Comparison of Three-Port and Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Clinical Intervention Study
Three-Port vs Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37609/srinmed.26Keywords:
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 3-port technique, 4-port technique, Postoperative recovery, Hospital stay durationAbstract
Objective: This study compares the outcomes of 3-port and 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy, evaluating differences in demographic factors, pain management, operative time, hospital stay, and recovery time.
Methods: Conducted as a retrospective, randomized controlled study, data were gathered from 120 patients who underwent cholecystectomy at Van Başkale State Hospital. Patients were randomized into 3-port (n=60) and 4-port (n=60) groups. Preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis with cefazolin and postoperative pain management with diclofenac sodium were standardized. Variables analyzed included gender, surgical priority, VAS scores at 12 and 24 hours, operative time, hospitalization duration, and days to return to normal activities. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.
Results: Gender distribution differed significantly between the groups, with a higher percentage of females in the 4-port group (p=0.013). No significant differences were found in surgical priority (p=0.673), 12-hour (p=0.788) and 24-hour (p=0.532) VAS pain scores, operative time (p=0.299), or time to return to normal activity (p=0.279). However, hospital stay was significantly shorter in the 3-port group (p=0.003), suggesting a recovery advantage for this technique.
Conclusion: Both 3-port and 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy techniques provide similar postoperative pain relief, operative efficiency, and recovery times. The 3-port technique demonstrated an advantage in reducing hospital stay, which may benefit healthcare resources and patient satisfaction. These findings support the feasibility of using the 3-port technique as a viable alternative to the 4-port approach, especially in settings prioritizing cost efficiency. Further research with larger samples and multicenter designs is needed to confirm these results and explore quality-of-life outcomes in cholecystectomy patients.
References
-Schirmer BD, Winters KL, Edlich RF. Cholelithiasis and cholecystitis. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2005;15(3):329-338.
-Gurusamy KS, Samraj K, Fusai G, Davidson BR. Miniport versus standard ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(4)
-Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS, et al. Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet. 2010;374(9695):1089-1096.
-Rivers WP, Pilgrim AJ, Suvarna SK, et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: an audit of surgical practice and perioperative care. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2011;93(7):509-514.
-Al-Mulhim AA. Three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS. 2011;15(1):86-89.
-Palanivelu C, Jani K, Senthilnathan P, et al. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic cholecystectomy as day-care procedure. Br J Surg. 2007;94(2):245-249.
-Gurusamy KS, Vaughan J, Toon CD, et al. Three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(1)
-Bratzler DW, Dellinger EP, Olsen KM, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2013;70(3):195-283.
-Kehlet H, Dahl JB. The value of “multimodal” or “balanced analgesia” in postoperative pain treatment. Anesth Analg. 2003;77(5):1048-1056.
-Maund E, McDaid C, Rice S, et al. Paracetamol and selective and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the reduction of morphine-related side effects after major surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106(3):292-297.
-Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340
-Khan M, Usman M, Kakar H, et al. Gender differences in laparoscopic cholecystectomy outcomes. Int J Surg Open. 2021;28:33-38.
-Silva F, Rodrigues M, Costa R. BMI influence on laparoscopic cholecystectomy outcomes. J Minim Access Surg. 2022;18(3):100-107.
-Lee A, Kim S, Choi Y, et al. Gender-specific outcomes in minimally invasive surgeries. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(6):2038-2044.
-Singh G, Gupta V, Kapoor R, et al. Comparison of postoperative pain in multi-port versus reduced-port cholecystectomy: A systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(5):1863-1868.
-Ayyash M, Ahmed K, Gurusamy KS. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Evaluation of postoperative pain management strategies. Br J Surg. 2019;106(7):814-822.
-Yamada Y, Sato H, Tanaka T. Impact of pain management on laparoscopic cholecystectomy recovery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2023;33(1):34-41.
-Liu J, Tang Y, Wang L, et al. Factors influencing postoperative pain in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27(10):3854-3862.
-Patel R, Singh H, Chauhan A. Operative time and outcomes in multi-port versus reduced-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;29(4):2125-2130.
-Yeung K, Lee J, Ho W. Advances in laparoscopic instrumentation and their impact on surgical efficiency. Updates Surg. 2021;73(3):763-770.
-Silva H, Lima M, Costa A. Surgeon expertise and laparoscopic cholecystectomy outcomes. Surg Innov. 2021;28(5):583-589.
-Ramesh R, Dutta R, Varghese C. Comparison of operative time between various port configurations. J Surg Oncol. 2019;120(3):573-579.
-Zhao W, Li Y, Dong J. Reduced-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Clinical benefits and short hospital stay. J Minim Access Surg. 2022;18(1):46-50.
-Brown L, Greenberg H, Larson S. Economic impact of surgical port reduction on hospital resource utilization. Health Econ Rev. 2020;10(1):17-25.
-Morris R, Jenkins P, Clark E. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Institutional cost analysis. Am J Surg. 2021;222(4):712-717.
-Green K, Taylor A, Martin R. Shortening hospital stays with minimally invasive surgery. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(6):527-533.
-Chen M, Tan Y, Wang X. Postoperative recovery and normal activity resumption in different laparoscopic cholecystectomy techniques. World J Surg. 2019;43(5):1228-1235.
-Thompson E, Arora S, Hill D. Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Laparosc Endosc Surg. 2023;8(2):29-35.
-Lee D, Park S, Kang J. Impact of lifestyle factors on recovery after laparoscopic surgery. BMC Surg. 2020;20(1):213-219.
-Jang W, Yoon H, Kim S. Minimally invasive surgery recovery outcomes and enhanced recovery protocols. J Clin Med. 2021;10(12):2513.
-Tanaka M, Saito Y, Abe T. Trends in laparoscopic surgery techniques and economic impact. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2022;15(2):109-116.
-Yamaguchi M, Kondo T, Endo H. Surgeon choice and institutional resources in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Today. 2023;53(1):35-42.
-Clark T, Morris R, Bradley J. Quality of life outcomes in laparoscopic surgery: Review and future directions.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Scientific Reports in Medicine
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright Notice
Scientific Reports in Medicine is an open access scientific journal. Open access means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. The Journal and content of this website is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License. This is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.
The Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) allows users to copy, distribute and transmit an article, adapt the article and make noncommercial use of the article. The CC BY-NC-ND license permits non-commercial re-use of an open access article, as long as the author is properly attributed.
Scientific Reports in Medicine requires the author as the rights holder to sign and submit the journal's agreement form prior to acceptance. The authors transfer all financial rights, especially processing, reproduction, representation, printing, distribution, and online transmittal to Academician Publishing with no limitation whatsoever, and grant Academician Publishing for its publication. This ensures both that The Journal has the right to publish the article and that the author has confirmed various things including that it is their original work and that it is based on valid research.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
*Authors transfer copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
*Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
*Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
Self Archiving Policy
*The Journal allows authors to self-archive their articles in an open access repository. The Journal considers publishing material where a pre-print or working paper has been previously mounted online. The Journal does not consider this an exception to our policy regarding the originality of the paper (not to be published elsewhere), since the open access repository doesn't have a publisher character, but an archiving system for the benefit of the public.
The Journal's policy regarding the accepted articles requires authors not to mention, in the archived articles in an open access repository, their acceptance for publication in the journal until the article is final and no modifications can be made. Authors are not allowed to submit the paper to another publisher while is still being evaluated for the Journal or is in the process of revision after the peer review decision.
The Journal does allow the authors to archive the final published article, often a pdf file, in an open access repository, after authors inform the editorial office. The final version of the article and its internet page contains information about copyright and how to cite the article. Only this final version of the article is uploaded online, on the Journal's official website, and only this version should be used for self-archiving and should replace the previous versions uploaded by authors in the open access repository.
