Literature DB >> 1461854

Patient recovery following cholecystectomy through a 6 cm or 15 cm transverse subcostal incision: a prospective randomized clinical trial.

P J O'Dwyer1, J R McGregor, E W McDermott, J J Murphy, N J O'Higgins.   

Abstract

The effect of incision length on patient recovery following cholecystectomy has not been investigated previously. In this study, 30 patients with symptomatic gallstones were randomized to cholecystectomy through a 6 cm or 15 cm transverse subcostal incision. Postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the 6 cm incision group (median 3 days vs 5 days; P = 0.0069 Mann-Whitney U-test). In the 6 cm group analgesic requirements were reduced (median 2.5 vs 4.5 intramuscular opiate injections per patient) and recovery of depressed postoperative pulmonary function (FVC and FEV1) was faster (3% difference between groups on day 1 and 7% on day 3), although these differences did not achieve statistical significance. These results suggest that the length of incision may influence patient recovery following elective cholecystectomy. This has important implications as surgery carried out through shorter and less traumatic incisions may offer a cost-effective alternative to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Moreover, some surgeons may find mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy easier to adopt than laparoscopic techniques.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1461854      PMCID: PMC2399524          DOI: 10.1136/pgmj.68.804.817

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Postgrad Med J        ISSN: 0032-5473            Impact factor:   2.401


  8 in total

1.  Cholecystectomy through a 5 cm subcostal incision.

Authors:  P J O'Dwyer; J J Murphy; N J O'Higgins
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 6.939

2.  Minimal trauma cholecystectomy (a "no-touch" procedure in a "well").

Authors:  J R Merrill
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  1988-05       Impact factor: 0.688

3.  Interruption of professional and home activity after laparoscopic cholecystectomy among French and American patients.

Authors:  G C Vitale; D Collet; G M Larson; W G Cheadle; F B Miller; J Perissat
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1991-03       Impact factor: 2.565

4.  Laparoscopic laser cholecystectomy. A comparison with mini-lap cholecystectomy.

Authors:  E J Reddick; D O Olsen
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  The stabilized ring retractor: a technique for cholecystectomy.

Authors:  R C Russell; S Shankar
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 6.939

6.  Ambulatory cholecystectomy without disability.

Authors:  W P Ledet
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1990-11

7.  Subcostal incision versus midline laparotomy in gallstone surgery: a prospective and randomized trial.

Authors:  J C García-Valdecasas; R Almenara; C Cabrer; A M de Lacy; M Sust; P Taurá; J Fuster; L Grande; M Pera; J Sentis
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1988-05       Impact factor: 6.939

8.  [Cholecystectomy through minimal incision (author's transl)].

Authors:  F Dubois; B Berthelot
Journal:  Nouv Presse Med       Date:  1982-04-03
  8 in total
  11 in total

1.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study.

Authors:  A Ros; L Gustafsson; H Krook; C E Nordgren; A Thorell; G Wallin; E Nilsson
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 12.969

2.  A study of actions in operative notes.

Authors:  Yan Wang; Serguei Pakhomov; Nora E Burkart; James O Ryan; Genevieve B Melton
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2012-11-03

3.  Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS(®)) Society recommendations.

Authors:  U O Gustafsson; M J Scott; W Schwenk; N Demartines; D Roulin; N Francis; C E McNaught; J Macfie; A S Liberman; M Soop; A Hill; R H Kennedy; D N Lobo; K Fearon; O Ljungqvist
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Comparison of the neuroendocrine and inflammatory responses after laparoscopic and abdominal hysterectomy.

Authors:  Tae Kwane Kim; Jun Rho Yoon
Journal:  Korean J Anesthesiol       Date:  2010-10-21

5.  Small-incision (mini-laparotomy) versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a retrospective study in a university hospital.

Authors:  Theodoros Syrakos; Polichronis Antonitsis; Emmanouil Zacharakis; Athanasios Takis; Antonia Manousari; Konstantinos Bakogiannis; George Efthimiopoulos; Ignatios Achoulias; Anastasia Trikoupi; Dimitrios Kiskinis
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2004-05-07       Impact factor: 3.445

6.  Predicate argument structure frames for modeling information in operative notes.

Authors:  Yan Wang; Serguei Pakhomov; Genevieve B Melton
Journal:  Stud Health Technol Inform       Date:  2013

Review 7.  Laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis.

Authors:  F Keus; J A F de Jong; H G Gooszen; C J H M van Laarhoven
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2006-10-18

8.  Mini-cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a retrospective multicentric study among patients operated in some Eastern Libyan hospitals.

Authors:  Aimen Almahjoub; Osama Elfaedy; Salah Mansor; Ali Rabea; Abdugadir Abdulrahman; Almontaser Alhussaen
Journal:  Turk J Surg       Date:  2019-09-23

Review 9.  Small-incision versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis.

Authors:  F Keus; J A F de Jong; H G Gooszen; C J H M van Laarhoven
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2006-10-18

10.  Non-randomised patients in a cholecystectomy trial: characteristics, procedures, and outcomes.

Authors:  Axel Ros; Per Carlsson; Mikael Rahmqvist; Karin Bäckman; Erik Nilsson
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2006-12-26       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.