BACKGROUND: When performing cholecystectomy after gastrectomy, we often encounter problems, such as adhesions, nutritional insufficiency, and bowel reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to identify the factors related to surgical outcome of these associated procedures, with emphasis on the use of a laparoscopic approach. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 58 patients who had a history of cholecystectomy after gastrectomy. Differences between subgroups with respect to operation time, length of postoperative hospital stay, and complications were analyzed. To identify the factors related with outcomes of cholecystectomy after gastrectomy, we performed multivariable analysis with the following variables: common bile duct (CBD) exploration, laparoscopic surgery, gender, acute cholecystitis, history of stomach cancer, age, body mass index, period of surgery, and interval between cholecystectomy and gastrectomy. RESULTS: We found one case (2.9%) of open conversion. The CBD exploration was the most significant independent factor (adjusted odds ratio (OR), 45.15; 95% confidence interval (CI), 4.53-450.55) related to longer operation time. Acute cholecystitis also was a significant independent factor (adjusted OR, 14.66; 95% CI, 1.46-147.4). The laparoscopic approach was not related to operation time but was related to a shorter hospital stay (adjusted OR, 0.057; 95% CI, 0.004-0.74). Acute cholecystitis was independently related to the occurrence of complications (adjusted OR, 27.68; 95% CI, 1.15-666.24); however, CBD exploration and laparoscopic surgery were not. A lower BMI also was an independent predictor of the occurrence of complications (adjusted OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.2-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: The laparoscopic approach is feasible for cholecystectomy after gastrectomy, even in cases with CBD stones or acute cholecystitis. This approach does not appear to increase operation time or complication rate and was shown to decrease the length of postoperative hospital stay.
BACKGROUND: When performing cholecystectomy after gastrectomy, we often encounter problems, such as adhesions, nutritional insufficiency, and bowel reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to identify the factors related to surgical outcome of these associated procedures, with emphasis on the use of a laparoscopic approach. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 58 patients who had a history of cholecystectomy after gastrectomy. Differences between subgroups with respect to operation time, length of postoperative hospital stay, and complications were analyzed. To identify the factors related with outcomes of cholecystectomy after gastrectomy, we performed multivariable analysis with the following variables: common bile duct (CBD) exploration, laparoscopic surgery, gender, acute cholecystitis, history of stomach cancer, age, body mass index, period of surgery, and interval between cholecystectomy and gastrectomy. RESULTS: We found one case (2.9%) of open conversion. The CBD exploration was the most significant independent factor (adjusted odds ratio (OR), 45.15; 95% confidence interval (CI), 4.53-450.55) related to longer operation time. Acute cholecystitis also was a significant independent factor (adjusted OR, 14.66; 95% CI, 1.46-147.4). The laparoscopic approach was not related to operation time but was related to a shorter hospital stay (adjusted OR, 0.057; 95% CI, 0.004-0.74). Acute cholecystitis was independently related to the occurrence of complications (adjusted OR, 27.68; 95% CI, 1.15-666.24); however, CBD exploration and laparoscopic surgery were not. A lower BMI also was an independent predictor of the occurrence of complications (adjusted OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.2-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: The laparoscopic approach is feasible for cholecystectomy after gastrectomy, even in cases with CBD stones or acute cholecystitis. This approach does not appear to increase operation time or complication rate and was shown to decrease the length of postoperative hospital stay.
Authors: C Poitou Bernert; C Ciangura; M Coupaye; S Czernichow; J L Bouillot; A Basdevant Journal: Diabetes Metab Date: 2007-01-26 Impact factor: 6.041
Authors: Jason T Wiseman; Maia N Sharuk; Anand Singla; Mitchell Cahan; Demetrius E M Litwin; Jennifer F Tseng; Shimul A Shah Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2010-05
Authors: Bernabé M Quesada; Gustavo Kohan; Hernán E Roff; Carlos M Canullán; Luis T Chiappetta Porras Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2010-05-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Marco Farsi; Marco Bernini; Lapo Bencini; Egidio Miranda; Roberto Manetti; Giovanni de Manzoni; Giuseppe Verlato; Daniele Marrelli; Corrado Pedrazzani; Francesco Roviello; Alberto Marchet; Luigi Cristadoro; Leonardo Gerard; Renato Moretti Journal: Trials Date: 2009-05-15 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Thejus T Jayakrishnan; Ryan T Groeschl; Ben George; James P Thomas; Sam Pappas; T Clark Gamblin; Kiran K Turaga Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Marlin W Causey; Doug Stoddard; Eric K Johnson; Justin A Maykel; Matthew J Martin; David Rivadeneira; Scott R Steele Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-09-07 Impact factor: 4.584