Minimally invasive surgery gained popularity between general surgeons especially laparoscopic four-port cholecystectomy. By introducing different methods such as NOTES and SILS, the costs elevated with its cosmetics. We aim to study a new technique of laparoscopic cholecystectomy by two incisions with best cosmetics, and same quality and lower cost as conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and make a comparison between them. In a double-blind clinical trial from December 2012 to September 2014, patients with cholelithiasis who presented to general surgery clinic and candidate for laparoscopic cholecystectomy were studied. Half of patients underwent double-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and other half underwent conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The mean age and BMI were higher in double-incision and four-port group, respectively, but not statistically different. Also male to female ratio was 6:1 in double-incision group and 9:1 in four-port group, and they were not statistically different. The mean operation time was about 2 min more in double-incision group, but it is trivial to consider a significant difference at level of 5%. The mean pain score (0-10) was significantly lower in double incision group in comparison with four-port group (p < 0.0001). Patients in double incision group reported higher satisfaction and were sooner in return to work than in four-port group (p < 0.0001). It seems that DILS for uncomplicated cholelithiasis is safe. By reducing port number, we succeed in reducing the pain and need for analgesics, reducing hospital staying and sooner return to work. By taking into account using conventional CLS instrument and lowering the hospital charges, it could be a good alternative to SILS.
Keywords: Double ports; Laparoscopic cholecystectomy; SILS.