Author
Listed:
- Md. Jahidul Islam
(Shaheed M. Monsur Ali Medical College, Bangladesh)
- Amiya Dev Bhatta
(Shaheed M. Monsur Ali Medical College Hospital, Bangladesh)
- Md Aziz Ullah
(Comilla Medical College, Bangladesh)
- Shaheen Akter
(Khwaja Yunus Ali Medical College, Bangladesh)
Abstract
Introduction: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is bread-and-butter not only for hepatobiliary surgeons, but also for general surgeons. To secure cystic duct clips are used routinely. Suture ligation of cystic duct and its various methods have been also described. But there is insufficient studies comparing the various methods prospectively. Objectives: To compare feasibility, operative time (incision to closer), postoperative pain, operative cost, complications of procedure, and cosmetic outcome between patients treated by laparoscopic cholecystectomy with either extracorporeal knotting or clip ligation of cystic duct. Methodology: This was a randomized controlled trial conducted from July 2021 to June 2024. Study patients selected for laparoscopic cholecystectomy were assigned by randomization in to two groups: patients who were treated by extracorporeal knotting through 5 mm epigastric port (study group), and in control group where clips were used. Results: Five hundred and six cases were subjected to laparoscopic cholecystectomy during study period. In study group, operation was significantly prolonged (68.25 Vs. 59.37minutes). Ligation of cystic duct by using suture is cost effective than clips (300 vs. 500 BDT). Both groups had no significant complications. Clip less study group shows cosmetic superiority than clipped control group. Conclusion: Extracorporeal ligation of cystic duct is safe, economic and cosmetically better in comparison to clip ligation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The limitation is operative time.
Suggested Citation
Md. Jahidul Islam & Amiya Dev Bhatta & Md Aziz Ullah & Shaheen Akter, 2025.
"Clip-Less Extracorporeal Knot Versus Clip Ligation Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy—A Randomized Controlled Trial,"
European Journal of Medical and Health Sciences, European Open Science, vol. 7(5), pages 94-98, September.
Handle:
RePEc:epw:ejmed0:v:7:y:2025:i:5:id:42350
DOI: 10.24018/ejmed.2025.7.5.2350
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:epw:ejmed0:v:7:y:2025:i:5:id:42350. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://eu-opensci.org/index.php/ejmed .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.