PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10977115

Cholecystectomy, conversion and complications.

M H Thompson·J R Benger
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Faced with a difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy the surgeon may feel that conversion to open operation would risk greater complications because of the laparotomy. Information on the effect of conversion is lacking. The purpose of this study is to measure the complications of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and observe the effect of the conversion rate. METHODS: A total of 957 patients were studied. There were three consecutive series of patients; the first undergoing open cholecystectomy (384 patients), the second laparoscopic cholecystectomy with a 5.8% conversion rate (412 patients) and the third laparoscopic cholecystectomy with a 1.3% conversion rate (161 patients). Data was collected prospectively using a continuous audit, and the complication rate compared on an intention to treat basis. In addition a panel of experienced surgeons was asked to score the complications depending on their severity and a composite complication score calculated. Comparison between the 3 groups was then undertaken. RESULTS: Open cholecystectomy produced a post-operative complication rate of 6%. Initially this appeared to fall to 3.1% with the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, but when the complications occurring in the converted patients were included (i.e., on an intention to treat basis) the rate increased to 5.6% in the first group of laparoscopically-treated patients and 3.1% in the second. These differences were not statistically significant. A similar pattern emerged when scoring the severity of the complications as judged by the expert panel. The inclusion of intra-operative complications appears to remove any small advantage for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The reduction in the conversion rate between the two laparoscopic groups from 5.8% to 1.2% was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: When considered on an intention to treat basis laparoscopic cholecystectomy offers no advantage over open operation in terms of the frequency or severity of complications. Reducing the frequency of conversion from a laparoscopic to an open procedure also has no significant effect on the complications encountered. We conclude, therefore, that the complication rate is independent of the conversion rate and that the surgeon, when faced with difficulty at laparoscopic cholecystectomy, should not be deterred from converting to open operation for fear of the post-operative consequences.

Explore related subjects

CholecystectomyCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicHumansProspective StudiesComparative StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M H Thompson, J R Benger. 2000. Cholecystectomy, conversion and complications.. https://doi.org/10.1155/2000%2F56760

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

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

BACKGROUND: Cholecystectomy is one of the most frequently performed operations. Open cholecystectomy has been the gold standard for over 100 years. Small-incision cholecystectomy is a less frequently used alternative. OBJECTIVES: To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of small-incision versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched TheCochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (6 April 2004), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (1980 to January 2004), Web of Science (1988 to January 2004), and CINAHL (1982 to January 2004) for randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished randomised trials in patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis comparing any kind of small-incision or other kind of minimal incision cholecystectomy versus any kind of open cholecystectomy. No language limitations were applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed selection of trials and data extraction. The methodological quality of the generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up was evaluated to assess bias risk. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. Authors were requested additional information in case of missing data. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed if appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials randomised 571 patients. Bias risk was high in the included trials. No mortality was reported. The total complication proportions are respectively 9.9% and 9.3% in the small-incision and open group, which is not significantly different (risk difference all trials, random-effects 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.06 to 0.07). There are also no significant differences considering severe complications and bile duct injuries. However, small-incision cholecystectomy has a shorter hospital stay (weighted mean difference, random-effects -2.8 days (95% CI -4.9 to -0.6)) compared to open cholecystectomy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Small-incision and open cholecystectomy seem to be equivalent regarding risks of complications, but the latter method is associated with a significantly longer hospital stay. The quicker recovery of small-incision cholecystectomy compared with open cholecystectomy confirms the existing preference of this technique over open cholecystectomy.

Cholecystectomy↗
PubMed2006

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

BACKGROUND: Cholecystectomy is one of the most frequently performed operations. Open cholecystectomy has been the gold standard for over 100 years. Small-incision cholecystectomy is a less frequently used alternative. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was introduced in the 1980s. OBJECTIVES: To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched TheCochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (6 April 2004), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (1980 to January 2004), Web of Science (1988 to January 2004), and CINAHL (1982 to January 2004) for randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished randomised trials in patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis comparing any kind of laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus small-incision or other kind of minimal incision open cholecystectomy. No language limitations were applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed selection of trials and data extraction. The methodological quality of the generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up was evaluated to assess bias risk. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. Authors were requested additional information in case of missing data. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed if appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen trials randomised 2337 patients. Methodological quality was relatively high considering the four quality criteria. Total complications of laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy are high: 26.6% versus 22.9%. Total complications (risk difference, random-effects -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.07 to 0.05), hospital stay (weighted mean difference (WMD), random-effects -0.72 days, 95% CI -1.48 to 0.04), and convalescence were not significantly different. High-quality trials show a quicker operative time for small-incision cholecystectomy (WMD, high-quality trials 'blinding', random-effects 16.4 minutes, 95% CI 8.9 to 23.8) while low-quality trials show no significant difference. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy seem to be equivalent. No differences could be observed in mortality, complications, and postoperative recovery. Small-incision cholecystectomy has a significantly shorter operative time. Complications in elective cholecystectomy are prevalent.

Cholecystectomy↗
PubMed2006

Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis.

BACKGROUND: Cholecystectomy is one of the most frequently performed operations. Open cholecystectomy has been the gold standard for over 100 years. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was introduced in the 1980s. OBJECTIVES: To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched TheCochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (April 2004), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (1980 to January 2004), Web of Science (1988 to January 2004), and CINAHL (1982 to January 2004) for randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished randomised trials in patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis comparing any kind of laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus any kind of open cholecystectomy. No language limitations were applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed selection of trials and data extraction. The methodological quality of the generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up was evaluated to assess bias risk. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. Authors were requested additional information in case of missing data. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed when appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-eight trials randomised 2338 patients. Most of the trials had high bias risk. There was no significant difference regarding mortality (risk difference 0,00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.01). Meta-analysis of all trials suggests less overall complications in the laparoscopic group, but the high-quality trials show no significant difference ('allocation concealment' high-quality trials risk difference, random effects -0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.02). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients have a shorter hospital stay (weighted mean difference (WMD), random effects -3 days, 95% CI -3.9 to -2.3) and convalescence (WMD, random effects -22.5 days, 95% CI -36.9 to -8.1) compared to open cholecystectomy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were observed in mortality, complications and operative time between laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay and a quicker convalescence compared with the classical open cholecystectomy. These results confirm the existing preference for the laparoscopic cholecystectomy over open cholecystectomy.

Cholecystectomy↗