Literature DB >> 9860471

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: day-care versus clinical observation.

Y Keulemans1, J Eshuis, H de Haes, L T de Wit, D J Gouma.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility and desirability of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in day-care versus LC with clinical observation. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been performed regularly as outpatient surgery in patients with uncomplicated gallstone disease in the United States, but this has not been generally accepted in Europe. The main objections are the risk of early severe complications (bleeding) or other reasons for readmission, and the argument that patients might feel safer when observed for one night. Quality-of-life differences hitherto have not been investigated.
METHODS: Eighty patients (American Society of Anesthesiology [ASA] I/II) with symptomatic gallstones were randomized to receive LC either in day-care or with clinical observation. Complications, (re)admissions, consultations of general practitioners or the day-care center within 4 days after surgery, use of pain medication, quality of life, convalescence period, time off from professional activities, and treatment preference were assessed. The respective costs of day-care and clinical observation were determined.
RESULTS: Of the 37 patients assigned to the day-care group who underwent elective surgery, 92% were discharged successfully after an observation period of 5.7+/-0.2 hours. The remainder of the patients in this group were admitted to the hospital and clinically observed for 24 hours. For the 37 patients in the clinical observation group who underwent elective surgery, the observation time after surgery was 31+/-3 hours. Three patients in the day-care group and one patient in the clinical observation group had complications after surgery. None of the patients in either group consulted a general practitioner or the hospital during the first week after surgery. Use of pain medication was comparable in both groups over the first 48 hours after surgery. There were no differences in pain and other quality-of-life indicators between the groups during the 6 weeks of follow-up. Of the patients in the day-care group, 92% preferred day-care to clinical observation. The same percentage of patients in the clinical observation group preferred at least 24 hours of observation to day-care. Costs for the day-care patients were substantially lower (approximately $750/patient) than for the clinical observation patients.
CONCLUSION: Effectiveness was equal in both patient groups, and both groups appeared to be satisfied with their treatment. Because no differences were found with respect to the other outcomes, day-care is the preferred treatment in most ASA I and II patients because it is less expensive.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9860471      PMCID: PMC1191590          DOI: 10.1097/00000658-199812000-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  19 in total

1.  Vascular trauma secondary to diagnostic and therapeutic procedures: laparoscopy.

Authors:  P T McDonald; N M Rich; G J Collins; C A Andersen; L Kozloff
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1978-05       Impact factor: 2.565

2.  Reduced postoperative hospitalization after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  P A Grace; A Quereshi; J Coleman; R Keane; G McEntee; P Broe; H Osborne; D Bouchier-Hayes
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 6.939

3.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in The Netherlands.

Authors:  P M Go; F Schol; D J Gouma
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 6.939

4.  Complications of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a national survey of 4,292 hospitals and an analysis of 77,604 cases.

Authors:  D J Deziel; K W Millikan; S G Economou; A Doolas; S T Ko; M C Airan
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 2.565

5.  Preoperative multimodal analgesia facilitates recovery after ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  C Michaloliakou; F Chung; S Sharma
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 5.108

6.  Twenty-four hour hospitalization after cholecystectomy.

Authors:  E C Saltzstein; L C Mercer; J B Peacock; S H Dougherty
Journal:  Surg Gynecol Obstet       Date:  1991-11

7.  Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A prospective analysis of 100 initial patients.

Authors:  J H Peters; E C Ellison; J T Innes; J L Liss; K E Nichols; J M Lomano; S R Roby; M E Front; L C Carey
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy: hospitalization, sick leave, analgesia and trauma responses.

Authors:  U Berggren; T Gordh; D Grama; U Haglund; J Rastad; D Arvidsson
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 6.939

9.  Laparoscopic versus minilaparotomy cholecystectomy: a randomised trial.

Authors:  A J McMahon; I T Russell; J N Baxter; S Ross; J R Anderson; C G Morran; G Sunderland; D Galloway; G Ramsay; P J O'Dwyer
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1994-01-15       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Measuring psychological and physical distress in cancer patients: structure and application of the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist.

Authors:  J C de Haes; F C van Knippenberg; J P Neijt
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  42 in total

Review 1.  Biliary tract surgery.

Authors:  S A Ahrendt
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  1999-04

2.  Day-care laparoscopic cholecystectomy with diathermy hook versus fundus-first ultrasonic dissection: a randomized study.

Authors:  Anne Mattila; Johanna Mrena; Hannu Kautiainen; Juha Nevantaus; Ilmo Kellokumpu
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-12-10       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Management of hepatobiliary and pancreatic disorders at the Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Authors:  D J Gouma; H Obertop
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 3.647

Review 4.  Fast-track surgery: procedure-specific aspects and future direction.

Authors:  Daniel Ansari; Luca Gianotti; Jörg Schröder; Roland Andersson
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2012-09-27       Impact factor: 3.445

5.  Improved outcome after laparoscopic cholecystectomy with ultrasonic dissection: a randomized multicenter trial.

Authors:  Yucel Cengiz; Jan Dalenbäck; Gunnar Edlund; Leif A Israelsson; Arthur Jänes; Mats Möller; Anders Thorell
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-08-18       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Cost analysis comparing ultrasonic fundus-first and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy using electrocautery.

Authors:  Fredrik Tempé; Arthur Jänes; Yucel Cengiz
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-05-10       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Acceptance of Ambulatory Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Central Switzerland.

Authors:  Sandra P Widjaja; Henning Fischer; Alexander R Brunner; Philipp Honigmann; Jürg Metzger
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 3.352

8.  Ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy: An audit of day case vs overnight surgery at a community hospital in Japan.

Authors:  Atsushi Sato; Yukio Terashita; Yoichiro Mori; Tomotaka Okubo
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2012-12-27

9.  Safety and effectiveness of outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a teaching hospital: a prospective study of 110 consecutive patients.

Authors:  Athanasios Marinis; Emmanouil Stamatakis; Athanasia Tsaroucha; Nikolaos Dafnios; Georgios Anastasopoulos; Georgios Polymeneas; Theodosios Theodosopoulos
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2010-07-22

10.  [Not Available].

Authors:  Athar Ali; Tabish Chawla; Abid Jamal
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 1.407

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.