Summary
In a prospectively randomized study 100 pts., 50 laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LCCE), 50 mini-lap-cholecystectomies (MCCE), were compared. The study showed that there were no significant differences of sex, age, body weight, morbidity and mortality in both groups. Postoperative pulmonary function (total vital capacity) was significantly improved after LCCE, postoperative pain perception (VAS 0–50) was attenuated for the first three postoperative days. Hospital stay was 3.8 ± versus 5.6 ± days after LCCE/MCCE — statistically highly significant. Regaining of occupational and recreational activities was significantly earlier after LCCE. The study shows the superiorness of LCCE over MCCE. This is in contrast to the risk of bile duct injury during LCCE.
Zusammenfassung
In einer prospektiv randomisierten Studie wurden 100 Pat., 50 laparoskopische Cholecystektomien (LCCE), 50 Mini-Lap-Cholezystektomien (MCCE), verglichen. Es zeigten sich keine signifikanten Unterschiede bezüglich Geschlecht, Alter, Körpergewicht, Morbidität und Letalität. Die postoperative Lungenfunktion (gesamte Vitalkapazität) war nach LCCE signifikant besser, das postoperative Schmerzempfinden (VAS 0–50) war in den ersten drei postop. Tagen abgemildert. Der Krankenhausaufenthalt war 3,8 ± versus 5,6 ± Tage nach LCCE/MCCE. Die Wiederaufnahme von Arbeit und Freizeitaktivitäten erfolgte nach LCCE wesentlich früher. Die Studie belegt die Überlegenheit der LCCE über die MCCE. Dagegen besteht bei LCCE das Risiko der Gallengangsverletzung.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Literatur
Barkun JS, Barkun AN, Sampalis JS, Fried G, Taylor B, Wexler MJ, Goresky CA, Meakins JL and the McGill Gallstone Treatment Group (1992) Randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus mini cholecystectomy. The Lancet 340:1116–1119
Deziel DJ, Millikan KW, Economou SG, Doolas A, Ko ST, Airan MC (1993) Complications of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A National Survey of 4,292 Hospitals and an Analysis of 77,604 Cases. Am J Surg 165:9–14
Goco IR, Chambers LG (1983) Mini-cholecystectomy and operative cholangiography. A means of cost containment. Am Surg 49:143–145
Herfarth Ch, Schumpelick V, Siewert JR (1993) Fehler und Gefahren des laparoskopischen/endoskopischen Operierens. Chirurg 64:211
Kunz R, Orth K, Vogel J, Steinacker JM, Meitinger A, Brückner U, Beger HG (1992) Laparoskopische Cholecystektomie versus Mini-Lap-Cholecystektomie. Chirurg 63:291–295
Moossa AR, Easter DW, van Sonnenberg E, Casola G, D’Agostino H (1992) Laparoscopic Injuries to the Bile Duct. A Cause for Concern. Ann Surg 215:203–208
Moss G, Regal ME, Lichtig L (1986) Reducing postoperative pain, narcotics, and length of hospitalization. Surgery 99:206–210.
Reddick EJ, Olsen DO (1989) Laparoscopic laser cholecystectomy. A comparison with mini-lap cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 3:131–133
Rossi RL, Schirmer WJ, Braasch JW, Sanders LB, Munson JL (1992) Laparoscopic bile duct injuries. Risk factors, recognition, and repair. Arch Surg 127:596–601
Shanahan D, Knight M (1992) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. BMJ 304:776–777
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1993 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Kunz, R. (1993). Cholezystektomie — laparoskopische versus Mini-Lap-Cholezystektomie. Ergebnisse einer prospektiv randomisierten Studie. In: Hartel, W. (eds) Wandel der Chirurgie in unserer Zeit. Langenbecks Archiv für Chirurgie, vol 1993. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-78145-2_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-78145-2_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-56566-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-78145-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive