Skip to main content
Log in

Is there still any role for minilaparoscopic-cholecystectomy? A general surgeons’ last five years experience over 932 cases

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Updates in Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Laparoscopy has rapidly emerged as the preferred surgical approach in a number of different diseases because it ensures correct diagnoses and appropriate treatment. The use of mini-instruments (5 mm or less in diameter) and, when possible, the reduction of the number of trocars used might be its natural evolution. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a gold standard technique. The aim of the present work is to illustrate the results of the prospective experience of minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy (5 mm MLC) performed at our institution. Between August 2005 and July 2010 a total of 932 patients (mean age 45 years) underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Amongst them, 887 (95.1%) were operated on with a 5 mm-three trocar approach and in the remaining 45 cases (4.8%) a 3 mm trocar was used. The primary endpoint was the feasibility rate of the techniques. Secondary endpoints were safety and the impact of the techniques on duration of laparoscopy. In two cases conversion to laparotomy was necessary. We needed to add a fourth—5 mm trocar in the 10.7% of the cases (95 patients) in the 5 mm MLC. There were two cases of redo-laparoscopy in this group due to bile leakage from the cystic duct in one case, and to bleeding from the gallbladder bed in the other. Minor occurrence ranged as high as 2.1% in the 5 mm-MLC group, while it was nil in the 3 mm-MLC patients. The present experience shows that the 5 mm-three trocars MLC is a safe, easy, effective and reproducible approach to gallbladder diseases. Such features make the technique a challenging alternative to conventional laparoscopy both in the acute and the scheduled setting. We consider the 3 mm-MLC approach suitable only in selected cases, young and thin patients, due to the fragility of the smaller instruments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bedin N, Agresta F (2010) Colorectal surgery in a community hospital setting: have attitudes changed because of laparoscopy? A general surgeons’ last 5 years experience review. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 20(1):30–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Agresta F, Mazzarolo G, Bedin N (2009) Inguinal hernia in a community hospital setting: have attitudes changed because of laparoscopy? A review of a general surgeons’ experience over the last 5 years. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 19(3):267–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Agresta F, Mazzarolo G, Ciardo LF, Bedin N (2008) The laparoscopic approach in abdominal emergencies: has the attitude changed? A single-center review of a 15-year experience. Surg Endosc 22(5):1255–1262

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Berci G, Rozga J (1999) Miniature laparoscopy. Quo vadis? The basic parameters of image relay and display systems. Surg Endosc 13:211–217

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ciardo L, Agresta F, Michelet I, Bedin N (2003) Minilaparoscopic appendectomy: which indications? Chir Ital 55(5):699–705

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. El-Dhuwaib Y, Hamade A, Issa ME, Balbisi B, Abid G, Ammori B (2004) An “all 5-mm ports” selective approach to laparoscopic cholecystectomy, appendectomy and anti-reflux surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 14:141–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gagner M, Garcia-Ruiz A (1998) Technical aspects of minimally invasive abdominal surgery performed with needlescopic instruments. Surg Laparosc Endosc 8(3):171–179

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Manazza J, Sclachta CM, Seshadri PA, Cadeddu MO, Poulin EC (2001) Needlescopic surgery. Surg Endosc 15:1208–1212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ng WT, Kong CK, Tse S et al (2002) Needlescopic appendectomy as a routine procedure: “Just because you can?” or “Just because you cannot?”. Surg Laparosc Endosc 12(4):301–306

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Santoro E, Agresta F, Aloisi P, Caravani A, Mancini R, Mulieri G, Ciardo LF, Bedin N, Mulieri M (2005) Is minilaparoscopic inguinal hernia repair feasible? A preliminary experience. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 15:290–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Santoro E, Agresta F, Veltri S, Mulieri G, Bedin N, Mulieri M (2008) Minilaparoscopic colorectal resection: a preliminary experience and an outcomes comparison with classical laparoscopic colon procedures. Surg Endosc 22(5):1248–1254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. McCloy R, Randall D, Schung SA, Kehlet H, Simanski C, Bonnet F, Camu F, Fisher B, Joshi G, Rawal N, Neugebauer EAM (2008) Is smaller necessarily better? A systemic review comparing the effects of minilaparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy on patients outcomes. Surg Endosc 25:2541–2553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Blinman T (2010) Incisions do not simply sum. Surg Endosc 24:1746–1751

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Agresta F, Trentin G, Ciardo LF, Michelet I, Mazzarolo G, Bedin N (2005) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy with a three-trocar 5-mm instrument approach. Chir Ital 59(3):371–377

    Google Scholar 

  15. Nio D, Bemelman A, Bursch ORC, Vrouenraets BC, Gouma DJ (2004) Robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A comparative study. Surg Endosc 18:379–383

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Perez A, Zinner MJ, Ashley SW, Brooks DC, Whang EE (2003) What is the real value of telerobotic technology in gastrointestinal surgery? Surg Endosc 17:811–813

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Alponat A, Cubukcu Anil, Gonullu N, Canturk Z, Ozbay O (2002) Is minisite cholecystectomy less traumatica? Prospective randomized study comparing minisite and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. World J Surg 26:1437–1440

  18. Ainsle WG, Catton JA, Davides D, Dexter S, Gibson J, Larvin M, McMahon MJ, Moore M, Smith S, Vezakis A (2003) Micropuncture cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A randomized controlled study. Surg Endosc 17:766–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Berci G (1998) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using fine-caliber instruments. Smaller is not necessarily better. Surg Endosc 12:197

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Trap R, Kehlet H, Rosemberg J (2002) Microlaparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 16:458–464

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Cheah WK, Lenzi JE, So JBY, Kum CK, Goh PMY (2001) Randomized trial of needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 88:45–47

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dieter RA (2005) Three port vs standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 19:153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Endo S, Souda S, Nezu R, Yoshikawa Y, Hashimoto J, Mori T, Uchikoshi F (2001) A new method of laparoscopic cholecystectomy using three trocars combined with suture retraction of gallbladder. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 11:85–88

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lau H, Brooks DC (2002) Transitions in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 16:323–326

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Leggett PL, Bissell CD, Churchman-Winn R, Ahn C (2001) Three-port microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy in 159 patients. Surg Endosc 15:293–296

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lomanto D, De Angelis L, Ceci V, Dalsasso G, So J, Frattaroli FM, Muthiah R, Speranza V (2001) Two-trocar laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a reproducible technique. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 11:248–251

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Look M, Chew SP, Tan YC, Liew SE, Cheong DM, Tan JC, Wee SB, Teh CH, Low CH (2001) Post-operative pain in needlescopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized trial. J R Coll Surg Edinb 46:138–142

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Mori T, Ikeda K, Sakata K, Ideguchi K, Nakagawa K, Yasumitsu T (2002) A new technique for two-trocar laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 16:589–591

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Poon CM, Chan KW, Lee DWH, Chan KC, Ko CW, Cheung HY, Lee KW (2003) Two-port vs four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 17:1624–1627

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Sarli L, Iusco D, Gobbi S, Porrini S, Ferro M, Roncoroni L (2003) Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed with mini-instruments. Br J Surg 90:1345–1348

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Schwenk W, Neudecker J, Mall J, Bohm B, Muller JM (2000) Prospective randomized blinded trial of pulmonary function, pain, and cosmetic results after laparoscopic vs microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 14:345–348

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Trichak S (2003) Three-port standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc 17:1434–1436

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Lee KW, Poon CM, Leung KF, Lee DWH, Ko CW (2005) Two-port needlescopic cholecystectomy: a prospective study of 100 cases. Hong Kong Med J 11:30–35

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Hosono S, Osaka H (2007) Minilaparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 17:191–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cabral PHO, da Costa e Silva IT, Melo JV, Gimenez FS, Cabral CRB, de Lioma APC (2008) Needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A prospective study of 60 patients. Acta Chir Bras 23(6):543–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Novitsky YW, Kercher KW, Czerniach DR, Kaban GK, Khera S, Gallagher-Dorval KA, Callery MP, Litwin DEM, Kelly JJ (2005) Advantages of mini-laparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Arch Surg 140:1178–1183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Roberts KE, Solomon D, Duffy AJ, Bell RL (2010) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a surgeon’s initial experience with 56 consecutive cases and a review of the literature. J Gastrointest Surg 14:506–510

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Curcillo PG II, Wu AS, Podolsky ER, Graybeal C, Katkhouda N, Saenz A, Dunham R, Fendley S, Neff M, Copper C, Bessler M, Gumbs AA, Norton M, Iannelli A, Mason R, Moazzez A, Cohen L, Mouhlas A, Poor A (2010) Single-port-access (SPA™) cholecystectomy: a multi-institutional report of the first 297 cases. Surg Endosc 24:1854–1860

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Tsimoyiannis E, Tsimogiannis KE, Pappas-Gogos G, Farantos C, Benetatos N, Mavridou P, Manataki A (2010) Different pain scores in single transumbilical incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 24:1842–1848

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. de Carvalho GP, Cavazzola Lt (2010) Can mathematic formulas help us with our patients? Surg Endosc 25:336–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank Mrs Jannet Hanney for the linguistic review of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

Doctors Ferdinando Agresta and Natalino Bedin have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ferdinando Agresta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Agresta, F., Bedin, N. Is there still any role for minilaparoscopic-cholecystectomy? A general surgeons’ last five years experience over 932 cases. Updates Surg 64, 31–36 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-011-0123-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-011-0123-2

Keywords

Navigation