TY - JOUR
T1 - Mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy
T2 - Which way to go?
AU - Vagenas, Konstantinos
AU - Spyrakopoulos, Panagiotis
AU - Karanikolas, Menelaos
AU - Sakelaropoulos, George
AU - Maroulis, Ioannis
AU - Karavias, Dionissios
PY - 2006/10
Y1 - 2006/10
N2 - PURPOSE: The aim of this paper is to report the results of a prospective clinical trial investigating traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus "mini-lap" cholecystectomy in a tertiary care University Hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized, single-center observational study. Forty-four patients were allocated in each group; patients in group L underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy, whereas patients in group M had open "mini-laparotomy" cholecystectomy with a small incision through the rectus abdominis muscle. RESULTS: The operation lasted significantly longer in group L compared with group M, whereas patients of group L had a shorter hospital stay. There was no difference between groups regarding postoperative day on which patients commenced eating. There was no significant difference between groups regarding doses of analgesics used during surgery or in the recovery room. However, patients in group M used significantly more opioids in the postoperative period. Time to resume normal activity was significantly shorter in group L. A very good aesthetic result was obtained in 97.7% of patients in group L and 77.3% of patients in group M. CONCLUSIONS: Cholecystectomy through a mini-laparotomy incision is a lower-cost, versatile, and safe alternative to laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
AB - PURPOSE: The aim of this paper is to report the results of a prospective clinical trial investigating traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus "mini-lap" cholecystectomy in a tertiary care University Hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized, single-center observational study. Forty-four patients were allocated in each group; patients in group L underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy, whereas patients in group M had open "mini-laparotomy" cholecystectomy with a small incision through the rectus abdominis muscle. RESULTS: The operation lasted significantly longer in group L compared with group M, whereas patients of group L had a shorter hospital stay. There was no difference between groups regarding postoperative day on which patients commenced eating. There was no significant difference between groups regarding doses of analgesics used during surgery or in the recovery room. However, patients in group M used significantly more opioids in the postoperative period. Time to resume normal activity was significantly shorter in group L. A very good aesthetic result was obtained in 97.7% of patients in group L and 77.3% of patients in group M. CONCLUSIONS: Cholecystectomy through a mini-laparotomy incision is a lower-cost, versatile, and safe alternative to laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
KW - Laparoscopic cholecystectomy
KW - Mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33750365492&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/01.sle.0000213720.42215.7b
DO - 10.1097/01.sle.0000213720.42215.7b
M3 - Article
C2 - 17057572
AN - SCOPUS:33750365492
SN - 1530-4515
VL - 16
SP - 321
EP - 324
JO - Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy and Percutaneous Techniques
JF - Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy and Percutaneous Techniques
IS - 5
ER -