A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF REDUCED PORT SIZE MINILAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY (MLC) VERSUS STANDARD FOUR PORT CONVENTIONAL LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY (CLC).

Abstract

Background: Reduced port size mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) has widened the horizons of modern laparoscopic surgery. Standard four port conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC), which has long been established as the “Gold Standard” for gall bladder diseases, is under reconsideration following the advent of further minimally-invasive procedures including MLC. Our study aims to provide a comparison between MLC and CLC and assesses whether MLC has any added benets. Materials And Methods: A prospective randomized controlled study of 46 patients of gall stone disease was conducted at J.L.N. Medical College, Ajmer. The patients assigned in to two groups (23 in each) group A [Reduced port size mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy {MLC}] or group B [Standard four port conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy {CLC}] through randomization. Data was collected prospectively and analysed retrospectively using a predesigned Performa. Results: In our study, both the groups had similar age, body mass index (BMI) and gender distribution. No cases of MLC required insertion of additional ports. The mean operative time for MLC was 63.74 ± 9.50, which is longer than CLC 44.91 ± 14.73. The pain was signicantly lower in mini laparoscopic group which is analysed on 0th ,2nd 7th and 28th post operatively. Patients who underwent MLC were able to return to normal activity earlier than patients undergoing CLC (P < 0.01). Conclusion: Our experience suggests that MLC can safely be used as an alternative to CLC. Compared to CLC, it has the added benet of an early return to work along with excellent cosmetic results. Intraoperative blood loss is comparable in both groups, however the operative time in MLC group higher than the CLC group. Further large scale trials are required to prove any additional benet of MLC