Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 89 (5), 247-53

Risk Factors for Prolonged Operative Time in Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy


Risk Factors for Prolonged Operative Time in Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Seong Uk Cheon et al. Ann Surg Treat Res.


Purpose: We performed 3-channel single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) in earlier period of this study and modified our method to 4-channel SILC using a snake retractor for better operative field in later period. This study has been designed to evaluate the risk factors for prolonged operative time in SILC.

Methods: From April 2010 to August 2014, 323 cases of 3-channel SILC (Konyang standard method [KSM] group) and 399 cases of 4-channel SILC (modified KSM [mKSM] group) using a snake retractor were performed.

Results: The clinical characteristics were not significantly different between KSM and mKSM group except preoperative percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) treatment (9.6% vs. 16.5%, P < 0.007). The mean operation time was longer in mKSM group than KSM group (55.8 ± 19.7 minutes vs. 51.7 ± 20.1 minutes, P = 0.006). The estimated blood loss of KSM group was more than mKSM group (24.6 ± 54.1 mL vs. 16.9 ± 27.0 mL, P = 0.013). According to the histopathologic findings, acute cholecystitis or empyema were confirmed more in mKSM group as compared with KSM group (28% vs. 14.0%, P = 0.025). In multivariate analysis, the risk factors for prolonged operation time were drainage insertion, histopathologic findings (acute cholecystitis or empyema), surgeons' technical expertise, body mass index > 30 kg/m(2) as well as the 4-channel SILC.

Conclusion: Among patients with these risk factors, conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy could be considered as well although SILC might be safe and feasible modality for benign gallbladder disease.

Keywords: Cholecystectomy; Laparoscopy; Operative time; Risk factors; Single incision.

Conflict of interest statement

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 2 PubMed Central articles


    1. van den Boezem PB, Velthuis S, Lourens HJ, Cuesta MA, Sietses C. Single-incision and NOTES cholecystectomy, are there clinical or cosmetic advantages when compared to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy? A case-control study comparing single-incision, transvaginal, and conventional laparoscopic technique for cholecystectomy. World J Surg. 2014;38:25–32. - PubMed
    1. Navarra G, Pozza E, Occhionorelli S, Carcoforo P, Donini I. One-wound laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg. 1997;84:695. - PubMed
    1. Khambaty F, Brody F, Vaziri K, Edwards C. Laparoscopic versus single-incision cholecystectomy. World J Surg. 2011;35:967–972. - PubMed
    1. Kravetz AJ, Iddings D, Basson MD, Kia MA. The learning curve with single-port cholecystectomy. JSLS. 2009;13:332–336. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jung GO, Park DE, Chae KM. Clinical results between single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and conventional 3-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective case-matched analysis in single institution. J Korean Surg Soc. 2012;83:374–380. - PMC - PubMed