BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the standard of care for symptomatic gallstone disease but when laparoscopic removal proves impossible the standard advice is to convert to open surgery. This jettisons the advantages of laparoscopy for a procedure which surgeons no longer perform routinely, so it may no longer be the safest practice. We hypothesised that gallbladder aspiration would be a safer alternative when laparoscopic removal is impossible. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of all laparoscopic cholecystectomies attempted under one surgeon's care over 19 years, and the outcomes of gallbladder aspiration were compared with the standard conversion-to-open procedure within the same institution. RESULTS: Of 757 laparoscopic cholecystectomies attempted, 714 (94.3%) were successful, while 40 (5.3%) were impossible laparoscopically and underwent gallbladder aspiration. Interval cholecystectomy was later performed in 34/40 (85%). Only 3/757 (0.4%) were converted to open. No aspiration-related complications occurred and excessive bile leakage from the gallbladder was not observed. During this time 1209 laparoscopic cholecystectomies were attempted by other surgeons in the institution of which 55 (4.55%) were converted to open and 22 (40%) had procedure-associated complications. There was a significant difference in the mean (± SEM) post-operative hospital stay between laparoscopic gallbladder aspiration [3.12 (± 0.558) days] and institutional conversion-to-open cholecystectomy [9.38 (± 1.04) days] (p < 0.001), with attendant cost savings. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic gallbladder aspiration is a safe alternative to conversion when inflammation makes cholecystectomy impossible laparoscopically, especially in the sickest patients and for surgeons with limited open surgery experience. This approach minimises morbidity and permits laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the majority after a suitable interval or referral of predicted difficult cases to specialist hepatobiliary centres.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the standard of care for symptomatic gallstone disease but when laparoscopic removal proves impossible the standard advice is to convert to open surgery. This jettisons the advantages of laparoscopy for a procedure which surgeons no longer perform routinely, so it may no longer be the safest practice. We hypothesised that gallbladder aspiration would be a safer alternative when laparoscopic removal is impossible. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of all laparoscopic cholecystectomies attempted under one surgeon's care over 19 years, and the outcomes of gallbladder aspiration were compared with the standard conversion-to-open procedure within the same institution. RESULTS: Of 757 laparoscopic cholecystectomies attempted, 714 (94.3%) were successful, while 40 (5.3%) were impossible laparoscopically and underwent gallbladder aspiration. Interval cholecystectomy was later performed in 34/40 (85%). Only 3/757 (0.4%) were converted to open. No aspiration-related complications occurred and excessive bile leakage from the gallbladder was not observed. During this time 1209 laparoscopic cholecystectomies were attempted by other surgeons in the institution of which 55 (4.55%) were converted to open and 22 (40%) had procedure-associated complications. There was a significant difference in the mean (± SEM) post-operative hospital stay between laparoscopic gallbladder aspiration [3.12 (± 0.558) days] and institutional conversion-to-open cholecystectomy [9.38 (± 1.04) days] (p < 0.001), with attendant cost savings. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic gallbladder aspiration is a safe alternative to conversion when inflammation makes cholecystectomy impossible laparoscopically, especially in the sickest patients and for surgeons with limited open surgery experience. This approach minimises morbidity and permits laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the majority after a suitable interval or referral of predicted difficult cases to specialist hepatobiliary centres.
Authors: Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Matthias Egger; Stuart J Pocock; Peter C Gøtzsche; Jan P Vandenbroucke Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-10-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Haytham M A Kaafarani; Tracy Schifftner Smith; Leigh Neumayer; David H Berger; Ralph G Depalma; Kamal M F Itani Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 2.565