Loading…

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

To analyze outcomes after open small-incision surgery (minilaparotomy) and laparoscopic surgery for gallstone disease in general surgical practice. This study was a randomized, single-blind, multicenter trial comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) to minilaparotomy cholecystectomy (MC). Both el...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Annals of surgery 2001-12, Vol.234 (6), p.741-749
Main Authors: Ros, A, Gustafsson, L, Krook, H, Nordgren, C E, Thorell, A, Wallin, G, Nilsson, E
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c434t-14d7d48bffc3c471f67acc52ee78950741948b320660f2c63ab472d36957dba03
container_end_page 749
container_issue 6
container_start_page 741
container_title Annals of surgery
container_volume 234
creator Ros, A
Gustafsson, L
Krook, H
Nordgren, C E
Thorell, A
Wallin, G
Nilsson, E
description To analyze outcomes after open small-incision surgery (minilaparotomy) and laparoscopic surgery for gallstone disease in general surgical practice. This study was a randomized, single-blind, multicenter trial comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) to minilaparotomy cholecystectomy (MC). Both elective and acute patients were eligible for inclusion. All surgeons normally performing cholecystectomy, both trainees under supervision and consultants, operated on randomized patients. LC was a routine procedure at participating hospitals, whereas MC was introduced after a short training period. All nonrandomized cholecystectomies at participating units during the study period were also recorded to analyze the external validity of trial results. The randomization period was from March 1, 1997, to April 30, 1999. Of 1,705 cholecystectomies performed at participating units during the randomization period, 724 entered the trial and 362 patients were randomized to each of the procedures. The groups were well matched for age and sex, but there were fewer acute operations in the LC group than the MC group. In the LC group 264 and in the MC group 150 operations were performed by surgeons who had done more than 25 operations of that type. Median operating times were 100 and 85 minutes for LC and MC, respectively. Median hospital stay was 2 days in each group, but in a nonparametric test it was significantly shorter after LC. Median sick leave and time for return to normal recreational activities were shorter after LC than MC. Intraoperative complications were less frequent in the MC group, but there was no difference in the postoperative complication rate between the groups. There was one serious bile duct injury in each group, but no deaths. Operating time was longer and convalescence was smoother for LC compared with MC. Further analyses of LC versus MC are necessary regarding surgical training, surgical outcome, and health economy.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/00000658-200112000-00005
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_swepu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_swepub_primary_oai_swepub_ki_se_595883</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>72314789</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c434t-14d7d48bffc3c471f67acc52ee78950741948b320660f2c63ab472d36957dba03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1ksuOFCEUholx4rSjr2BYuWqUWxWUC5PJeJukk9moW0IB1YNSRQlVPWmfXvoyN5NhweXn-w8HOABAgt8R3Ij3eNfqSiKKMSGlw2inVM_AglRUIkI4fg4WRWKIN4yegpc5_yosl1i8AKeECNowiRcgrfSoU8wmjt5Acx2DM9s8OTPFfgs3LuU5w94PHoU9uJf_wz5ADccSYyxLv3FLmPRgY-__OruE2Q_r4FAb_GBhnma7fQVOOh2ye30cz8CPL5-_X3xDq6uvlxfnK2Q44xMi3ArLZdt1hhkuSFcLbUxFnROyqbDgpCm7jOK6xh01NdMtF9SyuqmEbTVmZwAd4uYbN86tGpPvddqqqL06Sr_LzKmqqaRkhRdP8uV69t50ayQlj7oRxbl80vnJ_zxXMa1V8LOSlFBa8I8HvLC9s8YNU9Lh8XmPdgZ_rdZxowinlLBdpm-PAVL8M7s8qd5n40LQg4tzVoIywssrFVAeQFO-JyfX3R1CsNpVkrqtJHVXSXupKtY3D5O8Nx5Lh_0D9-PJ9w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>72314789</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study</title><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Ros, A ; Gustafsson, L ; Krook, H ; Nordgren, C E ; Thorell, A ; Wallin, G ; Nilsson, E</creator><creatorcontrib>Ros, A ; Gustafsson, L ; Krook, H ; Nordgren, C E ; Thorell, A ; Wallin, G ; Nilsson, E</creatorcontrib><description>To analyze outcomes after open small-incision surgery (minilaparotomy) and laparoscopic surgery for gallstone disease in general surgical practice. This study was a randomized, single-blind, multicenter trial comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) to minilaparotomy cholecystectomy (MC). Both elective and acute patients were eligible for inclusion. All surgeons normally performing cholecystectomy, both trainees under supervision and consultants, operated on randomized patients. LC was a routine procedure at participating hospitals, whereas MC was introduced after a short training period. All nonrandomized cholecystectomies at participating units during the study period were also recorded to analyze the external validity of trial results. The randomization period was from March 1, 1997, to April 30, 1999. Of 1,705 cholecystectomies performed at participating units during the randomization period, 724 entered the trial and 362 patients were randomized to each of the procedures. The groups were well matched for age and sex, but there were fewer acute operations in the LC group than the MC group. In the LC group 264 and in the MC group 150 operations were performed by surgeons who had done more than 25 operations of that type. Median operating times were 100 and 85 minutes for LC and MC, respectively. Median hospital stay was 2 days in each group, but in a nonparametric test it was significantly shorter after LC. Median sick leave and time for return to normal recreational activities were shorter after LC than MC. Intraoperative complications were less frequent in the MC group, but there was no difference in the postoperative complication rate between the groups. There was one serious bile duct injury in each group, but no deaths. Operating time was longer and convalescence was smoother for LC compared with MC. Further analyses of LC versus MC are necessary regarding surgical training, surgical outcome, and health economy.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-4932</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1528-1140</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1528-1140</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/00000658-200112000-00005</identifier><identifier>PMID: 11729380</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Bile Ducts - injuries ; Cholecystectomy - adverse effects ; Cholecystectomy - methods ; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - adverse effects ; Cholelithiasis - surgery ; Female ; Humans ; Intraoperative Complications ; Laparotomy - adverse effects ; Laparotomy - methods ; Length of Stay ; Male ; MEDICIN ; Medicin och hälsovetenskap ; MEDICINE ; Middle Aged ; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures ; Pain, Postoperative ; Prospective Studies ; Scientific Papers ; Sick Leave ; Single-Blind Method</subject><ispartof>Annals of surgery, 2001-12, Vol.234 (6), p.741-749</ispartof><rights>2001 Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c434t-14d7d48bffc3c471f67acc52ee78950741948b320660f2c63ab472d36957dba03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1422133/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1422133/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,309,310,314,727,780,784,789,790,885,23930,23931,25140,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11729380$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-82122$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttp://kipublications.ki.se/Default.aspx?queryparsed=id:1950697$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ros, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gustafsson, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krook, H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nordgren, C E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thorell, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wallin, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nilsson, E</creatorcontrib><title>Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study</title><title>Annals of surgery</title><addtitle>Ann Surg</addtitle><description>To analyze outcomes after open small-incision surgery (minilaparotomy) and laparoscopic surgery for gallstone disease in general surgical practice. This study was a randomized, single-blind, multicenter trial comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) to minilaparotomy cholecystectomy (MC). Both elective and acute patients were eligible for inclusion. All surgeons normally performing cholecystectomy, both trainees under supervision and consultants, operated on randomized patients. LC was a routine procedure at participating hospitals, whereas MC was introduced after a short training period. All nonrandomized cholecystectomies at participating units during the study period were also recorded to analyze the external validity of trial results. The randomization period was from March 1, 1997, to April 30, 1999. Of 1,705 cholecystectomies performed at participating units during the randomization period, 724 entered the trial and 362 patients were randomized to each of the procedures. The groups were well matched for age and sex, but there were fewer acute operations in the LC group than the MC group. In the LC group 264 and in the MC group 150 operations were performed by surgeons who had done more than 25 operations of that type. Median operating times were 100 and 85 minutes for LC and MC, respectively. Median hospital stay was 2 days in each group, but in a nonparametric test it was significantly shorter after LC. Median sick leave and time for return to normal recreational activities were shorter after LC than MC. Intraoperative complications were less frequent in the MC group, but there was no difference in the postoperative complication rate between the groups. There was one serious bile duct injury in each group, but no deaths. Operating time was longer and convalescence was smoother for LC compared with MC. Further analyses of LC versus MC are necessary regarding surgical training, surgical outcome, and health economy.</description><subject>Bile Ducts - injuries</subject><subject>Cholecystectomy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Cholecystectomy - methods</subject><subject>Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - adverse effects</subject><subject>Cholelithiasis - surgery</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intraoperative Complications</subject><subject>Laparotomy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Laparotomy - methods</subject><subject>Length of Stay</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>MEDICIN</subject><subject>Medicin och hälsovetenskap</subject><subject>MEDICINE</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures</subject><subject>Pain, Postoperative</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Scientific Papers</subject><subject>Sick Leave</subject><subject>Single-Blind Method</subject><issn>0003-4932</issn><issn>1528-1140</issn><issn>1528-1140</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2001</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1ksuOFCEUholx4rSjr2BYuWqUWxWUC5PJeJukk9moW0IB1YNSRQlVPWmfXvoyN5NhweXn-w8HOABAgt8R3Ij3eNfqSiKKMSGlw2inVM_AglRUIkI4fg4WRWKIN4yegpc5_yosl1i8AKeECNowiRcgrfSoU8wmjt5Acx2DM9s8OTPFfgs3LuU5w94PHoU9uJf_wz5ADccSYyxLv3FLmPRgY-__OruE2Q_r4FAb_GBhnma7fQVOOh2ye30cz8CPL5-_X3xDq6uvlxfnK2Q44xMi3ArLZdt1hhkuSFcLbUxFnROyqbDgpCm7jOK6xh01NdMtF9SyuqmEbTVmZwAd4uYbN86tGpPvddqqqL06Sr_LzKmqqaRkhRdP8uV69t50ayQlj7oRxbl80vnJ_zxXMa1V8LOSlFBa8I8HvLC9s8YNU9Lh8XmPdgZ_rdZxowinlLBdpm-PAVL8M7s8qd5n40LQg4tzVoIywssrFVAeQFO-JyfX3R1CsNpVkrqtJHVXSXupKtY3D5O8Nx5Lh_0D9-PJ9w</recordid><startdate>20011201</startdate><enddate>20011201</enddate><creator>Ros, A</creator><creator>Gustafsson, L</creator><creator>Krook, H</creator><creator>Nordgren, C E</creator><creator>Thorell, A</creator><creator>Wallin, G</creator><creator>Nilsson, E</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>ADTPV</scope><scope>AOWAS</scope><scope>DG8</scope><scope>D8T</scope><scope>ZZAVC</scope><scope>BNKNJ</scope><scope>BVBDO</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20011201</creationdate><title>Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study</title><author>Ros, A ; Gustafsson, L ; Krook, H ; Nordgren, C E ; Thorell, A ; Wallin, G ; Nilsson, E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c434t-14d7d48bffc3c471f67acc52ee78950741948b320660f2c63ab472d36957dba03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2001</creationdate><topic>Bile Ducts - injuries</topic><topic>Cholecystectomy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Cholecystectomy - methods</topic><topic>Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - adverse effects</topic><topic>Cholelithiasis - surgery</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intraoperative Complications</topic><topic>Laparotomy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Laparotomy - methods</topic><topic>Length of Stay</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>MEDICIN</topic><topic>Medicin och hälsovetenskap</topic><topic>MEDICINE</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures</topic><topic>Pain, Postoperative</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Scientific Papers</topic><topic>Sick Leave</topic><topic>Single-Blind Method</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ros, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gustafsson, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krook, H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nordgren, C E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thorell, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wallin, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nilsson, E</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>SwePub</collection><collection>SwePub Articles</collection><collection>SWEPUB Linköpings universitet</collection><collection>SWEPUB Freely available online</collection><collection>SwePub Articles full text</collection><collection>SwePub Conference</collection><collection>SwePub Conference full text</collection><jtitle>Annals of surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ros, A</au><au>Gustafsson, L</au><au>Krook, H</au><au>Nordgren, C E</au><au>Thorell, A</au><au>Wallin, G</au><au>Nilsson, E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study</atitle><jtitle>Annals of surgery</jtitle><addtitle>Ann Surg</addtitle><date>2001-12-01</date><risdate>2001</risdate><volume>234</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>741</spage><epage>749</epage><pages>741-749</pages><issn>0003-4932</issn><issn>1528-1140</issn><eissn>1528-1140</eissn><abstract>To analyze outcomes after open small-incision surgery (minilaparotomy) and laparoscopic surgery for gallstone disease in general surgical practice. This study was a randomized, single-blind, multicenter trial comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) to minilaparotomy cholecystectomy (MC). Both elective and acute patients were eligible for inclusion. All surgeons normally performing cholecystectomy, both trainees under supervision and consultants, operated on randomized patients. LC was a routine procedure at participating hospitals, whereas MC was introduced after a short training period. All nonrandomized cholecystectomies at participating units during the study period were also recorded to analyze the external validity of trial results. The randomization period was from March 1, 1997, to April 30, 1999. Of 1,705 cholecystectomies performed at participating units during the randomization period, 724 entered the trial and 362 patients were randomized to each of the procedures. The groups were well matched for age and sex, but there were fewer acute operations in the LC group than the MC group. In the LC group 264 and in the MC group 150 operations were performed by surgeons who had done more than 25 operations of that type. Median operating times were 100 and 85 minutes for LC and MC, respectively. Median hospital stay was 2 days in each group, but in a nonparametric test it was significantly shorter after LC. Median sick leave and time for return to normal recreational activities were shorter after LC than MC. Intraoperative complications were less frequent in the MC group, but there was no difference in the postoperative complication rate between the groups. There was one serious bile duct injury in each group, but no deaths. Operating time was longer and convalescence was smoother for LC compared with MC. Further analyses of LC versus MC are necessary regarding surgical training, surgical outcome, and health economy.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>11729380</pmid><doi>10.1097/00000658-200112000-00005</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0003-4932
ispartof Annals of surgery, 2001-12, Vol.234 (6), p.741-749
issn 0003-4932
1528-1140
1528-1140
language eng
recordid cdi_swepub_primary_oai_swepub_ki_se_595883
source PubMed Central
subjects Bile Ducts - injuries
Cholecystectomy - adverse effects
Cholecystectomy - methods
Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - adverse effects
Cholelithiasis - surgery
Female
Humans
Intraoperative Complications
Laparotomy - adverse effects
Laparotomy - methods
Length of Stay
Male
MEDICIN
Medicin och hälsovetenskap
MEDICINE
Middle Aged
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
Pain, Postoperative
Prospective Studies
Scientific Papers
Sick Leave
Single-Blind Method
title Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T04%3A07%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_swepu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Laparoscopic%20cholecystectomy%20versus%20mini-laparotomy%20cholecystectomy:%20a%20prospective,%20randomized,%20single-blind%20study&rft.jtitle=Annals%20of%20surgery&rft.au=Ros,%20A&rft.date=2001-12-01&rft.volume=234&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=741&rft.epage=749&rft.pages=741-749&rft.issn=0003-4932&rft.eissn=1528-1140&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/00000658-200112000-00005&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_swepu%3E72314789%3C/proquest_swepu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c434t-14d7d48bffc3c471f67acc52ee78950741948b320660f2c63ab472d36957dba03%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=72314789&rft_id=info:pmid/11729380&rfr_iscdi=true