Literature DB >> 17054285

Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis.

F Keus1, J A F de Jong, H G Gooszen, C J H M van Laarhoven.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cholecystectomy is one of the most frequently performed operations. Open cholecystectomy has been the gold standard for over 100 years. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was introduced in the 1980s.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched TheCochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (April 2004), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (1980 to January 2004), Web of Science (1988 to January 2004), and CINAHL (1982 to January 2004) for randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished randomised trials in patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis comparing any kind of laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus any kind of open cholecystectomy. No language limitations were applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed selection of trials and data extraction. The methodological quality of the generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up was evaluated to assess bias risk. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. Authors were requested additional information in case of missing data. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed when appropriate. MAIN
RESULTS: Thirty-eight trials randomised 2338 patients. Most of the trials had high bias risk. There was no significant difference regarding mortality (risk difference 0,00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.01). Meta-analysis of all trials suggests less overall complications in the laparoscopic group, but the high-quality trials show no significant difference ('allocation concealment' high-quality trials risk difference, random effects -0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.02). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients have a shorter hospital stay (weighted mean difference (WMD), random effects -3 days, 95% CI -3.9 to -2.3) and convalescence (WMD, random effects -22.5 days, 95% CI -36.9 to -8.1) compared to open cholecystectomy. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were observed in mortality, complications and operative time between laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay and a quicker convalescence compared with the classical open cholecystectomy. These results confirm the existing preference for the laparoscopic cholecystectomy over open cholecystectomy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17054285     DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006231

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  199 in total

1.  Safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of common laparoscopic procedures.

Authors:  Manish M Tiwari; Jason F Reynoso; Robin High; Albert W Tsang; Dmitry Oleynikov
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-10-07       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  Status of robotic assistance--a less traumatic and more accurate minimally invasive surgery?

Authors:  H G Kenngott; L Fischer; F Nickel; J Rom; J Rassweiler; B P Müller-Stich
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2011-10-29       Impact factor: 3.445

3.  A 10-step intraoperative surgical checklist (ISC) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy-can it really reduce conversion rates to open cholecystectomy?

Authors:  William B Robb; Gavin A Falk; John O Larkin; Ronan Waldron; Ronan P Waldron
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2012-04-20       Impact factor: 3.452

4.  Outcome of laparoscopic cholecystectomy conversion: is the surgeon's selection needed?

Authors:  Sandra C Donkervoort; Lea M Dijksman; Lincey C F de Nes; Pieter G Versluis; Joris Derksen; Michael F Gerhards
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-03-08       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Cost utility of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis.

Authors:  Amanda Johner; Adam Raymakers; Sam M Wiseman
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-07-07       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 6.  Elective open versus laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease: a meta-analysis with the Sigma trial.

Authors:  Muhammed R S Siddiqui; Muhammed S Sajid; Kamran Khatri; Elizabeth Cheek; Mirza K Baig
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 7.  Minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Authors:  Fernando A Herbella; Marco G Patti
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-08-14       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Applicability and feasibility of incorporating minimally invasive esophagectomy at a high volume center.

Authors:  Brittany L Willer; Sumeet K Mittal; Stephanie G Worrell; Seemal Mumtaz; Tommy H Lee
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2010-06-08       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 9.  [Value of laparoscopic liver resection].

Authors:  M R Schön
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 0.955

10.  Case-matched comparison of the retroperitoneal approach with laparotomy for necrotizing pancreatitis.

Authors:  Hjalmar C van Santvoort; Marc G Besselink; Thomas L Bollen; Erik Buskens; Bert van Ramshorst; Hein G Gooszen
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2007-06-16       Impact factor: 3.352

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.