Literature DB >> 12163955

Ambulatory and admitted laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients have comparable outcomes but different functional health status.

R E Burney1, K R Jones.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is frequently an ambulatory procedure, but some patients are best admitted for a brief hospital stay. In this study, we compared the functional health status, symptoms, and outcomes of patients undergoing ambulatory elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy to those with brief hospital admission. The purpose was to assess patient satisfaction and to identify factors that might assist in selecting patients for ambulatory vs short-stay operations.
METHODS: A total of 140 patients scheduled for elective cholecystectomy completed the SF-36 health survey and provided additional information regarding symptoms preoperatively, at 2 months, and at 6 months after operation.
RESULTS: All patients had symptomatic gallstones; 76 were admitted to the hospital, and 64 were ambulatory. Admitted patients reported more emotional role limitations on preoperative SF-36. They also reported symptoms of depression more often. Patients in both groups were equally relieved of symptoms of pain, nausea, vomiting, and tenderness. Satisfaction with care was similar for both groups; however, at 2 and 6 months, admitted patients continued to report significantly poorer functional health status than ambulatory patients.
CONCLUSION: A reliable, reproducible measure of functional health status, such as the SF-36, may be useful for identifying patients who are appropriate for short-stay hospital admission after laparoscopic cholecystectomy as part of a decision process that tries to optimize outcomes while utilizing resources efficiently.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12163955     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-001-8201-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  9 in total

1.  The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.

Authors:  J E Ware; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Is outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy wise?

Authors:  C J Saunders; B F Leary; B M Wolfe
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  149 ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomies.

Authors:  M A Fiorillo; P G Davidson; M Fiorillo; J A D'Anna; N Sithian; R J Silich
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Outcomes of 847 planned procedures.

Authors:  W S Richardson; G S Fuhrman; E Burch; J S Bolton; J C Bowen
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups.

Authors:  C A McHorney; J E Ware; J F Lu; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  The outcomes of elective laparoscopic and open cholecystectomies.

Authors:  R L Kane; N Lurie; C Borbas; N Morris; S Flood; B McLaughlin; G Nemanich; A Schultz
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 6.113

7.  Influence of cholecystectomy on symptoms.

Authors:  T Bates; S R Ebbs; M Harrison; R P A'Hern
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 6.939

Review 8.  Gallstones and laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors: 
Journal:  NIH Consens Statement       Date:  1992 Sep 14-16

Review 9.  What symptoms does cholecystectomy cure? Insights from an outcomes measurement project and review of the literature.

Authors:  L F Fenster; R Lonborg; R C Thirlby; L W Traverso
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 2.565

  9 in total
  7 in total

Review 1.  Persistent and de novo symptoms after cholecystectomy: a systematic review of cholecystectomy effectiveness.

Authors:  Mark P Lamberts; Marjolein Lugtenberg; Maroeska M Rovers; Anne J Roukema; Joost P H Drenth; Gert P Westert; Cornelis J H M van Laarhoven
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-10-06       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Male gender is not a risk factor for the outcome of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a single surgeon experience.

Authors:  Abdulmohsen A Al-Mulhim
Journal:  Saudi J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.485

3.  Assessing patient-reported outcomes of cholecystectomy in short-stay surgery.

Authors:  Eva Maria Bitzer; Christoph Lorenz; Stefan Nickel; Hans Dörning; Alf Trojan
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-04-10       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Outpatient laparoscopic surgery: feasibility and consequences for education and health care costs.

Authors:  J Skattum; B Edwin; E Trondsen; O Mjåland; J Raede; T Buanes
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Patient-centered outcomes after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Matthew Zapf; Woody Denham; Ermilo Barrera; Zeeshan Butt; JoAnn Carbray; Chih Wang; John Linn; Michael Ujiki
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-08-13       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Newer anesthesia and rehabilitation protocols enable outpatient hip replacement in selected patients.

Authors:  Richard A Berger; Sheila A Sanders; Elizabeth S Thill; Scott M Sporer; Craig Della Valle
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-02-28       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 7.  A systematic review of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and quality of life reporting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Prita Daliya; Elizabeth H Gemmill; Dileep N Lobo; Simon L Parsons
Journal:  Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 7.293

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.