title: Two-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Two-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been reported to be safe and feasible. However, whether it offers any additional advantages remains controversial. This study reports a randomized trial that compared the clinical outcomes of two-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
  
  
  METHODS
  One hundred and twenty consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized to receive either the two-port or the four-port technique. All patients were blinded to the type of operation they underwent. Four surgical tapes were applied to standard four-port sites in both groups at the end of the operation. All dressings were kept intact until the first follow-up 1 week after surgery. Postoperative pain at the four sites was assessed on the first day after surgery using a 10-cm unscaled visual analog scale (VAS). Other outcome measures included analgesia requirements, length and difficulty of the operation, postoperative stay, and patient satisfaction score on surgery and scars.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Demographic data were comparable for both groups. Patients in the two-port group had shorter mean operative time (54.6 +/- 24.7 min vs 66.9 +/- 33.1 min for the four-post group; p = 0.03) and less pain at individual subcostal port sites [mean score using 10-cm unscaled VAS: 1.5 vs 2.8 ( p = 0.01) at the midsubcostal port site and 1.3 vs 2.3 ( p = 0.02) at the lateral subcostal port site]. Overall pain score, analgesia requirements, hospital stay, and patient satisfaction score on surgery and scars were similar between the two groups.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Two-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy resulted in less individual port-site pain and similar clinical outcomes but fewer surgical scars compared to four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Thus, it can be recommended as a routine procedure in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, North District Hospital, Sheung Shui, N. T., Hong Kong SAR, China.
authors.forename: C M
authors.initials: CM
authors.lastname: Poon
authors.forename: K W
authors.initials: KW
authors.lastname: Chan
authors.forename: D W H
authors.initials: DW
authors.lastname: Lee
authors.forename: K C
authors.initials: KC
authors.lastname: Chan
authors.forename: C W
authors.initials: CW
authors.lastname: Ko
authors.forename: H Y
authors.initials: HY
authors.lastname: Cheung
authors.forename: K W
authors.initials: KW
authors.lastname: Lee
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D002760:Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; D017081:Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods*; D003937:Diagnosis, Differential; D004867:Equipment Design; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D005260:Female; D005705:Gallbladder Diseases / Q000150:complications / Q000175:diagnosis; D005706:Gallbladder Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis; D042882:Gallstones / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000209:etiology / Q000601:surgery; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010147:Pain Measurement; D010149:Postoperative Pain / Q000145:classification / Q000209:etiology; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D011446:Prospective Studies; D013530:Surgical Wound Infection / Q000209:etiology