Scarless surgery is a hot topic in minimally invasive surgery in recent years and is the inevitable result of the interaction between the evolving technology of minimally invasive surgery itself and the surgeon’s need to meet the patient’s aesthetic humanization. The gallbladder is located within the abdominal cavity and to remove it we must have access to the abdominal cavity with our vision and surgical instruments. The laparoscopic removal of the gallbladder by poking holes in the abdominal wall is obviously significantly less invasive, has a much faster postoperative recovery, and has a very aesthetically pleasing postoperative abdomen compared to cesarean cholecystectomy. However, neither the physician nor the patient felt that the result was perfect, and the seeds of thought for further elimination of the surgical scar were planted from the beginning. Since 2005, “transnatural cavity” and “transumbilical” removal of the gallbladder have been introduced and have attracted a lot of attention. The former is to transfer the surgical route to the gastric cavity, vagina or other natural cavity to achieve the purpose of leaving no scar on the abdominal wall; the latter is to concentrate all the poking holes in the belly button, using this natural form to cover up the surgical scar. It can be called the same thing! However, these two methods have major drawbacks at this stage. In addition to aesthetics, the transnatural cavity has no substantial advantages over the transabdominal wall, but on the contrary, one can imagine that there must be serious safety risks: first, contamination or infection of the abdominal cavity, and second, the extreme complexity and instability of the surgical procedure, especially the transgastric route. The so-called transumbilical approach is nothing more than the concentration of all three poke holes originally distributed in the umbilicus and upper abdomen in the umbilicus. This approach also clearly comes at the expense of increased surgical difficulty and safety. In contrast, the latter is easier to perform than the former. However, the former is more challenging for human intelligence and super control of technology, and although there are successful cases, there is still a long way to go before it is practical. So can we find a simpler and easier alternative? Since the ultimate goal of our efforts is to see no surgical scar after surgery, it is only necessary that the person actually receiving the treatment thinks that he or she or others cannot see the traces of the surgery. This is the principle of equivalence. In fact, I have been researching this area since I started laparoscopic surgery, and I have continued to work toward this goal, evolving from four-hole to three-hole, from conventional poke to mini-poke, and from three-hole to two-hole.