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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Langenbeck's archives of surgery 2011-06, Vol.396 (5), p.709-715
Main Authors: Kilian, Maik, Raue, Wieland, Menenakos, Charalambos, Wassersleben, Brit, Hartmann, Jens
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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