Skip to main content

Cholezystektomie — laparoskopische versus Mini-Lap-Cholezystektomie. Ergebnisse einer prospektiv randomisierten Studie

Laparoscopic versus Mini-Lap-Cholecystectomy. Results of a Prospective Randomized Study

  • Conference paper
Wandel der Chirurgie in unserer Zeit

Part of the book series: Langenbecks Archiv für Chirurgie ((KONGRESSBAND,volume 1993))

  • 9 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Goco IR, Chambers LG (1983) Mini-cholecystectomy and operative cholangiography. A means of cost containment. Am Surg 49:143–145

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Herfarth Ch, Schumpelick V, Siewert JR (1993) Fehler und Gefahren des laparoskopischen/endoskopischen Operierens. Chirurg 64:211

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Moss G, Regal ME, Lichtig L (1986) Reducing postoperative pain, narcotics, and length of hospitalization. Surgery 99:206–210.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Reddick EJ, Olsen DO (1989) Laparoscopic laser cholecystectomy. A comparison with mini-lap cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 3:131–133

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Shanahan D, Knight M (1992) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. BMJ 304:776–777

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics