Cargando…
Mini-Incision Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Background: We report a prospective randomised comparison between laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy in 200 patients which was designed to eliminate bias for or against either technique. Methods: Patients were randomised in the operating theatre and anaesthetic technique and pain-contro...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
1997
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2423893/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9298392 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/1997/27210 |
_version_ | 1782156205904363520 |
---|---|
author | Yeo, Charles J. |
author_facet | Yeo, Charles J. |
author_sort | Yeo, Charles J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: We report a prospective randomised comparison between laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy in 200 patients which was designed to eliminate bias for or against either technique. Methods: Patients were randomised in the operating theatre and anaesthetic technique and pain-control methods were standardised. Four experienced surgeons did both types of procedure. Identical wound dressings were applied in both groups so that carers could be kept blind to the type of operation. Findings: There was no significant difference between the groups for age, sex, body mass index, and American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy took significantly longer than small-incision cholecystectomy (median 65 [range 27-140] min vs 40 [18-142] min, p<0.001). The operating time included operative cholangiography which was attempted in all patients. We found no significant difference between the groups for hospital stay (postoperative nights in hospital, median 3.0 [1-17] nights for laparoscopic vs 3.0 [1-14] nights for small-incision, p=0.74), time back to work for employed persons (median 5.0 weeks vs 4.0 weeks; p=0.39), and time to full activity (median 3.0 weeks vs 3.0 weeks; p=0.15). Interpretation: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy takes longer to do than small-incision cholecystectomy and does not have any significant advantages in terms of hostital stay or 13 ostoperative recovery. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2423893 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 1997 |
publisher | Hindawi Publishing Corporation |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-24238932008-07-08 Mini-Incision Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Yeo, Charles J. HPB Surg Research Article Background: We report a prospective randomised comparison between laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy in 200 patients which was designed to eliminate bias for or against either technique. Methods: Patients were randomised in the operating theatre and anaesthetic technique and pain-control methods were standardised. Four experienced surgeons did both types of procedure. Identical wound dressings were applied in both groups so that carers could be kept blind to the type of operation. Findings: There was no significant difference between the groups for age, sex, body mass index, and American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy took significantly longer than small-incision cholecystectomy (median 65 [range 27-140] min vs 40 [18-142] min, p<0.001). The operating time included operative cholangiography which was attempted in all patients. We found no significant difference between the groups for hospital stay (postoperative nights in hospital, median 3.0 [1-17] nights for laparoscopic vs 3.0 [1-14] nights for small-incision, p=0.74), time back to work for employed persons (median 5.0 weeks vs 4.0 weeks; p=0.39), and time to full activity (median 3.0 weeks vs 3.0 weeks; p=0.15). Interpretation: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy takes longer to do than small-incision cholecystectomy and does not have any significant advantages in terms of hostital stay or 13 ostoperative recovery. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 1997 /pmc/articles/PMC2423893/ /pubmed/9298392 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/1997/27210 Text en Copyright © 1997 Hindawi Publishing Corporation. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Yeo, Charles J. Mini-Incision Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy |
title | Mini-Incision Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy |
title_full | Mini-Incision Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy |
title_fullStr | Mini-Incision Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy |
title_full_unstemmed | Mini-Incision Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy |
title_short | Mini-Incision Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy |
title_sort | mini-incision versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2423893/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9298392 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/1997/27210 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT yeocharlesj miniincisionversuslaparoscopiccholecystectomy |