BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard procedure for gallbladder removal. Conversion to an open procedure is sometimes deemed necessary, especially in complex cases in which a prolonged laparoscopic operative time is anticipated. A prolonged LC case is thought to be associated with increased complications and cost and therefore generally discouraged. The purpose of this study was to test this assumption, and compare outcomes and cost of converted and prolonged LC cases. METHODS: By using institutional National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and financial databases, we retrospectively reviewed and compared prolonged laparoscopic cases (Long-LC) with converted (CONV) procedures. Surgical times, length of stay (LOS), 30-day complications, operative room, and total hospital charges were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: A total of 101 Long-LC and 66 CONV cases met our inclusion criteria. Long-LC cases were 19 minutes longer than CONV cases (123 vs 104 min; P < .01). No differences in postoperative complications were found between the 2 groups (P > .05). When Poisson regression was used, we found that LOS was significantly shorter in the Long-LC compared with CONV group (1 day vs 4 days; P < .01). Long-LC cases had greater operative charges ($15,278 vs $13,128; P < .01). However, hospital charges for Long-LC cases were 26% less than for CONV cases ($23,946 vs $32,446; P < .01). CONCLUSION: Conversion is associated with a 3-day increase in LOS. Long-LC cases have greater operative room charges, but overall hospital charges were 26% less than CONV cases. Our data suggest that decision making regarding conversion should focus on safety and not time considerations.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard procedure for gallbladder removal. Conversion to an open procedure is sometimes deemed necessary, especially in complex cases in which a prolonged laparoscopic operative time is anticipated. A prolonged LC case is thought to be associated with increased complications and cost and therefore generally discouraged. The purpose of this study was to test this assumption, and compare outcomes and cost of converted and prolonged LC cases. METHODS: By using institutional National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and financial databases, we retrospectively reviewed and compared prolonged laparoscopic cases (Long-LC) with converted (CONV) procedures. Surgical times, length of stay (LOS), 30-day complications, operative room, and total hospital charges were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: A total of 101 Long-LC and 66 CONV cases met our inclusion criteria. Long-LC cases were 19 minutes longer than CONV cases (123 vs 104 min; P < .01). No differences in postoperative complications were found between the 2 groups (P > .05). When Poisson regression was used, we found that LOS was significantly shorter in the Long-LC compared with CONV group (1 day vs 4 days; P < .01). Long-LC cases had greater operative charges ($15,278 vs $13,128; P < .01). However, hospital charges for Long-LC cases were 26% less than for CONV cases ($23,946 vs $32,446; P < .01). CONCLUSION: Conversion is associated with a 3-day increase in LOS. Long-LC cases have greater operative room charges, but overall hospital charges were 26% less than CONV cases. Our data suggest that decision making regarding conversion should focus on safety and not time considerations.
Authors: J A Shea; M J Healey; J A Berlin; J R Clarke; P F Malet; R N Staroscik; J S Schwartz; S V Williams Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1996-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Balazs I Lengyel; Dan Azagury; Oliver Varban; Maria T Panizales; Jill Steinberg; David C Brooks; Stanley W Ashley; Ali Tavakkolizadeh Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-09-23 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Rachel M Owen; Sebastian D Perez; Nathan Lytle; Ankit Patel; S S Davis; Edward Lin; John F Sweeney Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-04-13 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Natallia Kharytaniuk; Gary A Bass; Bogdan D Dumbrava; Paul P Healy; Dylan Viani-Walsh; Tej N Tiwary; Tahir Abassi; Matthew P Murphy; Emma Griffin; Thomas N Walsh Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-11-25 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: K Cremer; F W H Kloppenberg; J W Vanhommerig; L M Dijksman; N Bode; S C Donkervoort Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-01-09 Impact factor: 3.453
Authors: S C Donkervoort; K Kortram; L M Dijksman; M A Boermeester; B van Ramshorst; D Boerma Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Thomas C C Boerlage; Sylke Haal; L Maurits de Brauw; Yair I Z Acherman; Sjoerd Bruin; Arnold W J M van de Laar; Daan E Moes; Bart A van Wagensveld; Claire E E de Vries; Ruben van Veen; Ruben Schouten; Marcel G Dijkgraaf; Paul Fockens; Victor E A Gerdes; Rogier P Voermans Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 3.067