An “All 5-mm Ports” Selective Approach to Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy, Appendectomy, and Anti-Reflux Surgery

Laparoscopic appendectomy, cholecystectomy, or anti-reflux procedures are conventionally performed with the use of one and often two 10/12-mm ports. While needlescopic or micropuncture laparoscopic procedures reduce postoperative pain, they invariably involve the use of one 10/12-mm port and the instruments applied have their ergo-dynamic shortcomings. Between September 2002 and March 2003, we have attempted an “all 5-mm ports” approach in 49 laparoscopic procedures, which included 18 of 59 laparoscopic cholecystectomies (31%), 26 diagnostic laparoscopies for suspected appendicitis (of which we proceeded to a laparoscopic appendectomy in 17 patients), and in the last 5 of 9 laparoscopic Nissen fundoplications. Conversion of one of the 5-mm ports to a 10-mm port was required in 5 of the 18 (28%) laparoscopic cholecystectomies and in 6 of the 17 (35%) laparoscopic appendectomies to facilitate organ retrieval in patients with large gallstones (>5 mm in diameter) and in obese patients with fatty mesoappendix. There were no conversions to open surgery. No significant differences in the operating time between the laparoscopic procedures performed by the all 5-mm ports approach or the conventional approach were observed. No intraoperative or postoperative complications occurred in this series. The “all 5-mm ports” approach to laparoscopic cholecystectomy and appendectomy in selected patients and to laparoscopic fundoplication appears feasible and safe. A randomised comparison between this approach and the conventional laparoscopic approach to elective cholecystectomy and fundoplication in which two of the ports employed are of the 10-mm diameter is warranted.

[1]  K. Slim,et al.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: An original three-trocar technique , 1995, World Journal of Surgery.

[2]  S. Dexter,et al.  Micropuncture cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy , 2003, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[3]  D. Bhandarkar,et al.  A novel technique for extraction of the appendix in laparoscopic appendectomy. , 2002, Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques.

[4]  J. Rosenberg,et al.  Microlaparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind trial. , 2002, Surgical endoscopy.

[5]  G. Mostafa,et al.  Minilaparoscopic Appendectomy , 2001, Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques.

[6]  P. Leggett,et al.  Cosmetic minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy , 2001, Surgical Endoscopy.

[7]  C. Low,et al.  Post-operative pain in needlescopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomised trial. , 2001, Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh.

[8]  C. Kum,et al.  Randomized trial of needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy , 2001, The British journal of surgery.

[9]  C. Schlachta,et al.  Needlescopic fundoplication , 2001, Surgical Endoscopy.

[10]  J. Müller,et al.  Prospective randomized blinded trial of pulmonary function, pain, and cosmetic results after laparoscopic vs microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy , 2000, Surgical Endoscopy.

[11]  S. Dexter,et al.  Micropuncture laparoscopic cholecystectomy , 1999, Surgical Endoscopy.

[12]  George Berci,et al.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using fine-caliber instruments , 1998, Surgical Endoscopy.

[13]  G. Berci Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using fine-caliber instruments. Smaller is not necessarily better. , 1998, Surgical endoscopy.

[14]  Lee Kw,et al.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: two-port technique. , 1996 .

[15]  K. Lee,et al.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: two-port technique. , 1996, Endoscopy.