A Comparative Study of Transumbilical and Infra-Umbilical Port Insertion in Laproscopic Surgeries
Authors/Creators
- 1. Assistant Professor, Department of General Surgery, GGSMCH Faridkot, Punjab, India
- 2. Associate Professor Department of General Surgery, GGSMCH Faridkot, Punjab, India
- 3. Senior Resident, Department of General Surgery, GGSMCH Faridkot, Punjab, India
- 4. Professor Department of General Surgery, GGSMCH Faridkot, Punjab, India
- 5. Associate Professor Department of Anaesthesia, GGSMCH Faridkot, Punjab, India
- 6. Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, GGSMCH Faridkot, Punjab, India
- 7. Junior Resident, Department of General Surgery, GGSMCH Faridkot, Punjab, India
Description
Background: In the modern era of medical science, laproscopic surgeries are well preferred over the open surgeries because of less hospital stay time, better cosmetic results, minimal scaring and less post-operative pain. Umbilicus is the important landmark of abdomen. Camera port is inserted through supraumbilical, infraumbilical or Palmers. But recently transumbilical peritoneal entry is also used. Method: Total 80 patients who underwent laproscopic surgery were included in the study. These patients divided into 2 groups with 40 patients in each group. Group A patients were having transumbilical and group B patients were having infraumbilical first port. The parameters evaluated were ease of entry, time taken to achieve pneumoperitoneum, number of attempts to enter peritoneum, loss of port, subcutaneous emphysema, and gas leak from port site, port site pain, port site infection, port site hernia and Cosmetic outcomes. Results: Laproscopic cholecystectomy was done in 77 (96.25%) cases and appendicectomy was done in 3 (3.75%) cases. The transumbilical first port entry is easy than infraumbilical port entry. The mean time to achieve pneumoperitoneum was 7.01+2.55 and mean time taken to achieve pneumoperitoneum in group A was 5.24±1.25 which was significantly less than group B i.e 8.79±2.26. Intraoperatively, only 1 (2.5%) case of gas leakage in group A and only 1 (2.5%) case of loss of port in group B was observed. There were 2 (5.0%) cases of port site bleeding in group B. 1 (2.5%) case of bile duct injury and 2 (5%) cases of port site infection were observed in each group A and B. Cases of port site pain observed in group A were 2 (5%) and in group B were 4 (10%). Port site hernia was observed in 2 (5%) cases in group A and in 1 (2.5%) case in group B. Conclusion: The technique of transumbilical port insertion in is easy, safe and significantly less time consuming. However, there is no significant difference in terms of intraoperative and post-operative complications between the transumbilical and infraumbilical port insertion. So, transumbilical port insertion can be considered as an alternative to the infraumbilical port insertion in laproscopic surgeries.
Abstract (English)
Background: In the modern era of medical science, laproscopic surgeries are well preferred over the open surgeries because of less hospital stay time, better cosmetic results, minimal scaring and less post-operative pain. Umbilicus is the important landmark of abdomen. Camera port is inserted through supraumbilical, infraumbilical or Palmers. But recently transumbilical peritoneal entry is also used. Method: Total 80 patients who underwent laproscopic surgery were included in the study. These patients divided into 2 groups with 40 patients in each group. Group A patients were having transumbilical and group B patients were having infraumbilical first port. The parameters evaluated were ease of entry, time taken to achieve pneumoperitoneum, number of attempts to enter peritoneum, loss of port, subcutaneous emphysema, and gas leak from port site, port site pain, port site infection, port site hernia and Cosmetic outcomes. Results: Laproscopic cholecystectomy was done in 77 (96.25%) cases and appendicectomy was done in 3 (3.75%) cases. The transumbilical first port entry is easy than infraumbilical port entry. The mean time to achieve pneumoperitoneum was 7.01+2.55 and mean time taken to achieve pneumoperitoneum in group A was 5.24±1.25 which was significantly less than group B i.e 8.79±2.26. Intraoperatively, only 1 (2.5%) case of gas leakage in group A and only 1 (2.5%) case of loss of port in group B was observed. There were 2 (5.0%) cases of port site bleeding in group B. 1 (2.5%) case of bile duct injury and 2 (5%) cases of port site infection were observed in each group A and B. Cases of port site pain observed in group A were 2 (5%) and in group B were 4 (10%). Port site hernia was observed in 2 (5%) cases in group A and in 1 (2.5%) case in group B. Conclusion: The technique of transumbilical port insertion in is easy, safe and significantly less time consuming. However, there is no significant difference in terms of intraoperative and post-operative complications between the transumbilical and infraumbilical port insertion. So, transumbilical port insertion can be considered as an alternative to the infraumbilical port insertion in laproscopic surgeries.
Files
IJPCR,Vol15,Issue11,Article175.pdf
Files
(355.8 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:0ca2fe8f02756c8cba1d00bb10ac1231
|
355.8 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2023-10-30
Software
- Repository URL
- https://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/15/IJPCR,Vol15,Issue11,Article175.pdf
- Development Status
- Active
References
- 1. Spancer SJ, Warnock GL. A brief history of endoscopy, laproscopy, and laproscopic surgery. J laparo endosc Adv Surg Tech A.1997; 7(6):369-73. 2. Senturk MB, Dogan O, Polat M, Kilicci C, Pulatoglu C, Tayyar AT. Cosmetic outcomes of infraumbilical, supraumbilical, and transumbilical entry routes in laproscopic surgery. Turk J Surg. 2018; 34(4):290-94. 3. Toro A, Mannino M, Cappello G, Di Stefano D, Di Carlo I. Comparison of two entry methods for laproscopic port entry: Technical point of view. Diag and therap endosc. 2012; 2012:1-7. 4. Djokovic D, Gupta J, Thomas V, Maher P, Ternamian A et al. Principles of safe laproscopic entry. EJOGRB. 2016; 201(1):179- 88. 5. Maharaul HH, Jain N, Garg P. Port site complications following laproscopic surgeries. Int J Surg Sci. 2019; 3(3):318-24. 6. Sarder MAH, Ahmed QSU. Trans-umbilical open port placement during laproscopic access: A safe technique. JAFMC. 2020; 15(1):67-70. 7. Mohamed MA, Sakr BE, Aly AA, Esmail EK. Comparison between Three Different Methods of Abdominal Entry in laproscopic gynaecologic surgery. BJAS. 2021; 6(6): 179- 86. 8. Resutra R, Mahajan N, Gupta R. Transumbilical first trocar access during laproscopic surgery. Int J Res Med Sci. 2019; 7(8):3039-43. 9. Elmeligy HAA, Esmat ME, Elashry MA, Gomaa AM, Helmy AH. Open access for pneumoperitoneum during laproscopic cholecystectomy (transumbilical vs. conventional). EJS. 2020; 39(3):682-89. 10. Wani A, Dalal AK, Dalal UR, Rathi H, komal, Garg A. Comparative evaluation of transumbilical and infraumbilical 5mm blind trocar insertion for camera port in laproscopic cholecystectomy. J. Evid. Based Med. Healthc.2019; 6(18),1383- 87. 11. Sangrasi AK, Memon AI, Memon MM, Abbasi MR, Laghari AA, Qureshi JN. A safe quick technique for placement of the first access port for creation of pneumoperitoneum. JSLS. 2011;15(4):504-08 12. Karthik S, Augustine AJ, Shibumon MM, Pai MV. Analysis of laproscopic port site complications: A descriptive study. J Minim Access Surg. 2013; 9(2):59-64. 13. Pazzo R, Arrangoiz R, Cordera F, Moreno E, Munoz M, Lambreton F et al. Trans umbilical laproscopic access during laproscopic procedures. Case stud surg. 2017; 3(1):1-5. 14. Siribumrungwong B, Chunsirisub T, Limpavitayaporn P, Tongyoo A, Sriussadaporn E, Mingmalairak C et al. Comparison of postoperative pain at umbilical wound after conventional laproscopic cholecystectomy between transumbilical and infraumbilical incisions: a randomized control trial. Surg Endosc. 2019; 33(5):1578-84.