Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://148.72.244.84/xmlui/handle/xmlui/6006
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorAhmed Modher Khalaf-
dc.contributor.authorHazim Jabbar Kashtal-
dc.contributor.authorAmir Hinbis Masawod-
dc.date.accessioned2023-10-22T14:45:54Z-
dc.date.available2023-10-22T14:45:54Z-
dc.date.issued2021-04-
dc.identifier.citationhttps://doi.org/10.26505/DJM.20015620915en_US
dc.identifier.issnPrint ISSN 2219-9764-
dc.identifier.issnOnline ISSN 2617-8982-
dc.identifier.urihttps://djm.uodiyala.edu.iq/index.php/djm-
dc.identifier.urihttp://148.72.244.84:8080/xmlui/handle/xmlui/6006-
dc.description.abstractBackground: A four trocar laparoscopic cholecystectomy become the standard procedure since the first laparoscopic procedure was reported. But laparoscopic cholecystectomy has gained many steps such as reduction in port number and size. Objective: To compare Clinical results from three ports versus the traditional four ports in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients and Methods: A prospective randomized clinical trial of 100 patients was done on those who were admitted for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Baquba teaching hospital, between April 2014 and March 2015, patients were classified into two groups (A) for three ports and (B) for 4 ports. Variables such as, complications, operative time, postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting were assessed. Results: One-hundred patients were included in this study, age of them ranged from 18-70 year and a male to female ratio was 1:9. There were no significant differences in demographic data between the two groups. Postoperative pain, analgesic requirements, nausea and vomiting, and hospital stay were slightly more in group B but statistically not significant. Postoperative return to activity was shorter in group A 6.10 versus 7.00 days for group B with (p= 0.021) which is statistically significant. There is no difference in the rate of complications. Conclusion: Three ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy is feasible as an alternative for four ports without any significant complication.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherUniversity of Diyala - College of Medicineen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesVol 20;Issue 1-
dc.subjectLaparoscopyen_US
dc.subjectCholecystectomyen_US
dc.subjectPostoperative complicationsen_US
dc.titleThree Ports Versus Four Ports Laporoscopic Cholecystectomyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Appears in Collections:مجلة ديالى الطبية / Diyala Journal of Medicine

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
3-Ahmed modher khalaf.pdf291.1 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.