Comparative study of three-port vs four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a cohort study: a surgical task load survey.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Ali Javidi, Erfan Sheikhbahaei, Ashkan Mortazavi, Farjam Khosravi, Ali Mohammad Mokhtari, Mohammad Eslamian
{"title":"Comparative study of three-port vs four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a cohort study: a surgical task load survey.","authors":"Ali Javidi, Erfan Sheikhbahaei, Ashkan Mortazavi, Farjam Khosravi, Ali Mohammad Mokhtari, Mohammad Eslamian","doi":"10.1007/s13304-025-02308-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) approach is gaining attention for its perceived benefits, although it is not widely accepted outside of clinical trials. The present investigation aims to compare the outcomes of three-port LC (3PLC) and four-port LC (4PLC) methods, focusing on their safety, efficacy, and workload. This multicenter investigation was performed between March 2021 and April 2022. Demographic data, procedural outcomes, visual analog scale regarding postoperative pain, and the level of satisfaction were collected and compared. In addition, the Surgery-TLX and Borg's CR10 tools were utilized to assess the surgeon's workload. Of 169 patients who enrolled in the study, 84 individuals underwent 3PLC, and 85 cases had 4PLC. The three-port LC indicated a significantly shorter duration of operation compared to the four-port (63.55 vs. 69.08 min respectively, p = 0.001). The hospital length of stay and the mean pain score on day 1 were also lower in the 3PLC (1.14 days vs. 1.79 days, p < 0.001 and 1.85 vs. 2.52, p = 0.004, respectively). The mean level of satisfaction on day 7 was higher in the 3PLC. The Borg's CR10 scale showed that surgeons experienced more physical discomfort and pain in the left shoulder, left forearm, and trunk after 4PLC. The surgery-TLX scale in our study indicated increased mental demands and distraction, but less situational awareness in the surgeons after 4PLC. The 3PLC technique could serve as a safe and feasible laparoscopic technique and does not cause more complications than the conventional 4PLC.</p>","PeriodicalId":23391,"journal":{"name":"Updates in Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Updates in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-025-02308-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) approach is gaining attention for its perceived benefits, although it is not widely accepted outside of clinical trials. The present investigation aims to compare the outcomes of three-port LC (3PLC) and four-port LC (4PLC) methods, focusing on their safety, efficacy, and workload. This multicenter investigation was performed between March 2021 and April 2022. Demographic data, procedural outcomes, visual analog scale regarding postoperative pain, and the level of satisfaction were collected and compared. In addition, the Surgery-TLX and Borg's CR10 tools were utilized to assess the surgeon's workload. Of 169 patients who enrolled in the study, 84 individuals underwent 3PLC, and 85 cases had 4PLC. The three-port LC indicated a significantly shorter duration of operation compared to the four-port (63.55 vs. 69.08 min respectively, p = 0.001). The hospital length of stay and the mean pain score on day 1 were also lower in the 3PLC (1.14 days vs. 1.79 days, p < 0.001 and 1.85 vs. 2.52, p = 0.004, respectively). The mean level of satisfaction on day 7 was higher in the 3PLC. The Borg's CR10 scale showed that surgeons experienced more physical discomfort and pain in the left shoulder, left forearm, and trunk after 4PLC. The surgery-TLX scale in our study indicated increased mental demands and distraction, but less situational awareness in the surgeons after 4PLC. The 3PLC technique could serve as a safe and feasible laparoscopic technique and does not cause more complications than the conventional 4PLC.

队列研究中三孔与四孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术的比较研究:手术任务负荷调查。
三孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)方法因其明显的益处而受到关注,尽管它在临床试验之外尚未被广泛接受。本研究旨在比较三端口LC (3PLC)和四端口LC (4PLC)方法的结果,重点关注它们的安全性、有效性和工作量。该多中心调查于2021年3月至2022年4月进行。收集并比较人口学数据、手术结果、术后疼痛视觉模拟量表和满意度。此外,使用surgical - tlx和Borg的CR10工具评估外科医生的工作量。在169名参与研究的患者中,84人接受了3PLC治疗,85人接受了4PLC治疗。与四端口LC相比,三端口LC的操作时间明显更短(分别为63.55分钟和69.08分钟,p = 0.001)。3PLC患者的住院时间和第1天的平均疼痛评分也较低(1.14天比1.79天,p . 451)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Updates in Surgery
Updates in Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
208
期刊介绍: Updates in Surgery (UPIS) has been founded in 2010 as the official journal of the Italian Society of Surgery. It’s an international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the surgical sciences. Its main goal is to offer a valuable update on the most recent developments of those surgical techniques that are rapidly evolving, forcing the community of surgeons to a rigorous debate and a continuous refinement of standards of care. In this respect position papers on the mostly debated surgical approaches and accreditation criteria have been published and are welcome for the future. Beside its focus on general surgery, the journal draws particular attention to cutting edge topics and emerging surgical fields that are publishing in monothematic issues guest edited by well-known experts. Updates in Surgery has been considering various types of papers: editorials, comprehensive reviews, original studies and technical notes related to specific surgical procedures and techniques on liver, colorectal, gastric, pancreatic, robotic and bariatric surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信