Risk factors for conversion to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

The aim of this study was to investigate the risk factors for conversion to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) in single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) along with the proposal for procedure selection guidelines in treating patients with benign gallbladder (GB) diseases. SI...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Annals of surgical treatment and research 2016, 90(6), , pp.303-308
Hauptverfasser: Kim, Sung Gon, Moon, Ju Ik, Choi, In Seok, Lee, Sang Eok, Sung, Nak Song, Chun, Ki Won, Lee, Hye Yoon, Yoon, Dae Sung, Choi, Won Jun
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The aim of this study was to investigate the risk factors for conversion to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) in single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) along with the proposal for procedure selection guidelines in treating patients with benign gallbladder (GB) diseases. SILC was performed in 697 cases between April 2010 and July 2014. Seventeen cases (2.4%) underwent conversion to conventional LC. We compared these 2 groups and analyzed the risk factors for conversion to CLC. In univariate analysis, American Society of Anesthesiologist score > 3, preoperative percutaneous transhepatic GB drainage status and pathology (acute cholecystitis or GB empyema) were significant risk factors for conversion (P = 0.010, P = 0.019 and P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, pathology (acute cholecystitis or GB empyema) was significant risk factors for conversion to CLC in SILC (P < 0.001). Although SILC is a feasible method for most patients with benign GB disease, CLC has to be considered in patients with acute cholecystitis or GB empyema because it is likely to result in inadequate visualization of the Calot's triangle and greater bleeding risk.
ISSN:2288-6575
2288-6796
DOI:10.4174/astr.2016.90.6.303