Objectives: With increasing surgeon experience, laparoscopic cholecystectomy has undergone many refinements including reduction in port number and size. Three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been reported to be safe and feasible in various clinical trials. However, whether it offers any additional advantages remains controversial. This study reports a randomized trial that compared the clinical outcomes of 3-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Methods: Seventy-five consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized to undergo either the 3-port or the 4-port technique. Four surgical tapes were applied to standard 4-port sites in both groups at the end of the operation. All dressings were kept intact until the first follow-up 1 week after surgery. Postoperative pain at the 4 sites was assessed on the first day after surgery by using a 10-cm unscaled visual analog scale (VAS). Other outcome measures included analgesia requirements, length of the operation, postoperative stay, and patient satisfaction score on surgery and scars.
Results: Demographic data were comparable for both groups. Patients in the 3-port group had shorter mean operative time (47.3+/-29.8 min vs 60.8+/-32.3 min) for the 4-port group (P=0.04) and less pain at port sites (mean score using 10-cm unscaled VAS: 2.19+/-1.06 vs 2.91+/-1.20 (P=0.02). Overall pain score, analgesia requirements, hospital stay, and patient satisfaction score (mean score using 10-cm unscaled VAS: 8.2+/-1.7 vs 7.8+/-1.7, P=0.24) on surgery and scars were similar between the 2 groups.
Conclusion: Three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy resulted in less individual port-site pain and similar clinical outcomes with fewer surgical scars and without any increased risk of bile duct injury compared with 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Thus, it can be recommended as a safe alternative procedure in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.