The influence of intraoperative complications on adhesion formation during laparoscopic and conventional cholecystectomy in an animal model
- 81 Downloads
The aim of this study was to evaluate the extent of postoperative adhesion formation after laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy.
Materials and methods
Qualified surgeons performed 60 experimental laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LC) in dogs with the aim to acquire the laparoscopic technique. To assess the relation between the complications during the operation (bleeding, laceration of the liver bed, or gallbladder perforation) and the formation of adhesions, surviving animals were divided into four groups according to the type of complication occurred. Assessment of the results was made by second-look laparoscopy 4 weeks after LC using the adhesion index (AI; score range, 0–4). The animals then were killed so the extent of adhesion formation could be measured. As a control, open cholecystectomy was performed in 15 dogs without intraoperative complications. The Mann-Whitney rank-sum test and Dunn’s method were used for statistical analysis.
No adhesion formation or intraoperative complications were registered in the laparoscopic group I. In all the cases wherein bleeding or laceration of the liver bed occurred and was managed with electrocoagulation, adhesions formed. Adhesion formation in these groups was significantly higher than in “ideal LC” or cases of gallbladder perforation alone (p<0.01). All the animals in the control group developed significantly more adhesions than those in the experimental group (p<0.05).
It seems that LC has a lower rate of adhesion formation than the conventional open technique. Complications such as bleeding or laceration of the liver bed during LC can enhance adhesion formation. No adhesion formation can be mentioned in relation to gallbladder perforation during LC.
Key wordsAdhesion formation Complications Conventional Laparoscopic cholecystectomy
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Aziz R (1993) Microsurgery alone or with Interceed Absorbable Barrier for pelvic sidewall adhesion re-formation: the INTERCEED Adhesion Barrier Study Group II. Surg Gynecol Obstet 177: 135–139Google Scholar
- 6.Ellis H (1997) The clinical significance of adhesions: focus on intestinal obstruction. Eur J Surg Suppl 577: 5–9Google Scholar
- 10.Holmdahl L, Risberg B, Beck DE, Burns JW, Chegini N, diZerega GS, Ellis H (1977) Adhesions: pathogenesis and prevention-panel discussion and summary. Eur J Surg Suppl 577: 56–62Google Scholar
- 14.Risberg B (1997) Adhesions: preventive strategies. Eur J Surg Suppl 577: 32–39Google Scholar