Safety And Effectiveness Of Three-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Retrospective Comparative Study

Authors

  • Vivek Kumar ( MS)
  • Prakhar singh
  • Shivam Khandelwal
  • Mohd Zafar Husain

Keywords:

three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy, minimal-access surgery, cholelithiasis, operative outcomes, India

Abstract

Background Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold-standard treatment for symptomatic cholelithiasis. Conventional four-port LC (4PLC) offers excellent ergonomics but at the expense of an additional incision. Three-port LC (3PLC) seeks to minimise access trauma while preserving operative safety. Evidence on its real-world performance in South-Asian tertiary centres remains limited.

Methods We retrospectively analysed 200 consecutive elective LCs performed between March 2021 and March 2023 at Sarojini Naidu Medical College, Agra. One hundred patients underwent 3PLC (Group 1) and 100 underwent 4PLC (Group 2). Demographics, operative details, conversions, complications, length of stay (LOS) and 30-day outcomes were compared. Statistical analysis employed χ², Student’s t-test or Mann–Whitney U where appropriate (p < 0.05 significant).

Results Group 1 comprised 77 females/23 males (mean 53 ± 12.8 years); Group 2, 82 females/18 males (mean 51.3 ± 12.9 years). Operative time was similar (31.0 ± 9.1 min vs 31.6 ± 7.6 min; p = 0.63). In Group 1, nine patients (9 %) required a fourth port and one (1 %) required conversion to open surgery owing to dense adhesions; no conversions occurred in Group 2. Overall complication rates were comparable (2 % vs 2 %; p = 1.0). Median LOS for both groups was 1 day (range 1–2). Multivariate analysis identified gallbladder edema, prior upper-abdominal surgery and intra-operative cholecystitis as independent predictors of longer operative time irrespective of port number.

Conclusion Three-port LC is a safe, feasible and cost-saving alternative to conventional 4PLC when performed by experienced surgeons, with equivalent operative time, morbidity and LOS. The procedure can be commenced with three ports and seamlessly escalated by adding a fourth port or converting to open surgery when warranted.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Al-Azawi, D., Houssein, N., Rayis, A. B., McMahon, D., & Hehir, D. J. (2007). Three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute and chronic cholecystitis. BMC Surgery, 7, 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-7-7

Bittner, R. (2004). The standard of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery, 389(3), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-004-0353-1

Cerci, C., Tarhan, O. R., Barut, I., & Bulbul, M. (2007). Three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Hepatogastroenterology, 54(77), 15–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0953-8114(07)74507-5

Giger, U., Dreher, A., & Paddock, M. (2006). Gasless laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review. Surgical Endoscopy, 20(12), 1759–1765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-006-9060-6

Kim, B. S., Kim, K. C., & Choi, Y. B. (2012). A comparison between single-incision and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques, 22(5), 443–447. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2011.0366

Kumar, M., Agrawal, C. S., & Gupta, R. K. (2007). Three-port versus standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized controlled clinical trial in a community-based teaching hospital in eastern Nepal. JSLS, 11(3), 358–362. https://doi.org/10.4293/108680807X218185

Markar, S. R., Karthikesalingam, A., Thrumurthy, S., Muirhead, L., Kinross, J., & Paraskeva, P. (2012). Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) vs. conventional multiport cholecystectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgical Endoscopy, 26(5), 1205–1213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-2043-2

Mouret, P. (1991). Coelioscopic cholecystectomy: Technical aspects. Annales de Chirurgie, 45(4), 729–731. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4975(91)90115-D

Olsen, D. O. (2004). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. American Journal of Surgery, 188(6), 339–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2004.06.027

Osborne, D., Boe, B., Rosemurgy, A. S., & Zervos, E. E. (2005). Twenty-millimeter laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Fewer ports results in less pain, shorter hospitalization, and faster recovery. The American Surgeon, 71(4), 298–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/000313480507100408

Poon, C. M., Chan, K. W., Lee, D. W., Chan, K. C., Ko, C. W., Cheung, H. Y., & Lee, K. W. (2003). Two-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgical Endoscopy, 17(10), 1624–1627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-002-9327-3

Sharma, A., Sharma, O. P., Singh, N., & Singh, B. P. (2006). Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: Randomized control trial. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 12(31), 7916–7920. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v12.i31.7916

Slim, K., Pezet, D., Stencl, J., Lechner, C., Le Roux, S., Lointier, P., & Chipponi, J. (1995). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: An original three-trocar technique. World Journal of Surgery, 19(3), 394–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00299392

Sun, S., Yang, K., Gao, M., He, X., Tian, J., & Ma, B. (2009). Three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. World Journal of Surgery, 33(10), 1904–1908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0123-0

Tagaya, N., Kita, J., Takagi, K., Imada, T., Ishikawa, K., Kogure, H., & Ohyama, O. (1998). Experience with three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, 5(4), 309–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s005340050073

Trichak, S. (2003). Three-port vs. standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgical Endoscopy, 17(8), 1434–1436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-002-8939-6

Downloads

Published

2025-05-30

How to Cite

1.
( MS) VK, singh P, Khandelwal S, Husain MZ. Safety And Effectiveness Of Three-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Retrospective Comparative Study. J Neonatal Surg [Internet]. 2025May30 [cited 2025Oct.21];14(29S):335-40. Available from: https://www.jneonatalsurg.com/index.php/jns/article/view/6794

Issue

Vol. 14 No. 29S (2025): Journal of Neonatal Surgery

Section

Original Article

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

You are free to:

  • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

Terms:

  • Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.