Literature DB >> 11360058

Randomized comparison of conventional and gasless laparoscopic cholecystectomy: operative technique, postoperative course, and recovery.

J F Larsen1, P Ejstrud, J U Kristensen, F Svendsen, F Redke, V Pedersen.   

Abstract

The positive CO2 pneumoperitoneum needed to create the working space for laparoscopic surgery induces cardiovascular, neuroendocrine, and renal changes. Concern about these pathophysiologic changes has led to the introduction of a gasless technique. Fifty consecutive patients with symptomatic gallstones were randomized to conventional (CLC) or gasless laparoscopic cholecystectomy (GLC), with special reference to overall patient satisfaction, technical difficulties, duration of surgery, postoperative pain, and recovery. The overall exposure of the operative field was extremely poor in the GLC group, whereas the duration of surgery, steps involved in the cholecystectomy technique, length of hospital stay, and postoperative pain score did not differ significantly. After discharge, the median time to complete relief of pain tended to be shorter in the gasless group (5 days [range 1 to 15]) vs. the conventional group (8 days [range 1 to 15]). The period to return to normal activity was shorter in the GLC group (6 days [range 1 to 15]) compared to the CLC group (8.5 days [range 1 to 15]) (P = 0.031). No differences were found in terms of fatigue, dizziness and nausea, and overall satisfaction with the outcome. This study demonstrates a significantly shorter convalescence after laparoscopic cholecystectomy by means of the gasless technique compared to the conventional CO2 technique. Exposure of the operative field was less than optimal using the gasless technique.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11360058     DOI: 10.1016/s1091-255x(01)80056-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg        ISSN: 1091-255X            Impact factor:   3.452


  12 in total

1.  A randomized comparison of gasless laparoscopy and CO2 pneumoperitoneum.

Authors:  J M Goldberg; W G Maurer
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 2.  Cardiovascular consequences of laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  A D Struthers; A Cuschieri
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998-08-15       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 3.  Gasless laparoscopy.

Authors:  I G Martin; M J McMahon
Journal:  J R Coll Surg Edinb       Date:  1996-04

4.  Gasless laparoscopic cholecystectomy: comparison of postoperative recovery with conventional technique.

Authors:  A M Koivusalo; I Kellokumpu; L Lindgren
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 9.166

5.  Alterations of cardiovascular performance during laparoscopic colectomy: a combined hemodynamic and echocardiographic analysis.

Authors:  S N Harris; G H Ballantyne; M A Luther; A C Perrino
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 5.108

6.  Laparoscopy. Gasless vs. CO2 pneumoperitoneum.

Authors:  P L Johnson; K S Sibert
Journal:  J Reprod Med       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 0.142

7.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using abdominal wall retraction. Hemodynamics and gas exchange, a comparison with conventional pneumoperitoneum.

Authors:  D W Meijer; B P Rademaker; S Schlooz; W A Bemelman; L T de Wit; J J Bannenberg; T Stijnen; D F Gouma
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Transoesophageal echocardiographic assessment of haemodynamic function during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  A J Cunningham; J Turner; S Rosenbaum; T Rafferty
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 9.166

9.  Cardiovascular and respiratory changes and convalescence in laparoscopic colonic surgery: comparison between carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum and gasless laparoscopy.

Authors:  S Schulze; K M Lyng; K Bugge; A Perner; A Bendtsen; J Thorup; H J Nielsen; V Rasmussen; J Rosenberg
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1999-10

10.  Pulmonary function, pain, and fatigue after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  S Schulze; J Thorup
Journal:  Eur J Surg       Date:  1993 Jun-Jul
View more
  7 in total

1.  The role of gasless laparoscopy in differential diagnosis of acute abdomen.

Authors:  M A Moga; C A Arvatescu; G C Pratilas; N F Bigiu; K Dinas; V Burtea
Journal:  Hippokratia       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 0.471

Review 2.  A procedure-specific systematic review and consensus recommendations for postoperative analgesia following laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  H Kehlet; A W Gray; F Bonnet; F Camu; H B J Fischer; R F McCloy; E A M Neugebauer; M M Puig; N Rawal; C J P Simanski
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-08-11       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Gasless laparoscopy for benign gynecological diseases using an abdominal wall-lifting system.

Authors:  Yue Wang; Heng Cui; Yan Zhao; Zhi-qi Wang
Journal:  J Zhejiang Univ Sci B       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 3.066

Review 4.  Surgical techniques to minimize shoulder pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A systematic review.

Authors:  Anders Meller Donatsky; Flemming Bjerrum; Ismail Gögenur
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-01-24       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Comparison of a new gasless method and the conventional CO2 pneumoperitoneum method in laparoendoscopic single-site cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Min Jiang; Gang Zhao; Anhua Huang; Kai Zhang; Bo Wang; Zhaoyan Jiang; Kan Ding; Hai Hu
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2021-08-31

Review 6.  Clinical effectiveness of gasless laparoscopic surgery for abdominal conditions: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  N Aruparayil; W Bolton; A Mishra; L Bains; J Gnanaraj; R King; T Ensor; N King; D Jayne; B Shinkins
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2021-08-16       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Cost-effectiveness of gasless laparoscopy as a means to increase provision of minimally invasive surgery for abdominal conditions in rural North-East India.

Authors:  Bryony Dawkins; Noel Aruparayil; Tim Ensor; Jesudian Gnanaraj; Julia Brown; David Jayne; Bethany Shinkins
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-08-03       Impact factor: 3.752

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.