López CJA, Guzmán CF, Cano SLG, Hernández RFI, Reyes MJ, Lacunza SEI, Wimber-Arellano M, Margarito CJJ, Fernández RJP

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 58-62
PDF size: 690.03 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the gold standard surgical technique for gallbladder disease. With the advent of new technologies, other surgical techniques have been described over the past two decades; however, all have failed to displace conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Objective: To describe a one-year experience of laparoscopic cholecystectomy with suprapubic approach in the Department of Laparoscopic Surgery of the Hospital Angeles Tijuana. Material and methods: We conducted an observational, retrospective and descriptive study, including patients in whom laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed with a suprapubic approach during 2015; the variables included were sex, age, previous surgeries, body mass index (BMI), surgical time, complications, postoperative pain and aesthetic results at seven and 30 days postop. Results: A total of 10 female patients aged 17-59 years (average 37.7 ± 13.9 years) were included, with a BMI range of 19.9-27.4 kg/m² (22.8 kg/m²); the mean operating time was 63.4 minutes; the average hospital stay was 28 hours; postoperative pain at 24 hours was 2.5 (VAS); the aesthetic results were satisfactory. No complications or conversion to conventional laparoscopic or open approach were reported. Conclusion: The suprapubic approach in cholecystectomy can be performed safely and with satisfactory aesthetic results.

REFERENCES

1. Lurje G, Raptis DA, Steinemann DC, Amygdalos I, Kambakamba P, Petrowsky H et al. Cosmesis and body image in patients undergoing single-port versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a multicenter double-blinded randomized controlled trial (SPOCC-trial). Ann Surg. 2015; 262: 728-734; discussion 734-735.

2. Carvalho GL, Silva FW, Silva JS, de Albuquerque PP, Coelho R de M, Vilaça TG et al. Needlescopic clipless cholecystectomy as an efficient, safe, and cost-effective alternative with diminutive scars: the first 1000 cases. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2009; 19: 368-372.

3. Gil-Hernández GE, García-Álvarez J, Díaz-Aguilar CY. Respuesta metabólica al trauma en colecistectomía laparoscópica versus abierta. Rev Mex Cir Endoscop. 2013; 14: 125-128.

4. Moreno-Paquentin EF, Aragón LA, Toledo C, Arrangoiz R, Cordera F, Luque E et al. Experiencia del uso de minilaparoscopia en el Centro Médico ABC. Rev Mex Cir Endoscop. 2013; 14: 114-118.


5. Gagner M, Garcia-Ruiz A. Technical aspects of minimally invasive abdominal surgery performed with needlescopic instruments. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1998; 8: 171-179.

6. Lirici MM, Tierno SM, Ponzano C. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: does it work? A systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2016. [Epub ahead of print] doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-4757-5


7. Polle SW, Dunker MS, Slors JF, Sprangers MA, Cuesta MA, Gouma DJ et al. Body image, cosmesis, quality of life, and functional outcome of hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open restorative proctocolectomy: long-term results of a randomized trial. Surg Endosc. 2007; 21: 1301-1307.

8. Carvalho GL, Loureiro MP, Bonin EA. Renaissance of minilaparoscopy in the NOTES and single port era. JSLS. 2011; 15: 585-588.

9. Sulu B, Allahverdi TD, Altun H, Koksal N. The comparison of four-port, two-port without suspension suture and single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy results. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2016; 25: 101-109.

10. Sucullu I, Filiz AI, Canda AE, Yucel E, Kurt Y, Yildiz M. Body image and cosmesis after laparoscopic or open appendectomy. Percept Mot Skills. 2002; 94: 189-196.

11. Koleck M, Bruchon-Schweitzer M, Cousson-Gélie F, Gilliard J, Quintard B. The body-image questionnaire: an extension. Percept Mot Skills. 2002; 94: 189-196.