Cosmesis, patient satisfaction, and quality of life after da Vinci Single-Site cholecystectomy and multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: short-term results from a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial

The objectives of this study were to evaluate body image, cosmetic results, and quality of life in patients with Crohn's disease of the terminal ileum who had either laparoscopic-assisted or open ileocolic resection, and to determine how patients experienced the pre- and postoperative periods after both procedures. Thirty-four patients participated: 11 patients after open resection (OR), 11 patients after laparoscopic-assisted resection (LR), and 12 patients without resection (WR). Retrospectively, the patients filled out several questionnaires pertaining to body image, hospital experiences, and quality of life. One-way analysis of variance, Student's t-tests, and Pearson's correlation were used for statistical analysis. The cosmetic score was significantly higher in the LR than in the OR group (p < 0.01). Body image correlated strongly with cosmesis and with quality of life. The hospital experiences of the laparoscopic and open groups were similar. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with better cosmesis than open surgery. Patients do not experience laparoscopic surgery any differently from open surgery.

This study aimed to compare the outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) versus conventional 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). From November 2009 to August 2010, 51 patients with symptomatic gallstone or gallbladder polyps were randomized to SILC (n = 24) or 4-port LC (n = 27). Mean surgical time (43.5 vs 46.5 min), median blood loss (1 vs 1 mL) and mean hospital stay (1.5 vs 1.8 d) were similar for both the SILC and 4-port LC group. There were no open conversions and no major complications. The mean total wound length of the SILC group was significantly shorter (1.76 vs 2.25 cm). The median visual analogue pain score at 6 hours after surgery was similar (4.5 vs 4.0) but the SILC group had a significantly worse pain score on day 7 (1 vs 0). There was no difference in time to resume usual activity (mean, 5.6 vs 5.0 d). The median cosmetic score of SILC was significantly higher than at 3 months after surgery (7 vs 6). SILC was feasible and safe for properly selected patients in experienced hands. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Conventional laparoscopy with three or more ports remains the 'gold standard' for cholecystectomy, but a laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) approach is emerging, designed to decrease parietal trauma and improve cosmesis. This study compared conventional laparoscopic (CL) with LESS cholecystectomy, with short-term clinical results as the main outcomes. A randomized trial of CL and LESS cholecystectomies involving 150 patients was undertaken. Follow-up was for 1 month after surgery. The primary endpoint was body image results evaluated by means of validated scales. Secondary endpoints were: postoperative pain measured on a visual analogue scale, analgesia requirement, morbidity, quality of life (QoL) measured with Short Form 12, duration of operation, hospital stay, time to return to work and cost analysis. Operating times and complications were similar in the two groups. Two LESS procedures (3 per cent) were converted to two-port laparoscopy owing to difficulties with exposure, and one CL operation was achieved through a single port because extensive fibrous peritoneal adhesions prevented placement of other ports. There were three and four port-site seroma/haematomas in the LESS and CL groups respectively. Better pain profiles and lower analgesia requirements were recorded in the LESS group (P < 0·001). QoL, body image and scar scale results were also better (P < 0·001). Operative costs were higher for LESS procedures (P < 0·001), although median time to return to work was shorter (P = 0·003). LESS is an alternative to CL cholecystectomy associated with better cosmesis, body image, QoL and an improved postoperative pain profile. Copyright © 2011 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.