Utilization of Handcrafted Trocar “PP-Ports Trocar” in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Keywords:
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, PP-Ports Trocar, commercial trocar, cost-effectiveness, surgical outcomesAbstract
Background: Gallstone disease, including symptomatic gallstones, chronic and acute cholecystitis is prevalent worldwide. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has emerged as the treatment of choice for these conditions. However, the cost of LC remains a concern due to various factors, including the expenses associated with instrumentation. This study seeks to assess the feasibility, utility and outcomes of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed with the PP-Ports Trocar, an innovative and cost-effective alternative, compared to conventional commercial trocars.
Objective: To evaluate the feasibility and utility of PP-Ports Trocar in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Method: A retrospective analysis of electronic medical records from September 2023 to February 2024 was conducted. Patients who underwent LC using PP-Ports Trocar were compared with those using commercial trocars at Mae Fah Luang University Medical Center Hospital. Demographic data, surgical time, blood loss, hospital stay, and postoperative complications were analyzed.
Results: Twenty patients were included in the study, evenly distributed among two groups based on trocar type. No surgical complications were observed. PP-Ports Trocar demonstrated comparable outcomes to commercial trocars in terms of surgical time, blood loss, hospital stay and postoperative complications.
Conclusion: PP-Ports Trocar presents a promising alternative for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, offering cost-effective instrumentation without compromising surgical outcomes. Its adoption could potentially alleviate financial burdens associated with surgical procedures.
References
Jensen KH, Jørgensen T. Incidence of gallstones in a Danish population. Gastroenterology. 1991;100:790–794.
Bates T, Harrison M, Lowe D, Lawson C, Padley N. Longitudinal study of gall stone prevalence at necropsy. Gut. 1992;33:103–107.
Strasberg SM. Tokyo Guidelines for the Diagnosis of Acute Cholecystitis. J Am Coll Surg. 2018 Dec;227(6):624.
Kapoor T, Wrenn SM, Callas PW, Abu-Jaish W. Cost Analysis and Supply Utilization of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. Minim Invasive Surg. 2018;2018:7838103.
Kane RL, Lurie N, Borbas C, et al. The outcomes of elective laparoscopic and open cholecystectomies. J Am Coll Surg. 1995;180:136–145.
Soper NJ, Stockmann PT, Dunnegan DL, Ashley SW. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The new 'gold standard'? Arch Surg. 1992;127:917–921.
Steiner CA, Bass EB, Talamini MA, Pitt HA, Steinberg EP. Surgical rates and operative mortality for open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Maryland. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:403–408.
McMahon AJ, Russell IT, Baxter JN, et al. Laparoscopic versus minilaparotomy cholecystectomy: a randomised trial. Lancet. 1994;343:135–138.
Center for Medicare and Medicaid. Acute Care Episode Demonstration. Baltimore: Available at: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Demonstration-Projects/DemoProjectsEvalRpts/downloads/ACEFactSheet.pdf
Chu T, Chandhoke RA, Smith PC, Schwaitzberg SD. The impact of surgeon choice on the cost of performing laparoscopic appendectomy. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:1187–1191.
DesCôteaux JG, Tye L, Poulin EC. Reuse of Disposable Laparoscopic Instruments: Cost Analysis. Can J Surg. 1986;39:133–139.
Henriksen NA, Al-Tayar H, Rosenberg J, Jorgensen LN. Cost Assessment of Instruments for Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. JSLS. 2012;16:353–359.
Slater M M, Booth MI, Dehn TCB. Cost-effective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2009; 91: 670–672.
