Comparative study of conventional open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic cholelithiasis

Liaquat University of Medical & Health Sciences, Pakistan
Pak J Med Sci Sci January -March 01/2011; 27(1):33-37.

ABSTRACT Objective: To compare the results of conventional open with laparoscopic cholecystectomy regarding their operative time and postoperative parameters. Methodology: This is a comparative study of 400 patients of cholelithiasis operated for either open or Laparoscopic cholecystectomy during five years from January 2004 to December 2008. The cases were compared for operative time and various postoperative parameters in order to assess the advantages and disadvantages of each procedure. The patients were divided into two groups, group OC for open and group LC for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, each comprising of 200 cases. Results: The operative time was longer in OC than LC patients with mean operative time of 54.16± 11.94 minutes in OC and 46.89±14.83 minutes in LC group (P<0.001). The overall frequency of postoperative complications was relatively high in OC group 50.5% as compared to LC (37%) including all minor and major problems with combined morbidity of 43.75% (P<0.001). The mean hospital stay was shorter in LC group as compared to OC group i.e. 3.02±1.75 (range 1-5) days versus 5.56±9.8 (range 4-10) days respectively. Return to normal work was also significantly shorter in LC group i.e. 18.06±5.16 days (range 1-4 weeks) as compared to 31.61±7.6 days (range 3-6 weeks) in OC group with p value <0.001. Conclusions: The laparoscopic cholecystectomy is superior to open cholecystectomy due to short operative time, early mobilization and fast recovery, less postoperative pain and complications, short hospital stay and early return to work. Comparative study of conventional open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic cholelithiasis. Pak J Med Sci 2011;27(1):33-37 1.

Download full-text


Available from: Arshad Malik, Nov 25, 2014
116 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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. To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 02/2006; 4(4):CD006229. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD006229 · 6.03 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has rapidly become established as the treatment of choice for cholecystolithiasis. There is very little evidence, however, to support the claimed benefit to patients. In the present study 30 consecutive patients below the age of 65 years without acute cholecystitis and with no signs of common bile duct stones were randomized to laparoscopic or conventional open cholecystectomy. Median (interquartile range) intravenous consumption of pethidine with a patient-controlled injection device between 13 and 24 h after surgery was 125 (62-175) mg in patients who underwent the laparoscopic procedure and 200 (150-250) mg in those who had open operation. Urinary adrenaline and cortisol levels as well as those of plasma glucose, C-reactive protein and interleukin 6 were increased after surgery in both groups of patients, but without any significant difference between them. The mean(s.d.) duration of postoperative hospital stay (2.8(0.8) versus 1.8(0.6) days) and sick leave (24.0(4.4) versus 11.7(4.1) days) was significantly longer with open than laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The findings demonstrate obvious advantages of laparoscopic surgery as regards postoperative pain and convalescence, although factors reflecting the magnitude of trauma did not differ.
    British Journal of Surgery 09/1994; 81(9):1362-5. DOI:10.1002/bjs.1800810936 · 5.54 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy into general practice in 1990, it has rapidly become the dominant procedure for gallbladder surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the results of the laparoscopic, open and mini-laparotomy approaches to cholecystectomy. Our study covers a period of 6 years. A total of 1,276 patients underwent cholecystectomy for calculous biliary disease. The laparoscopic procedure was applied to 952 (74.6%) patients, while 210 (16.5%) underwent the traditional open cholecystectomy and the remaining 114 (8.9%) patients underwent mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy. Thirty-seven patients (3.9%) from the laparoscopic group required conversion to open cholecystectomy. Morbidity was similar in the open and laparoscopic groups (3.8%), while it was significantly lower in the mini-laparotomy group (0.8%). No major bile duct injuries occurred after the open or mini-laparotomy approaches. The median operation time was significantly shorter in the mini-laparotomy group than in the laparoscopic group (46 min vs 61 min). Hospital stay was significantly longer for the open cholecystectomy group (mean value 5.1 days) compared with the laparoscopic and mini-laparotomy groups (mean values 2.5 days and 2.7 days, respectively). Hospital expenses showed a saving of 786 Euro for each patient who underwent the open procedure and 980 Euro for each patient who underwent the mini-laparotomy approach compared with the laparoscopic one. We believe that commissioners of healthcare should question whether the benefits of laparoscopic cholecystectomy justify the additional cost after the introduction of the mini-laparotomy approach.
    Langenbeck s Archives of Surgery 07/2004; 389(3):172-7. DOI:10.1007/s00423-004-0481-z · 2.19 Impact Factor
Show more