Introduction:The situation regarding the surgical care of cholelithiasis has significantly changed with the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.It has been discovered that laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) requires more time to complete and results in less discomfort after surgery than small-incision surgical procedures, or Mini laparotomy cholecystectomy (MC).However, outcomes regarding hospital stay and recovery have been inconsistent.Aims/ objective: To compare efficacy and safety with respect to duration of surgery, post-operative hospital stay, and incidence of complications between laparoscopic cholecystectomy and mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy.Materials and Method: 100 patients with cholelithiasis were operated via either laparoscopic cholecystectomy and mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy with 50 patients in each group.Their groups were labelled as group LC and group MC respectively.Effectiveness of the two technique of surgery was compared with respect to additional procedure required, duration of surgery, post-operative hospital stay, and incidence of complications.Results: There were comparatively more cases of CBD exploration and intra-operative sphincterotomy in group MC as compared to group LC.Mean duration of surgery was 104.10 ± 71.22 minutes in LC group as compared to 7.95 ± 6.08 minutes in MC group with statistically significant difference (p<0.05).Mean post-operative stay was 3.56 ± 0.59 minutes in LC group as compared to 5.72 ± 0.68 minutes in MC group with statistically significant difference (p<0.05).There were more cases of wound infection, post-operative ileus and severe pain in MC group whereas cases of intra-operative bleeding and bile duct injury were more in LC group.Conclusion: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy required more time to complete but resulted in a marginally shorter hospital stay following surgery and a more seamless recovery than cholecystectomy via mini laparotomy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kumar et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: