Skip to main content
Log in

Treatment of acute cholecystitis

A comparison of open vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

In this study, the clinical results and cost-effectiveness of open vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the treatment of acute cholecystitis were compared

Methods

Over a 5-year period (1994–98), 894 cholecystectomies were performed, 545 (60.96%) of them laparoscopically and 349 (39.04%) by the open method. The study included 209 patients with a clinical diagnosis of acute cholecystitis; 115 (55.02%) of them were operated on by the open method and 94 (44.98%) by the laparoscopic method.

Results

A comparison analysis revealed that the mean postoperative treatment period was 8.40 days after open and 4.38 days after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In the group operated on by the open method, 106 patients received an antibiotic, a mean of 5.09 ampules and 3.2 tablets or suppositories of an analgesic, and 2.91 dressings per patient; whereas in the group submitted to the laparoscopic method, the comparable figures were 43, 3.13, 2.1, and 1.47, respectively. In 31 (26.96%) employed patients operated on by the open method, the mean absenteeism from work was 42 days; whereas in 31 (32.98%) of those operated on by the laparoscopic method, it was 17 days. The mean operating times for the procedures were 89 and 115 min for the open and laparoscopic methods, respectively. Two patients submitted to open cholecystectomy died within 30 days post-operatively. Wound infection was recorded in 10 (8.7%), prolonged biliary secretion in two, and cicatricial hernia in five (4.35%) patients. In the group submitted to laparoscopic cholecystectomy, there were no deaths; nine (9.57%) conversions were required; four patients had to be reoperated on, two of them for bile lobe hemorrhage and two for massive biliary secretion from the open cystic duct; herniation at the site of supraumbilical incision developed in three patients, and infection developed at the same site in two (2.13%) patients. The hospital cost was significantly higher in laparoscopic patients ($1181 vs $873) USD), as was the total cost of treatment for acute cholecystitis ($1430 vs $1316). However, the cost for sick leave and rehabilitation was significantly lower in laparoscopically treated patients ($486 vs $1199).

Conclusions

Our comparison analysis of the results and cost-effectiveness of the surgical treatment of acute cholecystitis clearly pointed to the advantages of laparoscopic over open cholecystectomy —i.e., better clinical outcome and a more rapid resumption of daily activities. Hospital and total costs of treatment were on average higher in laparoscopic patients, except for the employed ones, where the lower sick leave cost translated into a significant reduction in total costs.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Čala Z (1996) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: an original three-trocar technique. World J Surg 20: 117–118

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Čala Z, Velnič, D, Cvitanovič B, Rašič Ž, Perko Z (1996) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results after 1000 procedures. Acta Med Croatica 50: 147–149

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cox MR, Wilson TG, Luck AJ, Jeans PL, Padbury RT, Toouli J (1993) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute inflammation of the gallbladder. Ann Surg 218: 630–634

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cuschieri A (1993) Cost effectiveness of endoscopic surgery. Health Econ 2: 367–369

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cuschieri A, Dubois F, Mouiel J, Mouret P, Becker H, Buess G, Trede M, Troidl H (1991) The European experience with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 161: 385–387

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Deziel DJ, Milikan KW, Economou SG, Doolas A, Ko ST, Airan MC (1993) Complications of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a national survery of 4,292 hospitals and an analysis of 77,604 cases. Am J Surg 165: 9–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Grace PA, Quereshi A, Coleman J, Keane R, McEntee G, Broe P, Osborne H, Bouchier-Hayes D (1991) Reduced postoperative hospitalization after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 78: 160–162

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hawasli A, Lloyd LR (1991) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The learning curve: report of 50 patients. Am Surg 57: 542–545

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kum CK, Goh PM, Isaac JR, Tekant Y, Ngoi SS (1994) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for treatment of acute cholecystitis. Br J Surg 81: 1651–1654

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Lo CM, Fan ST, Liu CL, Lai ECS, Wong J (1997) Early decision for conversion of laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy for treatment of acute cholecystitis. Am J Surg 173: 513–517

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lo CM, Liu CL, Lai EC, Fan ST, Wong J (1996) Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for treatment of acute cholecystitis. Ann Surg 223: 37–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. McSherry CK (1989) Cholecystectomy: the gold standard. Am J Surg 158: 174–178

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Morgenstern L, Wond L, Berci G (1992) Twelve hundred open cholecystectomies before the laparoscopic era: a standard for comparison. Arch Surg 127: 400–403

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Perissat J (1993) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the European experience. Am J Surg 165: 444–449

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Peters JH, Krailadsiri W, Incarbone R, Bremner CG, Froes E, Ireland AP, Crookes P, Ortega AE, Anthone GA, Stain SA (1994) Reason for conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy in a urban teaching hospital. Am J Surg 168: 555–559

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Rettner DW, Ferguson C, Warshaw AL (1993) Factors associated with successful laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Ann Surg 217: 233–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Roslyn JJ, Binns GS, Hughes EFX, Saunders-Kirkwood K, Zinner MJ, Cates JA (1993) Open cholecystectomy: a contemporary analysis of 42,747 patients. Ann Surg 218: 129–137

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Shea JA, Healey MJ, Berlin JA, Clarke JR, Malet PF, Staroscik RN, Schwartz JS, Williams SV (1996) Mortality and complications associated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 224: 609–620

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Soper NJ, Stockmann PT, Dunegan DL, Ashley SW (1992) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the new “gold standard”. Arch Surg 127: 917–923

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Southern Surgeons Club, Moore MJ, Bennett CL (1995) The learning curve for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 170: 55–59

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Traverso LW, Hargrave K (1995) A prospective cost analysis of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 169: 503–506

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Unger SW, Rosenbaum G, Unger HM, Edelman DS (1993) A comparison of laparoscopic and open treatment of acute cholecystitis. Surg Endosc 7: 408–411

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wenner J, Graffner H, Lindell G (1995) A financial analysis of laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 9: 702–705

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Zucker KA, Flowers JL, Bailey RW, Graham SM, Buell J, Imbembo AL (1993) Laparoscopic management of acute cholecystitis. Am J Surg 165: 508–514

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Online publication: 12 December 2000

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Glavić, Ž., Begić, L., Šimleša, D. et al. Treatment of acute cholecystitis. Surg Endosc 15, 398–401 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/s004640000333

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s004640000333

Key words

Navigation