Home Current issue Ahead of print Search About us Editorial board Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 39  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 119-123

Three-port versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study

1 Department of General Surgery, Minia University Hospital, Minia, Egypt
2 Department of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Misr University for Science and Technology, Giza, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
MD Ashraf Abd El-Azeem Mohamed
Minia University Hospital, Minia 61111
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ejs.ejs_149_19

Rights and Permissions

Objectives This prospective comparative study aims at evaluating the feasibility of three-port technique without affecting safety and at comparing the outcome of three-port and four-port techniques. Patients and methods This study included 94 patients with symptomatic gallstone disease and gallbladder polyp in Surgical Department, Minia University Hospital, from beginning of 2018 to beginning of 2019. Patients who were unwilling to be a part of the study, jaundiced patients with radiologically evidence of common bile duct stones, patients unfit for general anesthesia, patients with liver cirrhosis, patients with portal hypertension, patients with coagulopathy, patients with acute pancreatitis, patients with generalized peritonitis, or patients with malignancy were excluded. All patients were operated by the same operating team. Patients were randomized for three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) group (45 patients) or four-port LC group (49 patients). Numeric Pain Rating Scale, operative time, operative difficulty, intraoperative and postoperative complications, duration required to stop oral analgesics, and duration required to return to normal activity were recorded. Results Numeric Pain Rating Scale, required number of diclofenac ampoules, duration required for oral analgesia, and duration required to return to normal activity were significantly less in three-port group. Other parameters were comparable between the two groups. Conclusion It seems that three-port LC is a safe and feasible technique with superior clinical outcomes to four-port LC.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded25    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal