNMW-4CVsa2UgYdahksNirUot2BbYUxAfJvQSjwZSOhDUKfsg9bbr7n54w0uUNHHvseBowzOVvZzNBWOivlpvT5ckrYujF1B0irk8I9gHcbeJfBuwfwzmbP-8f0uTlgeHL8J50FahNQXg17TO42zilToGdS_wKoJ5PX</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>868769863</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Transvaginal-hybrid vs. single-port-access vs. ‘conventional’ laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective observational study</title><source>Springer Nature</source><creator>Kilian, Maik ; Raue, Wieland ; Menenakos, Charalambos ; Wassersleben, Brit ; Hartmann, Jens</creator><creatorcontrib>Kilian, Maik ; Raue, Wieland ; Menenakos, Charalambos ; Wassersleben, Brit ; Hartmann, Jens</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
In the recent past, access to the peritoneal cavity has involved primarily ‘natural orifice transluminal’ and ‘single-port access’ techniques, which are based on laparoscopy. The most frequently performed procedure using these new developments is cholecystectomy. Few studies compare more than one ‘new’ method with the ‘golden standard’ of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Here we present the results of the first prospective observational study comparing standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy with single-port cholecystectomy as well as transvaginal-hybrid cholecystectomy.
Methods
Fifty-one patients were included in a prospective observational study (20 four-trocar laparoscopic, 15 transvaginal-hybrid, 16 single-port cholecystectomies). Endpoints of the study were operative time, length of hospital stay and postoperative level of pain (numeric analogue score, while coughing). Conversion rates and complications are reported as well.
Results
Median operating times did not differ among all three access methods [55 (35–135) min vs. 65 (35–95) min vs. 68 (35–98) min]. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the transvaginal-hybrid group [3 (3–12) days] and in the single-port group [3 (1–9) days], compared to the four-trocar laparoscopic group [4 (2–17) days]. Pain score was significantly diminished in the transvaginal-hybrid group during the early postoperative course.
Conclusions
Concerning the length of hospital stay, transvaginal-hybrid cholecystectomy and single-port cholecystectomy appear to be superior to ‘conventional’ laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Additionally, transvaginal-hybrid access is associated with significantly less pain in the early postoperative course.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1435-2443</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1435-2451</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00423-011-0769-8</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21384187</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Abdominal Surgery ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Cardiac Surgery ; Cholecystectomy - methods ; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - methods ; Cholecystitis - surgery ; Cholelithiasis - surgery ; Female ; General Surgery ; Humans ; Length of Stay ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery - methods ; Original Article ; Pain Measurement ; Pain, Postoperative - etiology ; Postoperative Complications - etiology ; Prospective Studies ; Thoracic Surgery ; Time and Motion Studies ; Traumatic Surgery ; Vagina - surgery ; Vascular Surgery</subject><ispartof>Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2011-06, Vol.396 (5), p.709-715</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c343t-22e2d53a532e4d4f59de648f11d3d71d8eb2d70f9a8f044da000a02ac5b1afd03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c343t-22e2d53a532e4d4f59de648f11d3d71d8eb2d70f9a8f044da000a02ac5b1afd03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21384187$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kilian, Maik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raue, Wieland</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Menenakos, Charalambos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wassersleben, Brit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hartmann, Jens</creatorcontrib><title>Transvaginal-hybrid vs. single-port-access vs. ‘conventional’ laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective observational study</title><title>Langenbeck's archives of surgery</title><addtitle>Langenbecks Arch Surg</addtitle><addtitle>Langenbecks Arch Surg</addtitle><description>Purpose
In the recent past, access to the peritoneal cavity has involved primarily ‘natural orifice transluminal’ and ‘single-port access’ techniques, which are based on laparoscopy. The most frequently performed procedure using these new developments is cholecystectomy. Few studies compare more than one ‘new’ method with the ‘golden standard’ of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Here we present the results of the first prospective observational study comparing standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy with single-port cholecystectomy as well as transvaginal-hybrid cholecystectomy.
Methods
Fifty-one patients were included in a prospective observational study (20 four-trocar laparoscopic, 15 transvaginal-hybrid, 16 single-port cholecystectomies). Endpoints of the study were operative time, length of hospital stay and postoperative level of pain (numeric analogue score, while coughing). Conversion rates and complications are reported as well.
Results
Median operating times did not differ among all three access methods [55 (35–135) min vs. 65 (35–95) min vs. 68 (35–98) min]. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the transvaginal-hybrid group [3 (3–12) days] and in the single-port group [3 (1–9) days], compared to the four-trocar laparoscopic group [4 (2–17) days]. Pain score was significantly diminished in the transvaginal-hybrid group during the early postoperative course.
Conclusions
Concerning the length of hospital stay, transvaginal-hybrid cholecystectomy and single-port cholecystectomy appear to be superior to ‘conventional’ laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Additionally, transvaginal-hybrid access is associated with significantly less pain in the early postoperative course.</description><subject>Abdominal Surgery</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Cardiac Surgery</subject><subject>Cholecystectomy - methods</subject><subject>Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - methods</subject><subject>Cholecystitis - surgery</subject><subject>Cholelithiasis - surgery</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>General Surgery</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Length of Stay</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery - methods</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Pain Measurement</subject><subject>Pain, Postoperative - etiology</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - etiology</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Thoracic Surgery</subject><subject>Time and Motion Studies</subject><subject>Traumatic Surgery</subject><subject>Vagina - surgery</subject><subject>Vascular Surgery</subject><issn>1435-2443</issn><issn>1435-2451</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kM1u1TAQhS1ERUvhAdig7Fi5-C-JLztU8SdV6qZdWxN7cpsqNw6eJFJ25S3g9fokuKR02dV4Zs45Gn-MvZPiTApRfyQhjNJcSMlFXe24fcFOpNElV6aUL5_eRh-z10S3Qoiq3plX7FhJbY209Qn7dZVgoAX23QA9v1mb1IViobOCumHfIx9jmjh4j0T_xvd3v30cFhymLmbH_d2foocRUiQfx84X_ib26Fea0E_xsH4qoBjzcsxtt2ARG8K0wGYuaJrD-oYdtdATvn2sp-z665er8-_84vLbj_PPF9xroyeuFKpQaii1QhNMW-4CVsa2UgYdahksNirUot2BbYUxAfJvQSjwZSOhDUKfsg9bbr7n54w0uUNHHvseBowzOVvZzNBWOivlpvT5ckrYujF1B0irk8I9gHcbeJfBuwfwzmbP-8f0uTlgeHL8J50FahNQXg17TO42zilToGdS_wKoJ5PX</recordid><startdate>20110601</startdate><enddate>20110601</enddate><creator>Kilian, Maik</creator><creator>Raue, Wieland</creator><creator>Menenakos, Charalambos</creator><creator>Wassersleben, Brit</creator><creator>Hartmann, Jens</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20110601</creationdate><title>Transvaginal-hybrid vs. single-port-access vs. ‘conventional’ laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective observational study</title><author>Kilian, Maik ; Raue, Wieland ; Menenakos, Charalambos ; Wassersleben, Brit ; Hartmann, Jens</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c343t-22e2d53a532e4d4f59de648f11d3d71d8eb2d70f9a8f044da000a02ac5b1afd03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Abdominal Surgery</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Cardiac Surgery</topic><topic>Cholecystectomy - methods</topic><topic>Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - methods</topic><topic>Cholecystitis - surgery</topic><topic>Cholelithiasis - surgery</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>General Surgery</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Length of Stay</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery - methods</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Pain Measurement</topic><topic>Pain, Postoperative - etiology</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - etiology</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Thoracic Surgery</topic><topic>Time and Motion Studies</topic><topic>Traumatic Surgery</topic><topic>Vagina - surgery</topic><topic>Vascular Surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kilian, Maik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raue, Wieland</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Menenakos, Charalambos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wassersleben, Brit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hartmann, Jens</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Langenbeck's archives of surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kilian, Maik</au><au>Raue, Wieland</au><au>Menenakos, Charalambos</au><au>Wassersleben, Brit</au><au>Hartmann, Jens</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Transvaginal-hybrid vs. single-port-access vs. ‘conventional’ laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective observational study</atitle><jtitle>Langenbeck's archives of surgery</jtitle><stitle>Langenbecks Arch Surg</stitle><addtitle>Langenbecks Arch Surg</addtitle><date>2011-06-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>396</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>709</spage><epage>715</epage><pages>709-715</pages><issn>1435-2443</issn><eissn>1435-2451</eissn><abstract>Purpose
In the recent past, access to the peritoneal cavity has involved primarily ‘natural orifice transluminal’ and ‘single-port access’ techniques, which are based on laparoscopy. The most frequently performed procedure using these new developments is cholecystectomy. Few studies compare more than one ‘new’ method with the ‘golden standard’ of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Here we present the results of the first prospective observational study comparing standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy with single-port cholecystectomy as well as transvaginal-hybrid cholecystectomy.
Methods
Fifty-one patients were included in a prospective observational study (20 four-trocar laparoscopic, 15 transvaginal-hybrid, 16 single-port cholecystectomies). Endpoints of the study were operative time, length of hospital stay and postoperative level of pain (numeric analogue score, while coughing). Conversion rates and complications are reported as well.
Results
Median operating times did not differ among all three access methods [55 (35–135) min vs. 65 (35–95) min vs. 68 (35–98) min]. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the transvaginal-hybrid group [3 (3–12) days] and in the single-port group [3 (1–9) days], compared to the four-trocar laparoscopic group [4 (2–17) days]. Pain score was significantly diminished in the transvaginal-hybrid group during the early postoperative course.
Conclusions
Concerning the length of hospital stay, transvaginal-hybrid cholecystectomy and single-port cholecystectomy appear to be superior to ‘conventional’ laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Additionally, transvaginal-hybrid access is associated with significantly less pain in the early postoperative course.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>21384187</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00423-011-0769-8</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1435-2443 |
ispartof | Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2011-06, Vol.396 (5), p.709-715 |
issn | 1435-2443 1435-2451 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_868769863 |
source | Springer Nature |
subjects | Abdominal Surgery Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Cardiac Surgery Cholecystectomy - methods Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - methods Cholecystitis - surgery Cholelithiasis - surgery Female General Surgery Humans Length of Stay Male Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery - methods Original Article Pain Measurement Pain, Postoperative - etiology Postoperative Complications - etiology Prospective Studies Thoracic Surgery Time and Motion Studies Traumatic Surgery Vagina - surgery Vascular Surgery |
title | Transvaginal-hybrid vs. single-port-access vs. ‘conventional’ laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective observational study |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T02%3A48%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Transvaginal-hybrid%20vs.%20single-port-access%20vs.%20%E2%80%98conventional%E2%80%99%20laparoscopic%20cholecystectomy:%20a%20prospective%20observational%20study&rft.jtitle=Langenbeck's%20archives%20of%20surgery&rft.au=Kilian,%20Maik&rft.date=2011-06-01&rft.volume=396&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=709&rft.epage=715&rft.pages=709-715&rft.issn=1435-2443&rft.eissn=1435-2451&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00423-011-0769-8&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E868769863%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c343t-22e2d53a532e4d4f59de648f11d3d71d8eb2d70f9a8f044da000a02ac5b1afd03%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=868769863&rft_id=info:pmid/21384187&rfr_iscdi=true |