Comparison of 3 Port vs 4 Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Gallstone Disease

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard for treating symptomatic gallstones. Conventionally performed with four ports, the three-port modification has been proposed to reduce surgical trauma, postoperative pain, and recovery time. However, evidence comparing the safety and outcomes of three-port versus four-port LC in the Pakistani population remains limited. Objective: To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes and perioperative risks of three-port LC with four-port LC. Methods: This randomised comparative study was conducted at F.R.P.M.C. PAF Hospital, Karachi, from 1 August 2023 to 1 July 2024, following ethical approval. A total of 60 patients aged 18–60 years of both genders, classified as ASA I or II, and scheduled for elective LC were recruited through non-probability consecutive sampling. Patients were randomised into two groups: three-port LC and four-port LC. Intraoperative complications, conversion to open surgery, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain (assessed by a standardised pain score), and recovery time were compared. Statistical analysis was performed using appropriate parametric and non-parametric tests, with p<0.05 considered significant. Results: Intraoperative complications were lower in the three-port group compared with the four-port group (17% vs. 40%, p=0.09). Conversion to open surgery occurred in 27% of three-port and 40% of four-port cases (p=0.255). The mean hospital stay was significantly shorter in the three-port group (2.8±0.6 days) than in the four-port group (3.5±0.7 days) (p<0.0001). Postoperative pain scores were also significantly lower in the three-port group (5.7±0.9) compared to the four-port group (6.5±0.9) (p=0.001). Furthermore, recovery time was faster in the three-port group (14.9±1.4 days) compared with the four-port group (17.2±1.5 days) (p<0.0001). Conclusion: Three-port LC is a safe and effective alternative to conventional four-port LC, offering shorter hospitalisation, reduced postoperative pain, faster recovery, and enhanced patient satisfaction, without increasing intraoperative risks.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Biological and Clinical Sciences Research Journal
Published
2025-06-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v6i6.1901
Primary Topic
Biliary and Gastrointestinal Fistulas
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of 3 Port vs 4 Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Gallstone Disease

Mansoor Iqbal, Muhammad Khurram Zia, Aun Ali, Yousuf Lakdawala et al.
Biological and Clinical Sciences Research Journal
Biliary and Gastrointestinal Fistulas
article

Comparison of 3 Port vs 4 Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Gallstone Disease

Mansoor Iqbal, Muhammad Khurram Zia, Aun Ali, Yousuf Lakdawala, Muhammad Shafiq, Rohit Kumar
article en

Abstract

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard for treating symptomatic gallstones. Conventionally performed with four ports, the three-port modification has been proposed to reduce surgical trauma, postoperative pain, and recovery time. However, evidence comparing the safety and outcomes of three-port versus four-port LC in the Pakistani population remains limited. Objective: To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes and perioperative risks of three-port LC with four-port LC. Methods: This randomised comparative study was conducted at F.R.P.M.C. PAF Hospital, Karachi, from 1 August 2023 to 1 July 2024, following ethical approval. A total of 60 patients aged 18–60 years of both genders, classified as ASA I or II, and scheduled for elective LC were recruited through non-probability consecutive sampling. Patients were randomised into two groups: three-port LC and four-port LC. Intraoperative complications, conversion to open surgery, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain (assessed by a standardised pain score), and recovery time were compared. Statistical analysis was performed using appropriate parametric and non-parametric tests, with p<0.05 considered significant. Results: Intraoperative complications were lower in the three-port group compared with the four-port group (17% vs. 40%, p=0.09). Conversion to open surgery occurred in 27% of three-port and 40% of four-port cases (p=0.255). The mean hospital stay was significantly shorter in the three-port group (2.8±0.6 days) than in the four-port group (3.5±0.7 days) (p<0.0001). Postoperative pain scores were also significantly lower in the three-port group (5.7±0.9) compared to the four-port group (6.5±0.9) (p=0.001). Furthermore, recovery time was faster in the three-port group (14.9±1.4 days) compared with the four-port group (17.2±1.5 days) (p<0.0001). Conclusion: Three-port LC is a safe and effective alternative to conventional four-port LC, offering shorter hospitalisation, reduced postoperative pain, faster recovery, and enhanced patient satisfaction, without increasing intraoperative risks.

Biological and Clinical Sciences Research JournalVol. 6(6)
Liaquat National Hospital (PK), Civil Hospital Karachi (PK)
Openalex Percentile: Top 67%
Biliary and Gastrointestinal Fistulas
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.