Symptom Duration and Surgeon Volume: Impact on Early Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Acute Cholecystitis
Résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUND: The 'golden 72 hours' rule from the onset of symptoms still applies in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. This rule has been discussed with increasing experience in laparoscopic surgery in recent years. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the optimal symptom duration based on the surgeon's volume when deciding on early laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The patients were categorized into two groups: Group 1 (≤3 days) and Group 2 (>3 days) based on the symptom duration, and high-volume surgeons (performing >100 laparoscopic cholecystectomies in a year) and low-volume surgeons (performing <100 laparoscopic cholecystectomies in a year) based on the surgeon volume. All surgeons had received advanced training in laparoscopic surgery. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in postoperative outcomes between groups, except for a few data (p>0.05). The operative time was longer in Group 2, the postoperative hospital stay was longer for low-volume surgeons than for high-volume surgeons after three days, and operative time was longer after three days than the first three days in low-volume surgeons (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy may be recommended for acute cholecystitis with symptom duration of more than three days, regardless of the surgeon volume, as long as they are competent in laparoscopic surgeries.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Symptom Duration and Surgeon Volume: Impact on Early Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Acute Cholecystitis
- Date Crossref
- 23/10/2023
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.