This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine has included the comparison of minimally invasive surgical techniques in its research agenda. This study seeks to evaluate a model for the comparison of minimally invasive procedures using patient-reported outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: A double-blinded randomized controlled trial (NCT01489436) was conducted. Baseline data were obtained, standardized anesthesia was induced, and patients were randomized to single-port (SP) or 4-port (FP) laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Perioperative care was standardized. The outcomes were pain (Visual Analog Scale) on postoperative day 1 (primary) and quality of life (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures Information System and Linear Analog Self-Assessment), serum cytokines, and heart rate variability (secondary). Analysis was intention to treat. Using identical occlusive dressings, patients and the outcomes assessor remained blinded until postoperative day 2. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were randomized to each arm. There was no difference in demographics. Visual Analog Scale pain score on postoperative day 1 was significantly different from baseline in each group (SP: 1.6 ± 1.9 to 4.2 ± 2.4 vs FP: 1.8 ± 2.3 to 4.2 ± 2.2), but not different from each other (p = 0.83). Patients in the FP arm reported significantly less fatigue on postoperative day 7 than patients in the SP group (3.1 ± 2.1 vs 4.2 ± 2.2; p = 0.009). Fewer patients in the FP group required postoperative oral narcotics before discharge (40% vs 60%; p = 0.056). Cytokines levels and heart rate variability were similar between arms. In patients followed for >1 year, no difference in umbilical hernia rates was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Early postoperative quality of life data captured differences in fatigue, indicating improved recovery after FP within a controlled trial. Physiologic measures were similar, suggesting that the differences between SP and FP are minimal.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bingener et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: