Background and Objectives: Safety, efficacy, and costs are still debated issues in single-port laparoscopy. The aim of the study was to compare clinical outcomes and hospital costs for conventional 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (4PLC) and single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) performed at a single institution. Methods: A series of 40 SPLC patients operated on from October 2016 to May 2017 were compared to a hystorical series of 40 4PLC patients. Primary endpoints were the operative time, blood loss, postoperative pain, analgesia requirement, length of stay, and morbidity. Secondary endpoints were the operative costs and total hospital costs. Results: No patient required surgical conversion in both groups. Duration of surgery was significantly longer in the SPLC group. Length of hospitalization was shorter for patients operated on by SPLC (1.9 0.9 vs 2.3 1.2 days; P .104). According to visual analogue scale evaluation, the pain profile was similar. Minor postoperative complications were present in 12.5% of the SPLC group and 2.5% in 4PLC group (P .200). The total hospitalization costs associated with SPLC procedure were lower compared to standard 4PLC procedure. As regards the disposable operating room equipment costs, a statistically significant difference in favor of SPLC technique was found. Conclusion: SPLC has shown relevant procedure and postoperative outcomes when compared to traditional 4PLC. The technique has proved to be promising even in cases of acute cholecystitis considered to date a relative contraindication. Further studies are needed to confirm its safety and feasibility in this setting. In contrast with the current evidence of increased costs for the single-port technique, a reduction of material and hospitalization costs was experienced in our study.

Laparoscopic Single-Port Versus Traditional Multi-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Casaccia M;Palombo D;Razzore A;Firpo E;Gallo F;Fornaro R.
2019

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Safety, efficacy, and costs are still debated issues in single-port laparoscopy. The aim of the study was to compare clinical outcomes and hospital costs for conventional 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (4PLC) and single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) performed at a single institution. Methods: A series of 40 SPLC patients operated on from October 2016 to May 2017 were compared to a hystorical series of 40 4PLC patients. Primary endpoints were the operative time, blood loss, postoperative pain, analgesia requirement, length of stay, and morbidity. Secondary endpoints were the operative costs and total hospital costs. Results: No patient required surgical conversion in both groups. Duration of surgery was significantly longer in the SPLC group. Length of hospitalization was shorter for patients operated on by SPLC (1.9 0.9 vs 2.3 1.2 days; P .104). According to visual analogue scale evaluation, the pain profile was similar. Minor postoperative complications were present in 12.5% of the SPLC group and 2.5% in 4PLC group (P .200). The total hospitalization costs associated with SPLC procedure were lower compared to standard 4PLC procedure. As regards the disposable operating room equipment costs, a statistically significant difference in favor of SPLC technique was found. Conclusion: SPLC has shown relevant procedure and postoperative outcomes when compared to traditional 4PLC. The technique has proved to be promising even in cases of acute cholecystitis considered to date a relative contraindication. Further studies are needed to confirm its safety and feasibility in this setting. In contrast with the current evidence of increased costs for the single-port technique, a reduction of material and hospitalization costs was experienced in our study.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
417 sept 2019 Single port vs multiport colecistectomy.pdf

accesso chiuso

Tipologia: Documento in versione editoriale
Dimensione 214.17 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
214.17 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11567/972907
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact