Magyar Sebészet
Volume/Issue:
Volume 67: Issue 6
Mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy as an innovative method in minimally invasive abdominal surgery
Authors:
László Andrási Szegedi Tudományegyetem, Általános Orvostudományi Kar Sebészeti Klinika 6720 Szeged Szőkefalvi-Nagy Béla u. 6.

Search for other papers by László Andrási in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Szabolcs Ábrahám Szegedi Tudományegyetem, Általános Orvostudományi Kar Sebészeti Klinika 6720 Szeged Szőkefalvi-Nagy Béla u. 6.

Search for other papers by Szabolcs Ábrahám in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
, and
György Lázár Szegedi Tudományegyetem, Általános Orvostudományi Kar Sebészeti Klinika 6720 Szeged Szőkefalvi-Nagy Béla u. 6.

Search for other papers by György Lázár in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Pages:
334–339
Online Publication Date:
12 Dec 2014
Publication Date:
01 Dec 2014
Article Category:
Research Article
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1556/maseb.67.2014.6.3
Keywords:
minilaparoscopia; laparoscopos cholecystectomia; postoperativ fájdalom; mini-laparoscopy; laparoscopic cholecystectomy; postoperative pain
Restricted access

Bevezetés: Vizsgálatunkban a minilaparoscopos módon (portok számának és méretének csökkentése révén) végzett laparoscopos cholecystectomiák (LC) eredményeit mutatjuk be. Elemeztük a mini-LC előnyeit és hátrányait a hagyományos LC-vel összehasonlítva. Betegek és módszerek: Mini-LC során összesen 3 portot (11, 5 és 3,5 mm) alkalmaztunk. Tíz esetben végzett mini-LC eredményeit hasonlítottuk össze 10 konvencionális LC eredményeivel. A betegválogatás alapját a nem, az életkor, a BMI és az ASA-beosztás képezte, amely mindkét vizsgált csoportot homogénné tett. Összehasonlítottuk a két eljárás átlagos műtéti időtartamát, a segédport szükségességét, a konverziós arányt, a postoperativ fájdalomcsillapító-igényt, a korai/késői szövődmények előfordulásának gyakoriságát és a kozmetikai eredményeket. Eredmények: A műtéti időtartam, vérveszteség, kórházi tartózkodás, szövődmények vonatkozásában nem észleltünk szignifikáns különbséget a két csoport között. A sebészi metszések összesített mérete mini-LC során 19,5 mm, míg az LC-csoportban 41 mm, a szöveti károsodás mértéke pedig 124,2 mm2 és 448,2 mm2 volt a két csoportban. Mindezek jelentősen javították a mini-LC kozmetikai eredményét. A hagyományos LC után a betegek szignifikánsan nagyobb arányban igényeltek postoperativ fájdalomcsillapítást. Következtetések: A mini-LC biztonságos, kiváló kozmetikai eredményeket adó eljárás, amely kisebb postoperativ fájdalomcsillapító-igénnyel jár. Válogatott esetekben ez a műtéti típus ajánlott eljárás lehet a konvencionális LC-vel szemben.

  • Kurinchi S, Gurusamy KS, Davidson BR: Surgical treatment of gallstones. Gastroenterology Clin N Am 2010; 39: 229–44

    Davidson BR , 'Surgical treatment of gallstones ' (2010 ) 39 Gastroenterology Clin N Am : 229 -44 .

    • Search Google Scholar

  • Navarra G, Pozza E, Occhionorelli S, Carcoforo P, Donini I: One-wound laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 1997; 84: 695

    Donini I , 'One-wound laparoscopic cholecystectomy ' (1997 ) 84 Br J Surg : 695 -.

  • Rivas H, Varela E, Scott D: Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: initial evaluation of a large series of patients. Surg Endosc 2010; 24: 1403–12

    Scott D , 'Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: initial evaluation of a large series of patients ' (2010 ) 24 Surg Endosc : 1403 -12 .

    • Search Google Scholar

  • Marescaux J, Dallemagne B, Perretta S, Wattiez A, Mutter D, Coumaros D: Surgery without scars: report of transluminal cholecystectomy in a human being. Arch Surg 2007; 142: 823–6

    Coumaros D , 'Surgery without scars: report of transluminal cholecystectomy in a human being ' (2007 ) 142 Arch Surg : 823 -6 .

    • Search Google Scholar

  • Lukovich P, Kupcsulik P: NOTES and other minimally invasive surgical techniques (hybrid NOTES, NOTUS, SPS, SILS), and their effect on surgical approaches. Magy Seb 2009; 62: 113–9

    Kupcsulik P , 'NOTES and other minimally invasive surgical techniques (hybrid NOTES, NOTUS, SPS, SILS), and their effect on surgical approaches ' (2009 ) 62 Magy Seb : 113 -9 .

    • Search Google Scholar

  • Garg P, Thakur JD, Garg M, Menon GR: Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs. conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gastrointest Surg 2012; 16: 1618–28

    Menon GR , 'Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs. conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials ' (2012 ) 16 J Gastrointest Surg : 1618 -28 .

    • Search Google Scholar

  • Sharma A, Dahiya P, Khullar R, Soni V, Baijal M, Chowbey PK: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) in biliary and pancreatic diseases. Indian J Surg 2012; 74: 13–21

    Chowbey PK , 'Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) in biliary and pancreatic diseases ' (2012 ) 74 Indian J Surg : 13 -21 .

    • Search Google Scholar

  • Antoniou SA, Pointner R, Granderath FA: Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 2011; 25: 367–77

    Granderath FA , 'Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review ' (2011 ) 25 Surg Endosc : 367 -77 .

    • Search Google Scholar

  • Li L, Tian J, Tian H, Sun R, Wang Q, Yang K: The efficacy and safety of different kinds of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a network meta analysis of 43 randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2014; 9: e90313

    Yang K , 'The efficacy and safety of different kinds of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a network meta analysis of 43 randomized controlled trials ' (2014 ) 9 PLoS One : e90313 -.

    • Search Google Scholar

  • Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Trap R, Kehlet H, Rosenberg J: Microlaparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind trial. Surg Endosc 2002; 16: 458–464

    Rosenberg J , 'Microlaparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind trial ' (2002 ) 16 Surg Endosc : 458 -464 .

    • Search Google Scholar

  • Novitsky YW, Kercher KW, Czerniach DR, Kaban GK, Khera S, Gallagher-Dorval KA, Callery MP, Litwin DE, Kelly JJ: Advantages of mini-laparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg 2005; 140: 1178–83

    Kelly JJ , 'Advantages of mini-laparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a prospective randomized trial ' (2005 ) 140 Arch Surg : 1178 -83 .

    • Search Google Scholar

  • Hosono S, Osaka H: Minilaparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2007; 17: 191–9

    Osaka H , 'Minilaparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials ' (2007 ) 17 J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A : 191 -9 .

    • Search Google Scholar

  • Veress J: A needle for the safe use of pheumoperitoneum. Gastroenterologia 1961; 96: 150–2

    Veress J , 'A needle for the safe use of pheumoperitoneum ' (1961 ) 96 Gastroenterologia : 150 -2 .

    • Search Google Scholar

  • Trichak S: Three-port vs standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2003; 17: 1434–6

    Trichak S , 'Three-port vs standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy ' (2003 ) 17 Surg Endosc : 1434 -6 .

    • Search Google Scholar

  • Mori T, Ikeda Y, Okamoto K, Sakata K, Ideguchi K, Nakagawa K, Yasumitsu T: A new technique for two-trocar laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2002; 16: 589–91

    Yasumitsu T , 'A new technique for two-trocar laparoscopic cholecystectomy ' (2002 ) 16 Surg Endosc : 589 -91 .

    • Search Google Scholar

  • Qiu J, Yuan H, Chen S, He Z, Han P, Wu H: Single-port versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2013; 23: 815–31

    Wu H , 'Single-port versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies ' (2013 ) 23 J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A : 815 -31 .

    • Search Google Scholar

  • McCloy R, Randall D, Schung SA, Kehlet H, Simanski C, Bonnet F, Camu F, Fisher B, Joshi G, Rawal N, Neugebauer EAM: Is smaller necessarily better? A systemic review comparing the effects of minilaparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy on patients outcomes. Surg Endosc 2008; 25: 2541–53

    Neugebauer EAM , 'Is smaller necessarily better? A systemic review comparing the effects of minilaparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy on patients outcomes ' (2008 ) 25 Surg Endosc : 2541 -53 .

    • Search Google Scholar

  • Chekan E, Moore M, Hunter TD, Gunnarsson C: Costs and clinical outcomes of conventional single port and micro-laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS 2013; 17: 30–45

    Gunnarsson C , 'Costs and clinical outcomes of conventional single port and micro-laparoscopic cholecystectomy ' (2013 ) 17 JSLS : 30 -45 .

    • Search Google Scholar

  • Tanaka J, Andoh H, Koyama K: Minimally invasive needlescopic cholecystectomy. Surg Today 1998; 28: 111–3

    Koyama K , 'Minimally invasive needlescopic cholecystectomy ' (1998 ) 28 Surg Today : 111 -3 .

    • Search Google Scholar

  • Schlager A, Khalaileh A, Shussman N, Elazary R, Keidar A, Pikarsky AJ, Ben-Shushan A, Shibolet O, Horgan S, Talamini M, Zamir G, Rivkind AI, Mintz Y: Providing more through less: current methods of retraction in SIMIS and NOTES cholecystectomy. Sug Endosc 2010; 24: 1542–6

    Mintz Y , 'Providing more through less: current methods of retraction in SIMIS and NOTES cholecystectomy ' (2010 ) 24 Sug Endosc : 1542 -6 .

    • Search Google Scholar

  • Look M, Chew SP, Tan YC, Liew SE, Cheong DM, Tan JC, Wee SB, Teh CH, Low CH: Post-operative pain in needlescopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized trial. J R Coll Surg Edinb 2001; 46: 138–42

    Low CH , 'Post-operative pain in needlescopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized trial ' (2001 ) 46 J R Coll Surg Edinb : 138 -42 .

    • Search Google Scholar

  • Cheah WK, Lenzi JE, So JB, Kum CK, Goh PM: Randomized trial of needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 2001; 88: 45–7

    Goh PM , 'Randomized trial of needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy ' (2001 ) 88 Br J Surg : 45 -7 .

    • Search Google Scholar

  • Cabral PH, Silva IT, Melo JV, Gimenez FS, Cabral CR, Lima AP: Needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A prospective study of 60 patients. Acta Cir Bras 2008; 23: 543–50

    Lima AP , 'Needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A prospective study of 60 patients ' (2008 ) 23 Acta Cir Bras : 543 -50 .

    • Search Google Scholar

  • Sarli L, Iusco D, Gobbi S, Porrini S, Ferro M, Roncoroni L: Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed with mini-instruments. Br J Surg 2003; 90: 1345–8

    Roncoroni L , 'Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed with mini-instruments ' (2003 ) 90 Br J Surg : 1345 -8 .

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Collapse
  • Expand
Cover Magyar Sebészet
Magyar Sebészet
Print ISSN:
0025-0295
Online ISSN:
1789-4301

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Oláh, Attila

Editorial Board

  • DR. BÁLINT ANDRÁS
  • DR. BEZSILLA JÁNOS
  • DR. BOROS MIHÁLY
  • DR. BURSICS ATTILA
  • DR. DAMJANOVICH LÁSZLÓ
  • DR. ENTZ LÁSZLÓ
  • DR. GULYÁS GUSZTÁV
  • DR. HARSÁNYI LÁSZLÓ
  • DR. HORVÁTH ÖRS PÉTER
  • DR. ISTVÁN GÁBOR
  • DR. KECSKÉS LÁSZLÓ
  • DR. KÓBORI LÁSZLÓ
  • DR. KUPCSULIK PÉTER
  • DR. LÁZÁR GYÖRGY
  • DR. LESTÁR BÉLA
  • DR. MÁTRAI ZOLTÁN
  • DR. MOHOS ELEMÉR
  • DR. MOLNÁR F. TAMÁS
  • DR. ONDREJKA PÁL
  • DR. PAPP ANDRÁS
  • DR. RÉNYI-VÁMOS FERENC
  • DR. ROMICS LÁSZLÓ JR.
  • DR. SÓTONYI PÉTER
  • DR. SZIJÁRTÓ ATTILA
  • DR. SZŰCS ÁKOS
  • DR. VEREBÉLY TIBOR
  • DR. VERECZKEI ANDRÁS

Petz Aladár County Teaching Hospital, Surgery
Vasvári Pál út 2. H-9024 Győr, Hungary
Phone: +36 96 503 320 --- Fax: +36 96 507 936
E-mail: olaha@petz.gyor.hu

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • Index Medicus
  • PubMed Central
  • CABELLS Journalytics

 

Magyar Sebészet
Publication Model Hybrid
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 900 EUR/article
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription fee 2025 Online subsscription: 332 EUR / 380 USD
Print + online subscription: 380 EUR / 452 USD
Subscription Information

Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content.
Purchase per Title Individual articles are sold on the displayed price.

Magyar Sebészet
Language Hungarian
Size A4
Year of
Foundation		 1947
Volumes
per Year		 1
Issues
per Year		 4
Founder Magyar Sebész Társaság -- Hungarian Surgical Society
Founder's
Address		 H-1082 Budapest, Hungary Üllői út 78.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address		 H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher		 Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 0025-0295 (Print)
ISSN 1789-4301 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Jun 2024 13 1 1
Jul 2024 8 0 0
Aug 2024 7 0 0
Sep 2024 39 0 0
Oct 2024 46 0 0
Nov 2024 89 0 0
Dec 2024 72 0 0