Author(s)

Ju Yeon Kim, Young Hoon Roh, Minchan Kim

Department of Surgery, Dong-A University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea.

Background: Single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) is a widely performed advanced technique in laparoscopic surgery which has many benefits compare to conventional three port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TPLC). The purpose of this study was to compare the patients’ satisfaction of SPLC and TPLC after one year of operation by using questionnaire which not only objective factors such as results of operation and hospital days but also subjective factor such as social and cosmetic quality of life. Materials and Methods: This study analyzed the data of 74 patients (SPLC = 42, TPLC = 32) who underwent the laparoscopic cholecystectomy between March and July 2013. The patients were asked to complete a patient-assessment questionnaire measuring the postoperative social and cosmetic quality-of-life values at the 12-month mark. Results: Statistically significant differences in the age, sex distribution, and body mass index are absent between the two groups. All the average scores of the different parameters of the social-activity aspect—satisfaction with physical condition, limitation of nutrition, stamina, postoperative pain level, returning to social life, impairment of social life, degree of complications, and cost-effectiveness of the surgery—are not statistically significant in both groups. Alternatively, all the results of the cosmetic aspect—scar influence on charms (p < 0.001), satisfaction regarding scar appearance (p = 0.015), and patient’s score of scars (p < 0.001)—show statistically significant differences. Conclusion: The SPLC is a safe and an attractive approach regarding the patients of this study. It offers a more effective cosmetic result that may be conveyed by a greater patient satisfaction.

Long-Term Outcome, SPLC, Patients, Satisfaction

Kim, J. , Roh, Y. and Kim, M. (2018) Long-Term Patient-Aspect Outcomes of the Single-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. Open Journal of Gastroenterology, 8, 245-254. doi: 10.4236/ojgas.2018.86027.