There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Minimally invasive techniques have become an integral part of general surgery with recent investigation into single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC). This study presents the final 1-year results of a prospective, randomized, multicenter, single-blinded trial of SILC vs multiport cholecystectomy (4PLC). Patients with biliary colic and documented gallstones or polyps or with biliary dyskinesia were randomized to SILC vs 4PLC. Data measures included operative details, adverse events, and conversion to 4PLC or laparotomy. Patients were followed for 12 months. Two hundred patients underwent randomization to SILC (n = 119) or 4PLC (n = 81). Enrollment ranged from 1 to 50 patients with 4 sites enrolling >25 patients. Total adverse events were not significantly different between groups (36% 4PLC vs 45% SILC; p = 0.24), as were severe adverse events (4% 4PLC vs 10% SILC; p = 0.11). Incision-related adverse events were higher after SILC (11.7% vs 4.9%; p = 0.13), but all of these were listed as mild or moderate. Total hernia rates were 1.2% (1 of 81) in 4PLC patients vs 8.4% (10 of 119) in SILC patients (p = 0.03). At 1-year follow-up, cosmesis scores continued to favor SILC (p < 0.0001). Results of this trial show SILC to be a safe and feasible procedure when compared with 4PLC, with similar total adverse events but with an identified significant increase in hernia formation. Cosmesis scoring and patient preference at 12 months continue to favor SILC, and more than half of the patients were willing to pay more for a single-site surgery over a standard laparoscopic procedure. Additional longer-term population-based studies are needed to clarify if this increased rate of hernia formation as compared with 4PLC will continue to hold true. Copyright © 2013 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.