Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by a single surgeon: findings of a randomized trial

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials

Background

Conventional multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CMLC) has become the current 'gold standard' technique in gallbladder disease. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has gained attention due to its benefits in improving patient cosmetic results and pain reduction. We aim to assess the latest evidence on the feasibility, safety and surgical outcomes of SILC and CMLC.

Methods

We conducted searches for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), and Europe PMC between December 2011 and 2021. The latest search was conducted in January 2022. We analyzed several outcomes, including perioperative complications, estimated blood loss, operation time, conversion to open surgery, hospital stay, pain score, cosmesis, and days of return to work. Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 tool was used to evaluate quality of studies. Mantel-Haenszel's formula and Inverse Variance method were conducted to synthesize results. This study was accomplished in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.

Results

A total of 37 studies were eligible, with a total of 2,129 and 2,392 patients who underwent SILC and CMLC. Our study demonstrated a superiority of SILC for the visual analog score (VAS) at six hours post-operation [mean difference (MD) -0.58 (95% CI -1.11, -0.05), p=0.03], cosmesis one-month post-operation [standard MD 2.12 (95% CI 1.10, 3.13), p<0.0001], and cosmesis six months post-operation [standard MD 0.53 (95% CI 0.06, 0.99), p<0.0001]. Meanwhile, SILC showed a longer operation time [MD 10.45 (95% CI 6.74, 14.17), p<0.00001]. In terms of VAS at four time points (4, 8, 12, and 24 hours), perioperative complications, estimated blood loss, conversion to open surgery, hospital stay and days to return to work, SILC did not differ from CMLC.

Conclusions

SILC is a safe, feasible and favorable procedure in terms of pain reduction and cosmetic results. The option between both procedures is based on surgeon preferences. Registration: PROSPERO ( CRD42022306532; 23 February 2022).

Evaluation of Safety and Feasibility of Using LigaSure During Clipless Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Prospective Clinical Study

Background: Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is a minimally invasive procedure designed to minimize the number and size of the incisions needed for cholecystectomy. Titanium clips are traditionally used to close the cystic duct and artery. Although it is considered safe, dislodgement can result in bleeding and biliary leakage. Using LigaSure for duct sealing is still controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of using LigaSure to close the cystic duct during SILC. Methods: A prospective study over two years was conducted at the General Surgery Department, Mansoura University Hospital, on 102 patients, 51 in each group. They underwent SILC using LigaSure (Group 1) or titanium clips (Group 2) to control the cystic duct and artery. Results: The data analyzed included demographic data, operative time, intra- and postoperative complications, postoperative pain, and hospital stay. The operative time was significantly shorter in LigaSure group (68.5 ± 9.8 versus 72.9 ± 10.6 minutes in the clips group, P .03). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding postoperative bile leak or bleeding. However, two cases in Group 1 and four cases in Group 2 were converted to multiple port laparoscopic cholecystectomy; this was statistically nonsignificant. Postoperative pain and hospital stay showed no significant difference between the two groups. Two patients in each group developed port-site incisional hernia. Conclusions: Clipless SILC using LigaSure is a feasible and safe procedure with acceptable morbidity with shorter operative time than SILC using clips. Nevertheless, the risk of port-site incisional hernia should be explained to the patients.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Versus Conventional Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

The present systematic review compares single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) with the aim of assessing early postoperative pain and morbidity. The secondary outcomes assessed were the duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, and conversion to open surgery. A systematic search for medical records was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4. A total of 14 randomized control trials met the eligibility criteria, involving a total of 1762 patients. Early postoperative pain (four to six hours) (mean difference (MD): -0.86; 95%; confidence interval (CI): -1.16 to -0.55) showed significantly better results in the SILC group but showed no difference on the first or second postoperative day. There were significantly fewer complications (relative risk (RR): 1.7; 95%; CI: 1.16-2.50) recorded in the CLC group as compared to the SILC group. Operative time (MD: 19.66; 95% CI: 13.21-26.11) was significantly longer in the SILC group, while the duration of hospital stay (MD: -0.01; 95% CI: -0.28-0.26) and conversion to open surgery (RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.20-4.82) showed no significant difference. SILC had a significantly longer operative time and more complications as compared to CLC. However, it was associated with significantly lower early post-operative pain.

Comparative outcomes of needlescopic, single-incision laparoscopic, standard laparoscopic, mini-laparotomy, and open cholecystectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of 96 randomized controlled trials with 11,083 patients

BACKGROUND

Most randomized trials on minimally invasive cholecystectomy have been conducted with standard (3/4-port) laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy serving as the control group. However, there exists a dearth of head-to-head trials that directly compare different minimally invasive techniques for cholecystectomy (eg, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus needlescopic cholecystectomy). Hence, it remains largely unknown how the different minimally invasive cholecystectomy techniques fare up against one another.

METHODS

To minimize selection and confounding biases, only randomized controlled trials were considered for inclusion. Perioperative outcomes were compared using frequentist network meta-analyses. The interpretation of the results was driven by treatment effects and surface under the cumulative ranking curve values. A sensitivity analysis was also undertaken focusing on a subgroup of randomized controlled trials, which recruited patients with only uncomplicated cholecystitis.

RESULTS

Ninety-six eligible randomized controlled trials comprising 11,083 patients were identified. Risk of intra-abdominal infection or abscess, bile duct injury, bile leak, and open conversion did not differ significantly between minimally invasive techniques. Needlescopic cholecystectomy was associated with the lowest rates of wound infection (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.977) with an odds ratio of 0.095 (95% confidence interval: 0.023-0.39), 0.32 (95% confidence interval: 0.11-0.98), 0.33 (95% confidence interval: 0.11-0.99), 0.36 (95% confidence interval: 0.14-0.98) compared to open cholecystectomy, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, mini-laparotomy, and standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy, respectively. Mini-laparotomy was associated with the shortest operative time (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.981) by a mean difference of 22.20 (95% confidence interval: 13.79-30.62), 12.17 (95% confidence interval: 1.80-22.54), 9.07 (95% confidence interval: 1.59-16.54), and 8.36 (95% confidence interval: -1.79 to 18.52) minutes when compared to single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, needlescopic cholecystectomy, standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and open cholecystectomy, respectively. Needlescopic cholecystectomy appeared to be associated with the shortest hospitalization (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.717) and lowest postoperative pain (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.928).

CONCLUSION

Perioperative outcomes differed across minimally invasive techniques and, in some instances, afforded superior outcomes compared to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. These findings suggest that there may be equipoise for exploring further the utility of novel minimally invasive techniques and potentially incorporating them into the general surgery training curriculum.

Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a current meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

We performed this study to compare the safety and feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) with conventional multiple-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MPLC).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials comparing SILC versus MPLC. We evaluated the pooled outcomes for complications, pain scores, and surgery-related events. This study was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 48 randomized controlled trials involving 2838 patients in the SILC group and 2956 patients in the MPLC group were included in this study. Our results showed that SILC was associated with a higher incidence of incisional hernia (relative risk = 2.51; 95% confidence interval = 1.23-5.12; p = 0.01) and longer operation time (mean difference = 15.27 min; 95% confidence interval = 9.67-20.87; p < 0.00001). There were no significant differences between SILC and MPLC regarding bile duct injury, bile leakage, wound infection, conversion to open surgery, retained common bile duct stones, total complication rate, and estimated blood loss. No difference was observed in postoperative pain assessed by a visual analogue scale between the two groups at four time points (6 h, 8 h, 12 h, and 24 h postprocedure).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current evidence, SILC did not result in better outcomes compared with MPLC and both were equivalent regarding complications. Considering the additional surgical technology and longer operation time, SILC should be chosen with careful consideration.

Correlation between port-to-target distance and procedural difficulty in single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: An observational study

INTRODUCTION

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is more challenging than conventional (multiport) laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) because of the increased likelihood of instrument collision and the limited surgical workspace. In SILC, procedural difficulties may increase when the port-to-target distance is long. We aimed to assess the correlation between port-to-target distance and procedural difficulty.

METHODS

Thirty-six consecutive patients who underwent SILC at our hospital were included in this study. The umbilicus-to-Calot's triangle distance (UCD) was measured intraoperatively. The correlations between the UCD and operative time were analyzed, and for comparison, CLC cases during the same period (n = 28) were similarly analyzed. Moreover, UCD was estimated from preoperative CT (UCD-CT), and the usefulness of UCD-CT was assessed during SILC and CLC.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients successfully underwent SILC. There were positive correlations between the UCD and pneumoperitoneum time. Multivariate linear regression analysis, including BMI and height, which were previously reported to have a correlation with longer operative time in SILC, showed that UCD is an independent predictive factor for prolonged operative duration. However, BMI and height were not independent predictive factors. UCD and UCD-CT had a very strong positive correlation; therefore, UCD was estimated from CT. UCD-CT had a strong positive correlation with operative time in SILC, but not in CLC.

CONCLUSIONS

A longer UCD is an important predictive factor for difficult cases of SILC, but this finding is not applicable in CLC. The usefulness of UCD is specific to SILC.

Single Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in a Patient with Situs Inversus Totalis: A Case Report

The use and application of a laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been regarded as a first-choice treatment option for benign gallbladder disease, even if patients have situs inversus totalis. Furthermore, surgical procedures in general are becoming less invasive, because of both patient and surgeon preferences for reduced trauma and improved cosmetic outcomes attributable to minimized incisions. A 37 years old man was aware of situs inversus totalis with chronic cholecystitis. The operation was successfully performed without any specific complications. Single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy, in an experienced operator, is possible even in patients with situs inversus totalis.

Feasibility and safety of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an ambulatory setting

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery has emerged as an alternative to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in the clinical setting. Limited information is available on the possibility of performing single-incision laparoscopic surgery as an ambulatory procedure. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and safety of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) versus conventional LC in an ambulatory setting.

METHODS

Ninety-one patients were randomized to SILC (n = 49) or LC (n = 42). The success rate, operative duration, blood loss, hospital stay, gallbladder perforation, drainage, delayed discharge, readmission, total cost, complications, pain score, vomiting, and cosmetic satisfaction of the two groups were then compared.

RESULTS

There were significant differences in the operative time (46.89 ± 10.03 min in SILC vs. 37.24 ± 10.23 min in LC; P < 0.001). As compared with LC, SILC was associated with lower total costs (8012.28 ± 752.67 RMB vs. 10258.91 ± 1087.63 RMB; P < 0.001) and better cosmetic satisfaction (4.94 ± 0.24 vs. 4.74 ± 0.54; P = 0.031). There were no significant differences between-group in terms of general data, success rate, blood loss, hospital stay, gallbladder perforation, drainage, delayed discharge, readmission, complications, pain score, and vomiting (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Ambulatory SILC is safe and feasible for selected patients. The advantages of SILC as compared with LC are improved cosmetic satisfaction and lower total costs.

Laparoscopic entry techniques

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is a common procedure in many surgical specialties. Complications arising from laparoscopy are often related to initial entry into the abdomen. Life-threatening complications include injury to viscera (e.g. bowel, bladder) or to vasculature (e.g. major abdominal and anterior abdominal wall vessels). No clear consensus has been reached as to the optimal method of laparoscopic entry into the peritoneal cavity.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and risks of different laparoscopic entry techniques in gynaecological and non-gynaecological surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and trials registers in January 2018. We also checked the references of articles retrieved.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared one laparoscopic entry technique versus another. Primary outcomes were major complications including mortality, vascular injury of major vessels and abdominal wall vessels, visceral injury of bladder or bowel, gas embolism, solid organ injury, and failed entry (inability to access the peritoneal cavity). Secondary outcomes were extraperitoneal insufflation, trocar site bleeding, trocar site infection, incisional hernia, omentum injury, and uterine bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We expressed findings as Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 57 RCTs including four multi-arm trials, with a total of 9865 participants, and evaluated 25 different laparoscopic entry techniques. Most studies selected low-risk patients, and many studies excluded patients with high body mass index (BMI) and previous abdominal surgery. Researchers did not find evidence of differences in major vascular or visceral complications, as would be anticipated given that event rates were very low and sample sizes were far too small to identify plausible differences in rare but serious adverse events.Open-entry versus closed-entryTen RCTs investigating Veress needle entry reported vascular injury as an outcome. There was a total of 1086 participants and 10 events of vascular injury were reported. Four RCTs looking at open entry technique reported vascular injury as an outcome. There was a total of 376 participants and 0 events of vascular injury were reported. This was not a direct comparison. In the direct comparison of Veress needle and Open-entry technique, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82; 4 RCTs; n = 915; I² = N/A, very low-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups for visceral injury (Peto OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.08; 4 RCTs; n = 915: I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42; 3 RCTs; n = 865; I² = 63%; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported mortality with no events in either group. No studies reported gas embolism or solid organ injury.Direct trocar versus Veress needle entryTrial results show a reduction in failed entry into the abdomen with the use of a direct trocar in comparison with Veress needle entry (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.34; 8 RCTs; N = 3185; I² = 45%; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.96; 6 RCTs; n = 1603; I² = 75%; very low-quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 2.02, 95% CI 0.21 to 19.42; 5 RCTs; n = 1519; I² = 25%; very low-quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 0.58, 95% Cl 0.06 to 5.65; 3 RCTs; n = 1079; I² = 61%; very low-quality evidence). Four studies reported mortality with no events in either group. Two studies reported gas embolism, with no events in either group.Direct vision entry versus Veress needle entryEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.85; 1 RCT; n = 186; very low-quality evidence) or visceral injury (Peto OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.34; 2 RCTs; n = 380; I² = N/A; very low-quality evidence). Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Direct vision entry versus open entryEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.50; 2 RCTs; n = 392; I² = N/A; very low-quality evidence), solid organ injury (Peto OR 6.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 316.67; 1 RCT; n = 60; very low-quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.09; 1 RCT; n = 60; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported vascular injury with no events in either arm. Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Radially expanding (STEP) trocars versus non-expanding trocarsEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.24, 95% Cl 0.05 to 1.21; 2 RCTs; n = 331; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.37; 2 RCTs; n = 331; very low-quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.91; 1 RCT; n = 244; very low-quality evidence). Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Other studies compared a wide variety of other laparoscopic entry techniques, but all evidence was of very low quality and evidence was insufficient to support the use of one technique over another.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, evidence was insufficient to support the use of one laparoscopic entry technique over another. Researchers noted an advantage of direct trocar entry over Veress needle entry for failed entry. Most evidence was of very low quality; the main limitations were imprecision (due to small sample sizes and very low event rates) and risk of bias associated with poor reporting of study methods.

SINGLE PORT LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY: TECHNICAL ASPECTS AND RESULTS

Background:

The search for less traumatic surgical procedures without compromising efficacy and safety, together with the technological advances and greater experience of the teams, led to the development of operative techniques with increasingly smaller incisions, the so-called “minimally invasive surgeries”.

Aim:

To evaluate the technical aspects and results of single port cholecystectomy.

Method:

Were analyzed 170 patients between 18-74 years submitted to videolaparoscopic cholecystectomies by single port, regardless of elective or urgent indication, without restriction of patient selection.

Results:

Among the 170 operations, 158 were exclusively performed by single port, and the conversion rate was 7% (inclusion of other accessory trocars or conversion to multiportal). Conversion to open surgery occurred in three cases (1.76%). The mean surgical time was 67.97 min, showing a marked decrease when was reached close to 50 cases and a stabilization after 100 surgeries. The overall complication rate was 10%, with minor complications such as: incisional pain, hematomas, granulomas, port access hernias (9.41%).

Conclusion:

Single port cholecystectomy can, after standardization and surgical team training, be a safe surgical procedure associated with a recognized aesthetic advantage.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is responsible for increased adverse events: results of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) has gained popularity, although it is not evident if benefits of this procedure overcome the potential increased risk. Aim of the study is to compare the outcome of SLC with conventional multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) in a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials only.

METHODS

A systematic Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials literature search of articles on SLC and MLC for any indication was performed in June 2017. The main outcomes measured were overall adverse events, pain score (VAS), cosmetic results, quality of life, and incisional hernias. Linear regression was used to model the effect of each procedure on the different outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-six trials were included and data from 5141 participants were analysed; 2444 underwent SLC and 2697 MLC, respectively. Mortality reported was nil in both treatment groups. Overall adverse events were higher in the SLC group (RR 1.41; p < 0.001) compared to MLC group, as well severe adverse events (RR 2.06; p < 0.001) and even mild adverse events (RR 1.23; p = 0.041). This was confirmed also when only trials including 4-port techniques (RR 1.37, p = 0.004) or 3-port techniques were considered (RR 1.89, p = 0.020). The pain score showed a standardized mean difference (SMD) of - 0.36 (p < 0.001) in favour of SLC. Cosmetic outcome by time point scored a SMD of 1.49 (p < 0.001) in favour of SLC. Incisional hernias occurred more frequently (RR 2.97, p = 0.005) in the SLC group.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite SLC offers a better cosmetic outcome and reduction of pain, the consistent higher rate of adverse events, both severe and mild, together with the higher rate of incisional hernias, should suggest to reconsider the application of single incision techniques when performing cholecystectomy with the existing technology.

A Review of 7 Cases of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Pediatric Cholecystolithiasis

Pediatric cholecystolithiasis is a relatively rare disease, but it is recently increasing in Japan. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is a standard procedure for cholecystolithiasis not only in adults but also in children, and we are aggressively introducing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) at our hospital. We reviewed the patient characteristics, operation procedures and outcomes of 7 children (15 years old and under) with cholecystolithiasis who underwent LC in our hospital between August 1995 and December 2015. The 7 patients included 5 males and 2 females, with a mean age of 8 years 6 months. Underlying diseases were found in 5 patients (cerebral palsy in 2 patients, pancreaticobiliary maljunction with common bile duct stones in 1, acute lymphocytic leukemia in 1, hereditary stomatocytosis in 1), and none were found in the other 2. LC (3 conventional LC and 2 SILC) was performed in 5 of the patients. Laparoscopic choledocholithotomy was performed in 1 patient and laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) was performed in 1 patient at the same time. The mean operative time in all the cases of LC was 108 (70-140) minutes (conventional LC 113 (70-140) min, SILC 100 (90-100) min). Intraoperative cholangiography was performed in 4 cases and omitted in 3 cases. The only postoperative complication was a wound infection in 1 patient. The umbilical skin incision length in the SILC was 2.0 cm. We conclude that LC can be safely performed for children with cholecsytolithiasis, and that SILC is feasible and advantageous in terms of its improved cosmesis.

Is Single-incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Feasible for Acute Cholecystitis? A Consecutive Study of 60 Cases

The feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SIL-C) for patients with acute cholecystitis were evaluated based on the timing of operation after onset of symptoms. Sixty patients with acute cholecystitis who underwent SIL-C were divided into 2 groups according to the timing of operation: group E included 23 patients who underwent SIL-C within 72 hours, and group O included 37 patients who underwent SIL-C later. There were no statistical differences between group E and group O in clinicopathologic characteristics. Group E demonstrated significantly shorter operating time and less blood loss than group O. Although the incidences of additional port(s) requirements were not significantly different, 8 patients in group O required open conversion, indicating significantly higher rate. As group E demonstrated favorable surgical outcomes compared with group O, SIL-C for acute cholecystitis seems to be a feasible therapeutic procedure when performed within 72 hours as updated Tokyo Guidelines recommended.

Clinical value and pitfalls of fluorescent cholangiography during single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

PURPOSE

To clarify the clinical value and pitfalls of fluorescent cholangiography (FC) during single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC).

METHODS

Our SILC procedure utilized the SILS-Port with additional 5-mm forceps through an umbilical incision. A laparoscopic fluorescent imaging system developed by Karl Storz Endoskope was utilized for fluorescent cholangiography.

RESULTS

We performed fluorescent cholangiography during SILC in 21 patients. All procedures were completed successfully without biliary injury. The detectability of the running course of the cystic duct, the confluence between the cystic duct and the common hepatic duct, and the common hepatic duct before the dissection in Calot's triangle was 47.6, 71.4, and 81.0 %, respectively. The detectability of biliary structures was worse in 9 obese patients (body mass index ≥ 25.0 kg/m²) than in 12 non-obese patients. The mean operative time for the patients in whom fluorescent cholangiography could identify the running course of the cystic duct before dissection in Calot's triangle (68 ± 16 min) was shorter than that for the other patients (91 ± 35 min; p = 0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

Fluorescent cholangiography can prevent biliary injury during SILC and facilitate SILC. Obesity is the most important factor that can prevent identification of biliary structures under fluorescent cholangiography.