Laparoscopic versus minilaparotomy cholecystectomy: a randomised trial

McMahon, A. J.; Baxter, J. N.; Anderson, John R.; Ramsay, Graham; O’Dwyer, P. J.; Russell, Ian; Ross, Sue; Sutherland, Greg T.; Galloway, D.; Morran, C. G.

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(94)90932-6

Cited by 387 publications

(241 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

211

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The duration 01' convalescence for LC patients was more prolonged than in reports from uncontrolled LC series (6,7,14,15), yet is strikingly similar to results noted in LC groups from two previous randomized trials from separate continents comparing LC to open surgery (9,16).…”

Section: Cost Analysissupporting

confidence: 81%

Costs and Effectiveness of Extracorporeal Gallbladder Stone Shock Wave Lithotripsy Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Barkun

Sampalis

et al. 1997

Int J Technol Assess Health Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thirty-five patients were randomized to extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and 25 to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Stone disappearance occurred in only 12 of 32 ESWL patients [38% (95% Cl: 21–56%)] during a 15-month follow-up. Greater incremental gains in quality of life after 6 months were observed among LC patients (p <.01). Total duration of disability was 6.8 ± 8.5 days for ESWL, and 22.7 ± 16.6 days for LC (p <.01). Nine (28%) patients crossed over electively to the LC group, but only 44% of these underwent LC within the next 3 years. ESWL cost Can $58.9/ day of disability saved. ESWL is limited by its selective applicability and modest stone disappearance rate. Its cost-effectiveness is largely dependent on patient acceptance of recurrent episodes of biliary colic due to the persistence of stone fragments.

show abstract

Section: Cost Analysissupporting

confidence: 81%

Costs and Effectiveness of Extracorporeal Gallbladder Stone Shock Wave Lithotripsy Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Barkun

Sampalis

et al. 1997

Int J Technol Assess Health Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Postoperatively, a QoL assessment is suggested at 1 and 6 months. [81]. QoL results in terms of a modified SF-36 score and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS [147]) were reported at the 1-, 4-, and 12-week follow-ups.…”

Section: Cholecystolithiasismentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of quality of life after laparoscopic surgery: evidence-based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Measuring health-related quality of life (QoL) after surgery is essential for decision making by patients, surgeons, and payers. The aim of this consensus conference was twofold. First, it was to determine for which diseases endoscopic surgery results in better postoperative QoL than open surgery. Second, it was to recommend QoL instruments for clinical research. Methods: An expert panel selected 12 conditions in which QoL and endoscopic surgery are important. For each condition, studies comparing endoscopic and open surgery in terms of QoL were identified. The expert panel reached consensus on the relative benefits of endoscopic surgery and recommended generic and disease-specific QoL instruments for use in clinical research. Results: Randomized trials indicate that QoL improves earlier after endoscopic than open surgery for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), cholecystolithiasis, colorectal cancer, inguinal hernia, obesity (gastric bypass), and uterine disorders that require hysterectomy. For spleen, prostate, malignant kidney, benign colorectal, and benign non-GERD esophageal diseases, evidence from nonrandomized trials supports the use of laparoscopic surgery. However, many studies failed to collect long-term results, used nonvalidated questionnaires, or measured QoL components only incompletely.

show abstract

“…However, further publications have reported that this incidence remains higher even when ''learning curve'' is accounted for [4,13,14], even in light of technological advances that have improved visualization and instrumentation [14][15][16][17][18]. Despite this evidence, LC remains the treatment of choice for symptomatic gallstones, a fact most likely attributable to the benefits of less postoperative pain, shorter hospital stay, better cosmetic result, and increased patient satisfaction [12,[19][20][21][22]. In fact, the number of cholecystectomies in the United Kingdom has nearly doubled during the past decade ( Fig.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraoperative cholangiography in the laparoscopic cholecystectomy era: why are we still debating?

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is now one of the most frequently performed abdominal surgical procedures in the world. The most common major complication is bile duct injury, which can have catastrophic repercussions for patients and it has been suggested that intraoperative cholangiography may reduce the rate of bile duct injury. Whether this procedure should be performed routinely is still an active subject of debate. We discuss the available evidence and likely implications for the future.

show abstract

Laparoscopic versus minilaparotomy cholecystectomy: a randomised trial

Cited by 387 publications

References 15 publications

Costs and Effectiveness of Extracorporeal Gallbladder Stone Shock Wave Lithotripsy Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Costs and Effectiveness of Extracorporeal Gallbladder Stone Shock Wave Lithotripsy Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Evaluation of quality of life after laparoscopic surgery: evidence-based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery

Intraoperative cholangiography in the laparoscopic cholecystectomy era: why are we still debating?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About