Download PDF
Zentralbl Chir 2016; 141(03): 258-262
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1328736
Originalarbeit
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Single-Port-Cholezystektomie: Ein Vergleich mit dem Goldstandard

Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (SILC) – A Novel Technique in Comparison with the Gold Standard
T. Resch   *
Department für Operative Medizin, Medizinische Universität Innsbruck, Österreich
,
R. Sucher   *
Department für Operative Medizin, Medizinische Universität Innsbruck, Österreich
,
J. Pratschke
Department für Operative Medizin, Medizinische Universität Innsbruck, Österreich
,
R. Mittermair
Department für Operative Medizin, Medizinische Universität Innsbruck, Österreich
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
10 September 2013 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund: Derzeit gilt die Standard-4-Port-Cholezystektomie (LC) als Goldstandard bei der Gallenblasenresektion. Die weniger invasive 1-Port-Cholezystektomie (SILC) könnte zukünftig die LC als führende Technik ablösen. Allerdings bestehen bis dato immer noch Unklarheiten hinsichtlich der Sicherheit und Anwendbarkeit von SILC. Methoden: In der vorliegenden Studie wurde eine retrospektive Analyse prospektiv erhobener Daten von 459 Patienten durchgeführt, die entweder in SILC- oder LC-Technik cholezystektomiert wurden. Ergebnisse: Zwischen 2010 und 2011 wurden 115 SILC- (25 %) und 344 LC-Eingriffe (75 %) durchgeführt. Das mittlere Follow-up betrug 13,2 (2,1/24,6) Monate. Die SILC-Gruppe enthielt mehr weibliche (SILC: m : w 1 : 3,4 vs. LC: 1 : 1,2) und jüngere Patienten (SILC: 44,7 vs. LC: 54,9 Jahre) mit geringgradig niedrigerem ASA-Score (SILC: 1,7 ± 0,3 vs. LC: 1,9 ± 0,5). SIL-Cholezystektomien wurden häufiger als Elektiveingriff durchgeführt (SILC: 81,7 vs. LC: 55,5 %). Die Komplikationsraten waren in beiden Gruppen niedrig und ohne statistisch signifikanten Unterscheid (Wundinfektionen: SILC: 2,6 vs. LC: 3,19 %; Trokarhernien: SILC: 0,86 vs. LC: 2,3 %; Gallenleckage: SILC: 0,87 vs. LC: 0,87 %). SILC war mit verkürzter Operations- (SILC: 70 ± 31 vs. LC: 80 ± 27 Minuten; p < 0,001) sowie Aufenthaltsdauer assoziiert (postoperative Tage: SILC: 3,02 ± 1,4 vs. LC: 4,6 ± 2,8; p < 0,001). SILC bedurfte keiner Konversion zur offenen Chirurgie, verglichen zu LC (6 %; 21/334). Jedoch wurde bei SILC in 2,6 % (3/115) zumindest 1 zusätzlicher Trokar eingebracht. Schlussfolgerung: Bei reduziertem Trauma zeigt SILC ein im Vergleich zu LC gleichwertiges Risikoprofil ohne Nachteil in Bezug auf Operations- und Krankenhausaufenthaltsdauer. Unseres Erachtens stellt SILC die natürliche Evolution im Zeitalter der minimalstinvasiven Chirurgie dar.

Abstract

Background: Currently multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) represents the gold standard for gall bladder removal. However, a single-incision approach might succeed it as the future leading technique. To date, final proof for safety and applicability remain elusive. Methods: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from 459 patients subjected to multiport (LC) or single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) was performed. Results: From 2010 to 2011, 115 SILC (25 %) and 344 LC (75 %) interventious were performed. Mean follow-up was 13.2 (2.1/24.6) months. The SILC group comprised more females (SILC: m : f 1 : 3.4 vs. LC: 1 : 1.2) and younger patients (SILC: 44.7 vs. LC: 54.9 years) with a slightly lower (ASA) score (SILC:1.7 ± 0.3 vs. LC:1.9 ± 0.5). SIL cholecystectomy was performed more frequently in an elective setting (SILC: 81.7 vs. LC: 55.5 %). Complication rates were low and did not differ significantly between groups (wound infections: SILC: 2.3 vs. LC: 3.19 %; incisional hernias: SILC: 0.86 vs. LC: 2.3 %, bile leakage: SILC: 0.86 vs. LC: 0.57 %). SILC was associated with shorter operative times (SILC: 70 ± 31 vs. LC: 80 ± 27 minutes; p < 0.001) and reduced postoperative hospital stay (SILC: 3.02 ± 1.4 vs. LC: 4.6 ± 2.8 days; p < 0.001). No conversion to open surgery was required with SILC when compared to LC (6 %; 21/334). Within the SILC group, additional ports had to be placed in 2.6 % (3/115).

Conclusion: SILC displays a minimised surgical trauma. Compared to LC, SILC showed no disadvantage concerning risk profiles, operative times or hospital stay. We believe that SILC can be regarded as a natural evolution in the era of minimally invasive surgery.

Schlüsselwörter

laparoskopische Chirurgie - minimalinvasive Chirurgie - Cholezystektomie - Single-Port-Cholezystektomie

Key words

Laparoscopic surgery - minimally invasive surgery - cholecystectomy - single incision cholecystectomy

* Thomas Resch und Robert Sucher trugen gleichberechtigt zu dieser Studie bei.
Thomas Resch and Robert Sucher contributed equally to this study.


 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Mouret P. How I developed laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1996; 25: 744-747
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Reynolds jr. W. The first laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS 2001; 5: 89-94
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Yoshida M, Furukawa T, Morikawa Y et al. The developments and achievements of endoscopic surgery, robotic surgery and function-preserving surgery. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2010; 40: 863-869
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Rao PP, Rao PP, Bhagwat S. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery – current status and controversies. J Minim Access Surg 2011; 7: 6-16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Zehetner J, Shamiyeh A, Wayand W. Lost gallstones in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: all possible complications. Am J Surg 2007; 193: 73-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Yi F, Jin WS, Xiang DB et al. Complications of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and its prevention: a review and experience of 400 cases. Hepatogastroenterology 2012; 59: 47-50
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Portincasa P, Ciaula AD, Bonfrate L et al. Therapy of gallstone disease: What it was, what it is, what it will be. World J Gastrointest Pharmacol Ther 2012; 3: 7-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Le VH, Smith DE, Johnson BL. Conversion of laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy in the current era of laparoscopic surgery. Am Surg 2012; 78: 1392-1395
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hartwig W, Gluth A, Büchler MW. [Minimally invasive surgical therapy of acute cholecystitis]. Chirurg 2013; 84: 191-196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Navarra G, Pozza E, Occhionorelli S et al. One-wound laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 1997; 84: 695
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hirano D, Minei S, Yamaguchi K et al. Retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy for adrenal tumors via a single large port. J Endourol 2005; 19: 788-792
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Greaves N, Nicholson J. Single incision laparoscopic surgery in general surgery: a review. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2011; 93: 437-440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Vestweber B, Alfes A, Paul C et al. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery: a promising approach to sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease. Surg Endosc 2010; 24: 3225-3228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Huang CK. Single-incision laparoscopic bariatric surgery. J Minim Access Surg 2011; 7: 99-103
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Gawart M, Dupitron S, Lutfi R. Laparoendoscopic single-site gastric bands versus standard multiport gastric bands: a comparison of technical learning curve measured by surgical time. Am J Surg 2012; 203: 327-329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Caruana JA, McCabe MN, Smith AD et al. Roux en Y gastric bypass by single-incision mini-laparotomy: outcomes in 3,300 consecutive patients. Obes Surg 2011; 21: 820-824
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kang KC, Lee SY, Kang DB et al. Application of single incision laparoscopic surgery for appendectomies in patients with complicated appendicitis. J Korean Soc Coloproctol 2010; 26: 388-394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Rehman H, Mathews T, Ahmed I. A review of minimally invasive single-port/incision laparoscopic appendectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2012; 22: 641-646
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Singh J, Podolsky ER, Castellanos AE et al. Optimizing single port surgery: a case report and review of technique in colon resection. Int J Med Robot 2011; 7: 127-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Gaujoux S, Bretagnol F, Ferron M et al. Single-incision laparoscopic colonic surgery. Colorectal Dis 2011; 13: 1066-1071
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ramos-Valadez DI, Patel CB, Ragupathi M et al. Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy: outcomes of an emerging minimally invasive technique. Int J Colorectal Dis 2011; 26: 761-767
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Barbaros U, Sumer A, Demirel T et al. Single incision laparoscopic pancreas resection for pancreatic metastasis of renal cell carcinoma. JSLS 2010; 14: 566-570
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kuroki T, Adachi T, Okamoto T et al. Single-incision laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 2011; 58: 1022-1024
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Fan Y, Wu SD, Siwo EA. Emergency transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic splenectomy for the treatment of traumatic rupture of the spleen: report of the first case and literature review. Surg Innov 2011; 18: 185-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Koo EJ, Youn SH, Baek YH et al. Review of 100 cases of single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Korean Surg Soc 2012; 82: 179-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Garg P, Thakur JD, Garg M et al. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs. conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gastrointest Surg 2012; 16: 1618-1628
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Junker H. [Laparoscopic tubal ligation by the single puncture technique (authorʼs transl)]. Geburtsh Frauenheilkd 1974; 34: 952-955
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Joseph M, Phillips MR, Farrell TM et al. Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with a higher bile duct injury rate: a review and a word of caution. Ann Surg 2012; 256: 1-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Han HJ, Choi SB, Park MS et al. Learning curve of single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy determined using the non-linear ordinary least squares method based on a non-linear regression model: An analysis of 150 consecutive patients. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2011; 18: 510-515
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar