Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: is the surgery still safe beyond the 7-day barrier? A multicentric observational study

Timing for early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC) in patients with acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) is still controversial. This study assesses ELC for ACC with delayed presentation, according to hospital volume. Multicentric retrospective analysis of 1868 ELC. Patients were classified into two...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Updates in surgery 2021-02, Vol.73 (1), p.261-272
Hauptverfasser: Di Martino, Marcello, Mora-Guzmán, Ismael, Vaello Jodra, Víctor, Sanjuanbenito Dehesa, Alfonso, Morales-García, Dieter, Caiña Ruiz, Rubén, García-Moreno Nisa, Francisca, Mendoza-Moreno, Fernando, Alonso Batanero, Sara, Quiñones Sampedro, José Edecio, Lora Cumplido, Paola, Arango Bravo, Altea, Rubio-Perez, Ines, Asensio-Gomez, Luis, Pardo Aranda, Fernando, Sentí i Farrarons, Sara, Ruiz Moreno, Cristina, Martinez Moreno, Clara Maria, Sarriugarte Lasarte, Aingeru, Prieto Calvo, Mikel, Aparicio-Sánchez, Daniel, Perea del Pozo, Eduardo, Martin-Perez, Elena
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Timing for early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC) in patients with acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) is still controversial. This study assesses ELC for ACC with delayed presentation, according to hospital volume. Multicentric retrospective analysis of 1868 ELC. Patients were classified into two groups according to the timing of surgery from clinical onset and centre volume. Group 1 (G1) within the first 7 days, group 2 (G2) beyond that. Then centres were classified in low volume centres (LVC) and higher volume centres (HVC) according to the number of ELC performed per year. Overall, G2 showed increased conversion rate (17.7% vs 10.7%; p  = 0.004), intraoperative complications (7.3% vs 2.9%; p  = 0.001); postoperative haemorrhage (3.6% vs 0.8%; p  
ISSN:2038-131X
2038-3312
DOI:10.1007/s13304-020-00924-1