Literature DB >> 1826622

Conventional versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the randomized controlled trial. Cholecystectomy Study Group.

E Neugebauer1, H Troidl, W Spangenberger, A Dietrich, R Lefering.   

Abstract

We considered using a randomized trial to assess the value of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the treatment of symptomatic gallstones. The pros and cons for the timing of such a trial were in favour of not beginning the trial until surgeons learned to use the new procedure safely and effectively, and until key endpoints and outcome indices could be identified and assessed using valid measures. Instead an observational study was implemented to monitor the learning curve of surgeons as they mastered the laparoscopic equipment and procedures, and to assess the responses of the patients to the procedure. In the first 100 patients, the procedure proved to be as safe and feasible to use as conventional surgery, and there were strong benefits in terms of quicker recovery of the patients with less pain, discomfort, and a reduced length of hospital stay. The responses of the surgeons and the patients to the new procedure now place ethical constraints on the planning of a randomized controlled trial. Currently, comprehensive surveillance and monitoring of laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the only realistic method with which to assess the impact of this new technology in our clinic.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1826622     DOI: 10.1002/bjs.1800780207

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Surg        ISSN: 0007-1323            Impact factor:   6.939


  48 in total

1.  Physiologic responses to laparoscopic aortofemoral bypass grafting in an animal model.

Authors:  J Byrne; J W Hallett; D M Ilstrup
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 12.969

2.  Recent results of elective open cholecystectomy in a North American and a European center. Comparison of complications and risk factors.

Authors:  P A Clavien; J R Sanabria; G Mentha; F Borst; L Buhler; B Roche; R Cywes; R Tibshirani; A Rohner; S M Strasberg
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Laparoscopic or minilaparotomy cholecystectomy?

Authors:  J N Baxter; P J O'Dwyer
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-02-29

Review 4.  Delayed assessment and eager adoption of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: implications for developing surgical technologies.

Authors:  Alexander C Allori; I Michael Leitman; Elizabeth Heitman
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-09-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  General surgery.

Authors:  I Taylor
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  1991-10       Impact factor: 2.401

6.  EAES recommendations on methodology of innovation management in endoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Edmund A M Neugebauer; Monika Becker; Gerhard F Buess; Alfred Cuschieri; Hans-Peter Dauben; Abe Fingerhut; Karl H Fuchs; Brigitte Habermalz; Leonid Lantsberg; Mario Morino; Stella Reiter-Theil; Gabriela Soskuty; Wolfgang Wayand; Thilo Welsch
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-01-07       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 7.  Video assisted thoracic surgery for spontaneous pneumothorax.

Authors:  R G Berrisford; R D Page
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 9.139

8.  Endoscopic management of peptic ulcer disease.

Authors:  H L Laws; J B McKernan
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Minicholecystectomy vs conventional cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized trial--implications in the laparoscopic era.

Authors:  A Assalia; M Schein; D Kopelman; M Hashmonai
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  1993 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.352

10.  Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy. Initial experience.

Authors:  G C Hoffman; J W Baker; C W Fitchett; J H Vansant
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 12.969

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.