Causes and frequency of conversion during laparoscopic cholecystectomy in own material

Kopeć, Bogdan; Marciniak, Ryszard

doi:10.5114/wiitm.2010.18824

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, the rate of bile duct injury is about 1% at our department, and according to other authors 0.5–3.5%. The conversion rate of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (planned as well as emergency) is about 7% at our department, though in comparison with the data by Kopeć and Marciniak the conversion rate is 5.85% [ 23 ]. In our study the average duration of laparoscopic CBD exploration was the longest in comparison with other methods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

“…The second one is a two-stage procedure of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The third way is one-stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy with common bile duct exploration [ 1 – 23 ]. At the time of the dynamic development of minimally invasive techniques, open common bile duct exploration is sidelined for cases where the other techniques are ineffective or unavailable.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Results of treatment of patients with gallstone disease and ductal calculi by single-stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy and bile duct exploration.

Naumowicz¹,

Białecki²,

Kołomecki³

2014

Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionCholedocholithiasis is the most common cause of obstructive jaundice. Common bile duct stones are observed in 10–14% of patients diagnosed with gall bladder stones. In the case of gall bladder and common bile duct stones the procedure involves not only performing cholecystectomy but also removing the stones from bile ducts.AimTo compare the results of the treatment of patients with gallstone disease and ductal calculi by one-stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy and common bile duct exploration with two other methods: one-stage open cholecystectomy and common bile duct exploration, and a two-stage procedure involving endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Material and methodsBetween 2004 and 2011 three groups of 100 patients were treated for obstructive jaundice caused by choledocholithiasis. The first group of 42 patients underwent ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The second group of 23 patients underwent open cholecystectomy and common bile duct exploration, whereas the third group of 35 patients underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy with common bile duct exploration. The data were analysed prospectively. The methods were compared according to complete execution, bile duct clearance and complication rate. Complications were analysed according to Clavien’s Classification of Surgical Complications. The results were compared using the ANOVA statistical test and Student’s t-test in Statistica. Value of p was calculated statistically. A p-value less than 0.05 (p < 0.05) signified that groups differed statistically, whereas a p-value more than 0.05 (p > 0.05) suggested no statistically significant differences between the groups.ResultsThe procedure could not be performed in 11.9% of patients in the first group and in 14.3% of patients in the third group. Residual stones were found in 13.5% of the patients in the first group, in 4.3% of the patients in the second group and in 6.7% of the patients in the third group. According to Clavien’s classification of complications grade II and III, we can assign the range in the first group at 21.6% for grade II and 0% for grade III, in the second group at 21.4% and 3.6% and in the third group at 6.7% and 3.3% respectively.ConclusionsThe use of all three methods of treatment gives similar results. One-stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy with common bile duct exploration is after all the least invasive, safer and more effective procedure.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%