Three-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy as a Safe and Feasible Alternative to the Conventional Four-Port Laparoscopic...

Aims A prospective observational study was performed to assess the feasibility and safety of three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Parameters comprising age, sex, number of cases in which intra-operative difficulty were encountered, and outcomes such as number of cases that required conversion to four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy, postoperative pain on the visual analog scale (VAS), and postoperative hospital stay were assessed. We also documented difficult cases that were operated successfully with three ports, and the number of cases that needed conversion to four ports along with the reason for the conversion. Material and methods The patients were operated upon in the supine position in all cases. A pre-emptive analgesia with 1% lignocaine was administered in all cases prior to making the incision. The first port was 10-mm supraumbilical and inserted by the open technique. After insertion of the umbilical port, pneumoperitoneum was created by maintaining a maximum pressure of 12 mmHg and a flow rate of 8 L/minute. A camera head with a 30° telescope was introduced in the peritoneal cavity, and diagnostic laparoscopy was performed. A 10-mm subxiphoid port and a 5-mm subcostal port were placed under vision, with the latter placed more lateral and inferior to the conventional port position for better triangulation and ergonomics. The outcomes measured were operative time, the number of cases requiring a fourth port, postoperative pain (VAS), and postoperative hospital stay (number of days patients stayed in the hospital post-surgery until discharge). Data were collected using MS Excel, and an analysis was performed using SPSS Version 21.0. Results Data of 102 patients were analyzed prospectively. The mean age of the patients was 50.98 years, with an SD of 16.88, and the gender ratio was 73:29 (female: male). The mean operative time was 52.68 ± 20.84 minutes, with an SD of 20.84. Difficulty was encountered in 18.6% of cases in the form of pericholecystic adhesions, aberrant Calot's anatomy, empyema or mucocele of the gallbladder, or bleeding from the liver bed or cystic artery stump. Postoperative pain was less in our study due to the reduced number of ports and the use of a pre-emptive analgesia, with a mean VAS score of 1.22 and an SD of 0.56. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 1.08 days, with an SD of 0.31. We needed to convert to a four-port procedure for safety in 2.9% cases. The operative time and postoperative hospital stay in our study were similar to those of other studies, but our average pain score was less due to the use of the pre-emptive analgesia. Only three cases required conversion to four ports, and 99 cases were successfully managed with three ports without compromising safety. No bile duct injury occurred in any of our 102 cases. Conclusion From this study, we conclude that three-port cholecystectomy is feasible, and it can be performed even in difficult cases without compromising safety. The surgical time is similar to that of four-port cholecystectomy, and the postoperative stay is shorter. The decreased number of ports and the pre-emptive analgesia reduced postoperative pain, cosmesis was better, and the incidence of bile duct injury did not increase. The procedure can also be converted to four-port cholecystectomy at any time if safety is compromised. Therefore, three-port cholecystectomy is a viable and safe option in the treatment of gallstone disease.