Literature DB >> 8480881

Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy: the Canadian experience. The McGill Gallstone Treatment Group.

J S Barkun1, A N Barkun, J L Meakins.   

Abstract

Numerous uncontrolled trials have suggested that laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is a major improvement over open cholecystectomy (OC). In an effort to objectively document the benefits of LC, two Canadian studies are reviewed. The first is a matched time series based on prospective data from a single surgeon's practice in which patients are closely matched for baseline characteristics. The groups consist of 121 patients from each of 3 time periods: 1989, prior to the introduction of LC; 1990, when LC was being introduced; and 1991, when LC had become the preferred method of cholecystectomy. The second study is a randomized trial, in which LC is compared with mini-cholecystectomy. In both studies, the superior efficacy of LC is demonstrated with respect to the duration of hospitalization and the duration of postoperative convalescence. The incidence of complications as well as their severity is also less in LC patients. Although quality of life improves after any type of cholecystectomy, LC patients improve faster and seem to accept the operation better. These studies support the widespread dispersion of LC in Canada, although comparative efficacy with nonsurgical alternatives has not been addressed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8480881     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9610(05)80940-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg        ISSN: 0002-9610            Impact factor:   2.565


  17 in total

1.  A safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy depends upon the establishment of a critical view of safety.

Authors:  Yuichi Yamashita; Taizo Kimura; Sumio Matsumoto
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2010-05-23       Impact factor: 2.549

2.  Laparoscopic surgery--15 years after clinical introduction.

Authors:  Reinhard Bittner
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Single-port cholecystectomy versus multi-port cholecystectomy: a prospective cohort study with 222 patients.

Authors:  Markus J Wagner; Hans Kern; Alexander Hapfelmeier; Jan Mehler; Michael H Schoenberg
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Do patient or hospital demographics predict cholecystectomy outcomes? A nationwide study of 93,578 patients.

Authors:  A M Carbonell; A E Lincourt; K W Kercher; B D Matthews; W S Cobb; R F Sing; B T Heniford
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-05-03       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Mortality and complications associated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A meta-analysis.

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

6.  Indications for and outcomes of cholecystectomy: a comparison of the pre and postlaparoscopic eras.

Authors:  J A Shea; J A Berlin; D R Bachwich; R N Staroscik; P F Malet; M McGuckin; J S Schwartz; J J Escarce
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 12.969

7.  Male gender is not a risk factor for the outcome of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a single surgeon experience.

Authors:  Abdulmohsen A Al-Mulhim
Journal:  Saudi J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.485

8.  [Gallbladder calculi--always an indication for surgery?].

Authors:  R Bittner; M Ulrich
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 0.743

9.  A new minimally invasive technique for cholecystectomy. Subxiphoid "minimal stress triangle": microceliotomy.

Authors:  N S Tyagi; M C Meredith; J C Lumb; R G Cacdac; C C Vanterpool; K R Rayls; W D Zerega; A Silbergleit
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 10.  The standard of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  R Bittner
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2004-05-14       Impact factor: 3.445

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.