title: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for cholecystectomy: a retrospective comparison with 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To report our experience with single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for cholecystectomy and to perform a retrospective comparison with conventional 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
  
  
  METHODS
  Data were prospectively collected for all patients undergoing SILS for cholecystectomy at St Mary's Hospital, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, England (n = 41 patients between June 13, 2008, and June 30, 2009) and compared with data for those who had undergone conventional 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the preceding year (n = 58 patients between June 26, 2007, and May 30, 2008). This included patient demographic data and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.
  
  
  METHODS
  Four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and SILS for cholecystectomy.
  
  
  METHODS
  Operative time, conversion to open operation, and length of hospital stay.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Operative time was longer with SILS for cholecystectomy compared with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (P < .001). A correlation was seen between reducing SILS operative time and increasing experience (Spearman rank correlation coefficient, -0.29). Three patients in the SILS for cholecystectomy group required the addition of extra laparoscopic ports. No patients in the SILS for cholecystectomy group required conversion to open surgery compared with 4 patients in the standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy group. Patients stayed an average of 0.76 days following SILS for cholecystectomy and 1.53 days following conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. One patient in each group had a postoperative biliary leak.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for cholecystectomy may be equal to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in terms of safety and efficacy. Further randomized studies are required to investigate any significant advantages of this new and attractive technique.
authors.affiliation: Department of Biosurgery and Surgical Technology, Imperial College London, England.
authors.forename: Andre
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Chow
authors.forename: Sanjay
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Purkayastha
authors.forename: Omer
authors.initials: O
authors.lastname: Aziz
authors.forename: Dina
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Pefanis
authors.forename: Paraskevas
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Paraskeva
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D017081:Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D015331:Cohort Studies; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D020706:Laparoscopes; D007902:Length of Stay; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D019060:Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures / Q000379:methods*; D010149:Postoperative Pain / Q000503:physiopathology; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000503:physiopathology; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D018570:Risk Assessment; D016896:Treatment Outcome