COMPARISON OF PORT SITE WOUND INFECTION WITH AND WITHOUT ENDOGLOVES TECHNIQUES FOR RETRIEVAL OF GALLBLADDER AFTER LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY

  • Naheed Akhtar Department of Surgery, AJK Medical College, Muzaffarabad, Pakistan
  • Ziyad Afzal Kiyani Department of Surgery, AJK Medical College, Muzaffarabad, Pakistan
  • Naeem Ahmed THQ Hospital, Jehlum Valley, Muzaffarabad, Pakistan
  • Farzana Sabir Department of Surgery, AJK Medical College, Muzaffarabad, Pakistan
  • Muhammad Nabeel Imran Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed CMH, Muzaffarabad, Pakistan
  • Irum Gillani Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Health Services Academy, Islamabad, Pakistan
Keywords: laproscopic cholecystectomy, endoglove, gall bladder.

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy decreases postoperative pain, the need for postoperative analgesia, and hospital stay from 1 week to <24 hours. Endogloves are frequently used in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This study was conducted to compare the frequency of port site wound infection with and without endogloves techniques of retrieval of gallbladder (GB) in pouch after laparoscopic cholecystectomy for chronic calculus cholecystitis. Methods: This comparative analytical study was done at Department of General Surgery, CMH, Muzaffarabad, Azad Kashmir from March 2018 to March 2020, and included 260 patients in the study. Patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis but without acute onset were selected for the study. The patients were divided into two groups; one group underwent conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy with endogloves technique and the other group without endogloves. All operations were done by the same surgical team and all patients got same preoperative and postoperative antibiotics. Port site wound infection was looked for. Data was recorded and analysed using SPSS-20. Results: The mean age of the patients in group undergoing laproscopic cholecystectomy with endogloves was 48.09±15.40 years and in group undergoing laproscopic cholecystectomy without endogloves it was 47.51±16.48 years. Male to female ratio was 1.06:1. The post-op wound infection was found in 11 (4.23%) patients (2 from with-endoglove group, 9 from without-endoglove group). Statistically significant differences were found between groups (p<0.05). Conclusion: The use of endoglove technique of retrieval of gallbladder in pouch after laparoscopic cholecystectomy for chronic calculus cholecystitis potentially reduces port site wound infection compared to retrieval without endogloves.

Pak J Physiol 2022;18(1):23‒5

References

Sandstrom P, Bjornsson B. Bile spillage should be avoided in elective cholecystectomy. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 2019;8(6):640–2.

Taki-Eldin A, Badawy AE. Outcome of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with gallstone disease at a secondary level care hospital. ABCD. Arq Bras Cir Dig 2018;31(1):e1347.

Alexander HC, Bartlett AS, Wells CI, Hannam JA, Moore MR, Poole GH, et al. Reporting of complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review. HPB (Oxford) 2018;20(9):786–94.

Protic M, Veljkovic R, Bilchik AJ, Popovic A, Kresoja M, Nissan A, et al. Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing standard analgesia with combined intra-operative cystic plate and port-site local anesthesia for post-operative pain management in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2017;31(2):704–13.

Lo ZJ, Lim X, Eng D, Car J, Hong Q, Yong E, et al. Clinical and economic burden of wound care in the tropics: a 5‐year institutional population health review. Int Wound J 2020;17(3):790–803.

Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Clark MC, Barratt OA, Taktak S, Subar D, et al. Retrieval of gallbladder via umbilical versus epigastric port site during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2019;29(5):321–7.

Al-Naser MK. Port Site Infections after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. Int J Med Res Health Sci 2017;6(6):132–7.

Ni H, Li CJ, Xiang XQ. Effect of laparoscopic cholecystectomy on the inflammatory reaction, oxidative stress and cellular immune function. J Hainan Med Univ 2016;22(2):64–6.

Narayanswamy T, Prajwal RK. Is endobag effective preventing port site infections in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Our experience. Int J Surg Sci 2019;3(4):316–8.

Nooghabi AJ, Hassanpour M, Jangjoo A. Consequences of lost gallstones during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a review article. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2016;26(3):183–92.

Rehman HU, Siddiqa M, Munam AU, Khan S. Frequency of port site wound infection after gall bladder removal with or without retrieval bag in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Pak Med Assoc 2020;70:1533–7.

Kothapalli S, Kenawadekar R, Gogate A, Metgud S, Pattanshetti VM. Efficacy of powder-free surgical glove bag versus no glove bag for retrieval of the gallbladder during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a one year randomized controlled study. Era J Med Res 2019;6(1):15–21.

Peponis T, Eskesen TG, Mesar T, Saillant N, Kaafarani HM, Yeh DD, et al. Bile spillage as a risk factor for surgical site infection after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective study of 1,001 patients. J Am Coll Surg 2018;226(6):1030–5.

Darzi AA, Nikmanesh A, Bagherian F. The effect of prophylactic antibiotics on post laparoscopic cholecystectomy infectious complications: a double-blinded clinical trial. Electron Physician 2016;8(5):2308–14.

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. Int J Anat Radiol Surg 2018;7(1):SO13–8.

Begum S, Khan MR, Gill RC. Cost effectiveness of Glove Endobag in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Review of the available literature. J Pak Med Assoc 2019;69(Suppl 1):S58–61.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Published
2022-03-31
How to Cite
1.
Akhtar N, Kiyani Z, Ahmed N, Sabir F, Imran M, Gillani I. COMPARISON OF PORT SITE WOUND INFECTION WITH AND WITHOUT ENDOGLOVES TECHNIQUES FOR RETRIEVAL OF GALLBLADDER AFTER LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY. PJP [Internet]. 31Mar.2022 [cited 4Jul.2022];18(1):23-5. Available from: https://pjp.pps.org.pk/index.php/PJP/article/view/1401