The standard of laparoscopic cholecystectomy

被引:76
作者
Bittner, R [1 ]
机构
[1] Marien Hosp, Dept Gen & Visceral Surg, D-70199 Stuttgart, Germany
关键词
gall bladder stones; laparoscopic cholecystectomy; intraoperative cholangiography; silent gall stones; occult common bile duct stones;
D O I
10.1007/s00423-004-0471-1
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy today is the standard operation for all gall stone disease. Nevertheless, a number of questions are still being discussed: What are the optimal steps? Or, more important, is the laparoscopic technique really superior to the open procedure according to the criteria of evidence-based medicine? How should we proceed in case of an occult choledocholithiasis? Is intraoperative cholangiography mandatory, and does the concept for the treatment of silent gall stones need to be revised in the era of laparoscopic cholecystectomy? Method. Literature review. Results. Eleven randomised studies show the superiority of the laparoscopic technique. Only one study shows no advantage provided the length of the incision in the open procedure is less than 8 cm. According to our own experience, up to 98% of all gall bladders can be removed laparoscopically when following the described standard technique, with a conversion rate of less than 1%. In the case of an occult choledocholithiasis the concept of "therapeutic splitting" has proved successful; the risk of a residual stone is below 1%. Routine intraoperative cholangiography is not cost effective. The risk of complications for a silent gall stone in the long term is higher than for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in young patients with incidental gall stones. Conclusion. The laparoscopic technique has given new impulses to the surgery of the gall bladder and has proven to be an effective, patient-friendly alternative to open surgery.
引用
收藏
页码:157 / 163
页数:7
相关论文
共 52 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1986, LANGENBECK ARCH CHIR, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF01274615
[2]   THE NATURAL-HISTORY OF GALLSTONES - THE GREPCO EXPERIENCE [J].
ATTILI, AF ;
DESANTIS, A ;
CAPRI, R ;
REPICE, AM ;
MASELLI, S .
HEPATOLOGY, 1995, 21 (03) :656-660
[3]   LAPAROSCOPIC VERSUS OPEN CHOLECYSTECTOMY - THE CANADIAN EXPERIENCE [J].
BARKUN, JS ;
BARKUN, AN ;
MEAKINS, JL ;
BAILAR, J ;
BATTISTA, RN ;
BRASSARD, R ;
BRET, PM ;
FRIED, G ;
GARZON, J ;
HINCHEY, EJ ;
JOSEPH, L ;
MAMAZZA, J ;
SIGMAN, H ;
STEIN, L ;
SAMPALIS, J ;
SZEGO, PL ;
TAYLOR, B ;
WEXLER, MJ .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 1993, 165 (04) :455-458
[4]   LAPAROSCOPIC VERSUS OPEN CHOLECYSTECTOMY - HOSPITALIZATION, SICK LEAVE, ANALGESIA AND TRAUMA RESPONSES [J].
BERGGREN, U ;
GORDH, T ;
GRAMA, D ;
HAGLUND, U ;
RASTAD, J ;
ARVIDSSON, D .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 1994, 81 (09) :1362-1365
[5]  
CHARFARE H, 2000, ANN R COLL SURG ENGL, V85, P167
[6]   MECHANISMS OF MAJOR BILIARY INJURY DURING LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY [J].
DAVIDOFF, AM ;
PAPPAS, TN ;
MURRAY, EA ;
HILLEREN, DJ ;
JOHNSON, RD ;
BAKER, ME ;
NEWMAN, GE ;
COTTON, PB ;
MEYERS, WC .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 1992, 215 (03) :196-202
[7]   BILE-DUCT INJURY AFTER LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY - THE VALUE OF ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY [J].
DAVIDS, PHP ;
RINGERS, J ;
RAUWS, EAJ ;
DEWIT, LT ;
HUIBREGTSE, K ;
VANDERHEYDE, MN ;
TYTGAT, GNJ .
GUT, 1993, 34 (09) :1250-1254
[8]   CELIOSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY - EXPERIENCE WITH 2006 CASES [J].
DUBOIS, F ;
BERTHELOT, G ;
LEVARD, H .
WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 1995, 19 (05) :748-752
[9]   CELIOSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY - PRELIMINARY-REPORT OF 36 CASES [J].
DUBOIS, F ;
ICARD, P ;
BERTHELOT, G ;
LEVARD, H .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 1990, 211 (01) :60-62
[10]  
DUBOIS F, 1989, PRESSE MED, V18, P980