World Rural Health Conference
Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
Users Online: 2919
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 1617-1620  

A comparative study of postoperative port-site pain after gallbladder retrieval from umbilical versus epigastric ports in laparoscopic cholecystectomy


Department of General Surgery, NEIGRIHMS, Shillong, Meghalaya, India

Date of Web Publication31-May-2019

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Ranendra Hajong
Department of General Surgery, NEIGRIHMS, Shillong - 793 018, Meghalaya
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_172_19

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Introduction: Gall bladder (GB) retrieval is an important cause for postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). GB is usually extracted either from the epigastric or the umbilical port and there are limited data to decide the superiority of one over other in terms of postoperative pain. This study was designed to determine whether GB retrieval from the umbilical port was associated with less pain as compared to epigastric port in adult patients undergoing four ports elective LC. Material and Methods: A total of 100 patients took part in the study and were randomly allocated into 2 groups. Postoperatively, port-site pain score was assessed at 1, 6, 12, and 24 h by visual analog scale (VAS) score both for the epigastric and umbilical ports in all the patients and the collected data were analyzed by using SPSS version 22. Result: VAS score for postoperative pain at epigastric port at 1, 6, 12, and 24 h found to be higher as compared to umbilical port (6.640 ± 1.494 vs. 5.500 ± 1.176, 6.620 ± 1.549 vs. 5.320 ± 1.188, 6.100 ± 1.549 vs. 4.660 ± 1.232, 5.250 ± 1.459 vs. 3.970 ± 1.274, respectively) which was statistically significant (P value 0.001). But the time taken for retrieval of GB was significantly longer in the umbilical group (4.94 ± 1.56 vs. 3.24 ± 1.29). Conclusion: Umbilical port is better as compared to epigastric port for GB retrieval in patient undergoing elective four port LC in terms of postoperative port-site pain but it takes relatively longer time for the extraction.

Keywords: Epigastric port, port-site pain, umbilical port, VAS score


How to cite this article:
Hajong R, Dhal MR, Natung T, Khongwar D, Jyoti AB, Newme K. A comparative study of postoperative port-site pain after gallbladder retrieval from umbilical versus epigastric ports in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Family Med Prim Care 2019;8:1617-20

How to cite this URL:
Hajong R, Dhal MR, Natung T, Khongwar D, Jyoti AB, Newme K. A comparative study of postoperative port-site pain after gallbladder retrieval from umbilical versus epigastric ports in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Family Med Prim Care [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Jun 19];8:1617-20. Available from: http://www.jfmpc.com/text.asp?2019/8/5/1617/259408




  Introduction Top


Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard procedure for managing patients with symptomatic gall stone diseases.[1] Postoperative pain is one of the important events after LC which may prolong patients' hospital stay.[2] Multiple factors have been found to be responsible for postoperative pain after LC, which included hemo-peritoneum, abdominal wall trauma during port insertion, use of carbon dioxide (CO2) for creating pneumoperitoneum, gall bladder (GB) retrieval, etc.[2],[3]

GB is usually extracted after LC either from the epigastric or umbilical port and both ports have been encouraged for extraction of GB.[4],[5],[6] Abbas et al.[7] preferred subxiphoid port for GB retrieval due to the surgeon's ease and also as there was no need to change the position of the telescope. Siddiqui et al.[8] however showed the superiority of umbilical port in terms of postoperative port-site pain. To date, there is no level 1 evidence or meta-analysis to support the superiority of one technique over the other for GB extraction in terms of postoperative port-site pain.


  Materials and Methods Top


It was a comparative type of cross-sectional study conducted in Department of General Surgery, NEIGRIHMS from April 2016 till September 2017 after being approved by Institution Ethics committee. A total of 100 consenting patients were included in the study and divided into 2 equal groups. The first 50 patients in whom GB was retrieved from epigastric port were assigned in Group A and the next 50 patients where GB was retrieved from umbilical port were included in Group B.

Consenting patients 18–70 years of age planned for standard elective four port LC for benign GB diseases (symptomatic gallstones, GB polyps) were included in the study. Patients with suspicious or proven gallbladder malignancy, bleeding diatheses, previous history of putting abdominal drains, obstructive jaundice, and acute pancreatitis or in whom port-site extension was done were excluded from the study.

Postoperative analgesia in the form of intravenous paracetamol 15 mg/kg given 8 hourly was given in both the groups. Outcome, that is, postoperative port-site pain, was assessed with visual analog scale (VAS) ranging from 0 to 10. Patients were educated about the use of VAS preoperatively (in ward before surgery). Pain was assessed in every patient at both port sites at 1, 6, 12, and 24 h postoperatively by a resident doctor who was blinded to the intervention. Additional analgesia (intramuscular diclofenac – 1.5 mg/kg and tramadol – 1 mg/kg/dose 8 hourly) was given in patients with significant pain (VAS 7 or more).

Continuous variables, that is, age, time taken for GB retrieval, pain score, and postoperative analgesia consumption, were analyzed as means ± standard deviation. Categorical variables, that is, sex and site of GB retrieval, were analyzed as proportions. Outcome, that is, port-site pain, was compared in both groups by Student's independent t-test. Data analysis was done using SPSS version 22.


  Results Top


The following baseline variables were comparable between the two groups as shown in [Table 1].
Table 1: Comparison of different baseline variables

Click here to view


Percentage of female in the study is 69% which is statistically significant (P value 0.030) shown in [Figure 1].
Figure 1: Pie diagram showing gender distribution of the patients

Click here to view


Ninety-percent of the study population was between 18 and 44 years as shown in [Table 2].
Table 2: Shows age distribution

Click here to view


In Group A, the VAS score was consistently high in the epigastric port as shown in [Table 3].
Table 3: VAS score for epigastric and umbilical ports at different postoperative hours in Group A

Click here to view


VAS score in umbilical port was higher than epigastric port in Group B which was statistically significant as shown in [Table 4].
Table 4: VAS score for umbilical and epigastric ports at different postoperative hours in Group B

Click here to view


But when the VAS score for pain at epigastric port site of group A was compared with the VAS score at umbilical port site in group B, it was found that there was statistically significant difference of pain score (P-value < 0.001) at all postoperative hours as shown in [Table 5] and [Figure 2]. The VAS score at the epigastric port was significantly higher.
Table 5: VAS score for specified port-site pain at different postoperative hours between the groups

Click here to view
Figure 2: Comparison of VAS score at different postoperative hours

Click here to view


Time taken for retrieval of gallbladder from the umbilical port was significantly longer epigastric port, which was statistically significant (P = 0.001).

All the patients were followed up to 24 h after surgery for pain assessment. Pain was persistent at both the port sites over first 12 h, which decreases thereafter. However, decrease in pain level is more significant at umbilical port site, as shown in [Figure 3].
Figure 3: The trend of level of pain at both port sites

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


The age was evenly distributed in both the groups (33.48 ± 10.6 in Group A vs. 31.10 ± 7.8 in Group B) similar to the results of Siddiqui et al. (42.5 ± 10.7 vs. 40.6 ± 12.6)[8] and Bashir et al. (47.49 ± 9.4 vs. 46.84 ± 5.60).[9] However, the average age in this study was lesser as compared to the other studies.

There was predominance of female population in this study (69%) comparable to the series by Shakya et al. (75% female),[9] Siddiqui et al. (76% female),[8] Bashir et al. (56% female),[10] and Ahmad et al. (60% female).[11]

Postoperative VAS score for pain was assessed at the port sites in both the groups in our study. The average pain score at epigastric port site was consistently higher as compared to umbilical port site in group A, whereas in Group B, the VAS score was higher in the umbilical port when compared with the epigastric port which was statistically significant at all assessment hours (P-value = 0.001).

When the VAS of epigastric port in Group A was compared with VAS of umbilical port in Group B, it was found that the pain score was consistently higher in the epigastric port in Group A which was statistically significant. Similar results were obtained by Siddiqui et al.[8] and Shakya et al.,[9] where they concluded that umbilical port was better for GB retrieval in terms of postoperative pain.

Contrary to the present study, Bashir et al.[10] and Ahmad et al.[11] recommended both umbilical and subxiphoid ports to be equally effective for gallbladder extraction in terms of postoperative pain and to be surgeon specific.

Abbas et al.[7] preferred the subxiphoid port for GB retrieval due to ease for the surgeon as in there is no need to change the position of telescope and readjustment of position of the surgeon.

Singh et al.[12] concluded that patients in whom GB were retrieved with endobag had lesser port-site pain than those without endobag (4% vs. 8%). In our series, GB was retrieved in endobags in all the patients and still patients in the epigastric group had more port-site pain than those in the umbilical group.

In this study, the time taken for retrieval of GB was longer in the umbilical port as compared to the epigastric port (4.94 ± 1.56 vs. 3.24 ± 1.29) which was statistically significant (P value = 0.001) (as shown in [Table 6]). Similar results were shown by Siddiqui et al.,[8] where they had assessed retrieval difficulty. The mean difficulty level at umbilical port was higher than epigastric port in their series. None of the study population had port-site infection in this study.
Table 6: Difference in time taken for GB retrieval between two groups

Click here to view



  Conclusion Top


This study shows that umbilical port is better for the extraction of the GB after LC in terms of postoperative pain; but it takes relatively longer time when compared with the epigastric port. This information will educate the primary care physicians to counsel their patients requiring LC about the causes for postoperative pain and also allow the patients to choose the port site through which their GB should be extracted after LC.

Limitations of the study

The limitation of the study is lesser number of sample size and improper randomization of the patients. A proper randomized controlled trial with larger patient population will further validate the superiority of one port over the other in terms of postoperative pain after LC.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Turan A, Erdinç K, Nihan A, Kemal A, Halis B, Mehmet H, et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the treatment of acute cholecystitis: Comparison of results between early and late cholecystectomy. Pan Afr Med J 2017;26:49.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Rosenberg J, Kehlet H. Characteristics and prediction of early pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Pain 2001;90:261-9.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Liu YY, Yeh CN, Lee HL, Wang SY, Tsai CY, Lin CC, et al. Local anaesthesia with ropivacaine for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. World J Gastroenterol 2009;15:2376-80.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Hunter JG, Thompson SK. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, intraoperative cholangiography, and common bile duct exploration. In: Fischer JE, Bland KI, editors. Mastery of Surgery. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 1117-28.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Litwin DE, Cahan MA. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Clin North Am 2008;88:1295-313.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Thompson JN, Appleton SG. Laparoscopic biliary surgery. In: Kirk RM, editor. General Surgical Operations. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2006. p. 304-16.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Abbas T, Saleha AK, Lateef M, Burhan-ul-Haq FR, Choudhary ZA. Procedural time and complications in delivery of gall bladder in laparoscopic cholecystectomy umbilical port vs subxiphoid port. J Allama Iqbal Med Col 2012;9:54-7.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Siddiqui NA, Azami R, Murtaza G, Nasim S. Postoperative port-site pain after gall bladder retrieval from epigastric vs. umbilical port in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized controlled trial. Int J Surg 2012;10:213-6.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Shakya JP, Agrawal N, Kumar A, Singh A, Gogia B, Yadav C. A comparative study of the incidence of pain and infection in gall bladder extraction via umbilical and epigastric port. Int Surg J 2017;4:747-50.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Bashir A, Qureshi AU, Afzal S. Comparison of gallbladder retrieval through umbilical port versus subxiphoid port in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Pakistan Journal of Medical & Health Sciences 2015;9:731-3.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Ahmad MS, Javed MU, Qureshi ARZ, Dar UF, Imtiaz U, Ayuob A. Gallbladder retrieval in three ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Umbilical port versus subxiphoid port. Pakistan Journal of Medical & Health Sciences 2015;9:769-71.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Singh K, Walia DS, Singla A, Banal A, Jangir N. A comparison of benefits and complications of extraction of gallbladder in an endobag using a drain bag versus direct extraction. IJARS 2018:7:SO13-8.  Back to cited text no. 12
    


    Figures

  [Figure 2], [Figure 1], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6]



 

Top
   
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
   Abstract
  Introduction
   Materials and Me...
  Results
  Discussion
  Conclusion
   References
   Article Figures
   Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed57    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded14    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal