Literature DB >> 9204744

Emergency minilaparotomy cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: prospective randomized trial--implications for the laparoscopic era.

A Assalia1, D Kopelman, M Hashmonai.   

Abstract

This prospective controlled trial evaluates the efficacy of minicholecystectomy (MC) in cases of acute cholecystitis compared to that of conventional cholecystectomy (CC) and discusses its implications in the laparoscopic era. Sixty consecutive patients with acute cholecystitis were prospectively randomized into two groups: MC group (30 cases) and CC group (30 cases). The two groups were well matched with regard to age, sex, weight/height index, previous upper abdominal surgery, and APACHE II scores. The mean length of incision was 5.5 cm (range 4.5-9.0 cm) in the MC group compared to 13.5 cm (range 12-16 cm) in the CC group. No significant differences were found between MC and CC with regard to operative time (69.1 +/- 17.0 and 68.1 +/- 15.4 minutes, respectively; p = 0.82), operative difficulty on a 1 to 10 scale (5.2 +/- 1.5 versus 4.6 +/- 1.6, respectively; p = 0.177), and complication rate (11% and 17%, respectively; p = 0.19). Significantly lower analgesia requirements were noted in the MC group: 27.5 +/- 14.6 mg of morphine sulfate compared to 44.5 +/- 13.2 mg in the CC group (p < 0.001). In addition, the duration of hospital stay was significantly shorter for MC patients (3.1 +/- 1.0 days) than in CC patients (4.7 +/- 1.2 days) (p < 0.001). Twenty-two patients (73.3%) in the MC group were reported to return to normal daily activities 2 weeks after the operation, compared to only 12 (40%) in the CC group (p = 0.0028). MC is safe and applicable as an emergency procedure for acute cholecystitis. It is superior to CC in terms of convalescence and cosmesis. The results of MC in the setting of acute cholecystitis compare favorably with the published results of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9204744     DOI: 10.1007/pl00012282

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.352


  7 in total

1.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study.

Authors:  A Ros; L Gustafsson; H Krook; C E Nordgren; A Thorell; G Wallin; E Nilsson
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 12.969

2.  Mini-cholecystectomy: a personal series in acute and chronic cholecystitis.

Authors:  P Watanapa
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 3.647

Review 3.  Laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis.

Authors:  F Keus; J A F de Jong; H G Gooszen; C J H M van Laarhoven
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2006-10-18

Review 4.  Small-incision versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis.

Authors:  F Keus; J A F de Jong; H G Gooszen; C J H M van Laarhoven
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2006-10-18

Review 5.  Laparoscopy for abdominal emergencies: evidence-based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery.

Authors:  S Sauerland; F Agresta; R Bergamaschi; G Borzellino; A Budzynski; G Champault; A Fingerhut; A Isla; M Johansson; P Lundorff; B Navez; S Saad; E A M Neugebauer
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-10-24       Impact factor: 3.453

6.  Non-randomised patients in a cholecystectomy trial: characteristics, procedures, and outcomes.

Authors:  Axel Ros; Per Carlsson; Mikael Rahmqvist; Karin Bäckman; Erik Nilsson
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2006-12-26       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  Operating During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Emerging Indication for Minilaparotomy Cholecystectomy.

Authors:  David M Milne; Johnathan K Jarvis; Rensi E Franklin; Dexter Thomas; Vijay Naraynsingh
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2020-11-16
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.