Patient recovery following cholecystectomy through a 6 cm or 15 cm transverse subcostal incision: a prospective randomized clinical trial

Mini-cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a retrospective multicentric study among patients operated in some Eastern Libyan hospitals

Objectives

This study was conducted to analyze the difference between Mini-Cholecystectomy (MC) and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (LC) in terms of feasibility and postoperative outcomes to determine if MC could be accepted as a good alternative procedure to LC.

Material and Methods

A retrospective comparative study of 206 consecutively operated patients of chronic cholecystitis (138 LC and 68 MC), in Al-Jalaa, Ajdabiya and Almrg Teaching hospitals between January 2014 and December 2015 was performed. All cases within the two groups were balanced for age, sex, co-morbidities, ultrasound and intraoperative findings. Exclusion criteria were acute cholecystitis, preoperative jaundice, liver cirrhosis, suspicion of malignancy, previous upper abdominal surgery and pregnancy.

Results

Mean age of the patients in the study was around 37 years. Female patients represented 88.84%. Intraoperative complications occurred in about 2% of the patients with bleeding in three cases (one in MC, two in LC) and injury to the bile ducts occurred in one case who underwent LC. Operative duration was longer in LC (mean values 64 minutes for LC and 45 minutes for MC). Rate of conversion to classical cholecystectomy in LC was 5% while it was 0% in MC. Only one case of wound infection was registered in the LC group. Postoperative hospital stay was insignificantly longer for LC versus MC (1.97 days for MC and 2.63 days for LC).

Conclusion

Mini-cholecystectomy is a feasible technique, which can be considered as a good alternative method for gallbladder removal for surgeons who have no experience with laparoscopic techniques and in peripheral hospitals where LC is not available.

Electrical Stimulation and Recovery of Gastrointestinal Function Following Surgery: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Postoperative ileus occurs in approximately 5-15% of patients following major abdominal surgery, and poses a substantial clinical and economic burden. Electrical stimulation has been proposed as a means to aid postoperative gastrointestinal (GI) recovery, but no methods have entered routine clinical practice. A systematic review was undertaken to assess electrical stimulation techniques and to evaluate their clinical efficacy in order to identify promising areas for future research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature was searched using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar and by assessing relevant clinical trial databases. Studies investigating the use of electrical stimulation for postoperative GI recovery were included, regardless of methods used or outcomes measured. A critical review was constructed encompassing all included studies and evaluating and synthesizing stimulation techniques, protocols, and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A broad range of neuromodulation strategies and protocols were identified and assessed. Improved postoperative GI recovery following electrical stimulation was reported by 55% of studies (10/18), most commonly those assessing transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and electroacupuncture therapy (7/10). Several studies reported shorter time to first flatus and stool, shorter duration of hospital stay, and reduced postoperative pain. However, inconsistent reporting and limitations in trial design were common, compromising a definitive determination of electrical stimulation efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Electrical stimulation appears to be a promising methodology to aid postoperative GI recovery, but greater attention to mechanisms of action and clinical trial quality is necessary for progress. Future research should also aim to apply validated and standardized gut recovery outcomes and consistent neuromodulation methodologies.

Comparing the experience of enhanced recovery programme for gynaecological patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open gynaecological surgery: a prospective study

Background

Enhanced recovery has been shown to improve patients’ experience after surgery. There are no previous studies comparing patients’ experience between those undergoing laparoscopic and open gynaecological surgery. Therefore, the aim of this prospective study is to compare patients’ functional recovery based on milestones set by the enhanced recovery programme and patients’ satisfaction between the two groups.

Methods

All eligible patients undergoing gynaecological surgery within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme from March to August 2014 were involved in this study. All patients received the questionnaires on admission which were then collected prior to discharge. They were followed up by telephone within 7 days.

Results

Two hundred sixty-three patients were involved. One hundred forty-four questionnaires were returned (54% response rate). Fifty-one percent (n = 74) were from the laparoscopic group and 49% (n = 70) were from the laparotomy group. In terms of achieving milestones, more patients in the laparotomy group performed the deep breathing exercises (laparoscopic versus open; 66.2% versus 87.1% (p = 0.003). The laparoscopic group were more able to eat on day 0, but by day 1, there was no difference between the groups. Both groups were similar in their ability to drink (p = 0.98), mobilise (p = 0.123) and sit out in a chair (p = 0.511). In the laparoscopic group, the patients’ experience was better for pain control (p < 0.0001) and nausea control (p = 0.003) from recovery to day 1, and they were more able to put on their own clothes (p = 0.001) and were more confident in mobilising (p < 0.0001) and in going home (p < 0.0001). The laparoscopic group had greater patient satisfaction with their pain always being well controlled (p < 0.0001) whilst more patients in the laparotomy group reported being satisfied to very satisfied with their overall care on the gynaecology ward (p = 0.04). Both groups were equally satisfied with their care from nursing staff (p = 0.709) and doctors (p = 0.431).

Conclusion

The two groups were in general equally able to achieve the majority of the milestones despite differences in symptoms such as pain, nausea and confidence in mobilising and going home. Pre-operative education can empower patients to engage in their recovery. There is a high level of patient satisfaction in both groups.

Predicate argument structure frames for modeling information in operative notes

The rich information about surgical procedures contained in operative notes is a valuable data source for improving the clinical evidence base and clinical research. In this study, we propose a set of Predicate Argument Structure (PAS) frames for surgical action verbs to assist in the creation of an information extraction (IE) system to automatically extract details about the techniques, equipment, and operative steps from operative notes. We created PropBank style PAS frames for the 30 top surgical action verbs based on examination of randomly selected sample sentences from 3,000 Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy notes. To assess completeness of the PAS frames to represent usage of same action verbs, we evaluated the PAS frames created on sample sentences from operative notes of 6 other gastrointestinal surgical procedures. Our results showed that the PAS frames created with one type of surgery can successfully denote the usage of the same verbs in operative notes of broader surgical categories.

A study of actions in operative notes

Operative notes contain rich information about techniques, instruments, and materials used in procedures. To assist development of effective information extraction (IE) techniques for operative notes, we investigated the sublanguage used to describe actions within the operative report 'procedure description' section. Deep parsing results of 362,310 operative notes with an expanded Stanford parser using the SPECIALIST Lexicon resulted in 200 verbs (92% coverage) including 147 action verbs. Nominal action predicates for each action verb were gathered from WordNet, SPECIALIST Lexicon, New Oxford American Dictionary and Stedman's Medical Dictionary. Coverage gaps were seen in existing lexical, domain, and semantic resources (Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) Metathesaurus, SPECIALIST Lexicon, WordNet and FrameNet). Our findings demonstrate the need to construct surgical domain-specific semantic resources for IE from operative notes.

Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations

BACKGROUND

This review aims to present a consensus for optimal perioperative care in colonic surgery and to provide graded recommendations for items for an evidenced-based enhanced perioperative protocol.

METHODS

Studies were selected with particular attention paid to meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials and large prospective cohorts. For each item of the perioperative treatment pathway, available English-language literature was examined, reviewed and graded. A consensus recommendation was reached after critical appraisal of the literature by the group.

RESULTS

For most of the protocol items, recommendations are based on good-quality trials or meta-analyses of good-quality trials (quality of evidence and recommendations according to the GRADE system).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the evidence available for each item of the multimodal perioperative-care pathway, the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society, International Association for Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition (IASMEN) and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) present a comprehensive evidence-based consensus review of perioperative care for colonic surgery.

Comparison of the neuroendocrine and inflammatory responses after laparoscopic and abdominal hysterectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery is associated with a more favorable clinical outcome than that of conventional open surgery. This might be related to the magnitude of the tissue trauma. The aim of the present study was to examine the differences of the neuroendocrine and inflammatory responses between the two surgical techniques.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients with no major medical disease were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopic (n = 13) or abdominal hysterectomy (n = 11). Venous blood samples were collected and we measured the levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), CRP and cortisol at the time before and after skin incision, at the end of peritoneum closure and at 1 h and 24 h after operation.

RESULTS

The laparoscopic hysterectomy group demonstrated less of an inflammatory response in terms of the serum IL-6 and CRP responses than did the abdominal hysterectomy group, and the laparoscopic hysterectomy group had a shorter hospital stay (P < 0.05). The peak serum IL-6 (P < 0.05) and CRP concentrations were significantly less increased in the laparoscopic group as compared with that of the abdominal hysterectomy group (P < 0.05), while the serum cortisol concentration showed a similar time course and changes and there were no significant difference between the groups. The response of interleukin-6 showed a significant correlation with the response of CRP (r = 0.796; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic surgical procedure leaves the endocrine metabolic response largely unaltered as compared with that of open abdominal hysterectomy, but it reduces the inflammatory response as measured by the IL-6 and CRP levels.

Multimodal optimization of surgical care shows beneficial outcome in gastrectomy surgery

BACKGROUND

The aim of this trial was to compare multimodal optimization with conventional perioperative management in a consecutive series of patients undergoing gastrectomy procedures.

METHODS

According to randomized controlled studies and conclusions made by meta-analyses in colorectal surgery, optimized perioperative measures were designed and applied in gastrectomy surgery. Thirty-three patients were randomized to the optimized group and 30 patients to a control group. Two groups were treated in 1 center by a single surgical team in different wards. Both groups used patient-controlled intravenous analgesia for postoperative analgesia. The primary end point was length of postoperative hospital stay. Secondary outcomes included bowel function recovery after surgery, perioperative changes of inflammatory factors, glucocorticoid, insulin resistance, and body composition. Perioperative complications and adverse events were also recorded.

RESULTS

The groups were similar in terms of age, sex ratio, and Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity (POSSUM score). The optimized group was associated with a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay compared with the conventional care group (P < .001). Durations of urinary catheterization and abdominal drainage were also less (P < .001). The diet program in the optimization group was well tolerated and was associated with an earlier recovery of gut function (P < .001). Proinflammatory factors were less elevated and body composition was more stable in the optimized group than in controls. There were no differences in morbidity or mortality between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimization of care in gastrectomy can shorten postoperative hospital stay and provides multiple beneficial outcomes, including hastening the return of gut function, without increasing morbidity.

Systematic review: open, small-incision or laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic cholecystolithiasis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has become the method of choice for gallbladder removal, although evidence of superiority over open and small-incision cholecystectomy is lacking.

AIM

To compare the effects of open, small-incision and laparoscopic cholecystectomy techniques for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis.

METHODS

We conducted updated searches until January 2007 in multiple databases. We assessed bias risk.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine trials randomized 5556 patients. No significant differences in primary outcomes (mortality and complications) were found among all three techniques. Both minimal invasive techniques show advantages over open cholecystectomy in terms of convalescence. Small-incision cholecystectomy showed shorter operative time compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (random effects, weighted mean difference, 16.4 min; 95% confidence interval, 8.9-23.8), but the two techniques did not differ regarding hospital stay and conversions.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences in mortality and complications were found among all three techniques. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy and small-incision cholecystectomy are preferred over open cholecystectomy for quicker convalescence. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy and small-incision cholecystectomy show no clear differences on patient outcomes.

Non-randomised patients in a cholecystectomy trial: characteristics, procedures, and outcomes

Background

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is now considered the first option for gallbladder surgery. However, 20% to 30% of cholecystectomies are completed as open operations often on elderly and fragile patients. The external validity of randomised trials comparing mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy has not been studied. The aim of this study is to analyse characteristics, procedures, and outcomes for all patients who underwent cholecystectomy without being included in such a trial.

Methods

Characteristics (age, sex, co-morbidity, and ASA-score), operation time, hospital stay, and mortality were compared for patients who underwent cholecystectomy outside and within a randomised controlled trial comparing mini-laparotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Results

During the inclusion period 1719 patients underwent cholecystectomy. 726 patients were randomised and 724 of them completed the trial; 993 patients underwent cholecystectomy outside the trial. The non-randomised patients were older – and had more complications from gallstone disease, higher co-morbidity, and higher ASA – score when compared with trial patients. They were also more likely to undergo acute surgery and they had a longer postoperative hospital stay, with a median 3 versus 2 days (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Standardised mortality ratio within 90 days of operation was 3.42 (mean) (95% CI 2.17 to 5.13) for non-randomised patients and 1.61 (mean) (95%CI 0.02 to 3.46) for trial patients. For non-randomised patients, operation time did not differ significantly between mini-laparotomy and open cholecystectomy in multivariate analysis. However, the operation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy lasted 20 minutes longer than open cholecystectomy. Hospital stay was significantly shorter for both mini-laparotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared to open cholecystectomy.

Conclusion

Non-randomised patients were older and more sick than trial patients. The assignment of healthier patients to trials comparing mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy limits the external validity of conclusions reached in such trials.

Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis

BACKGROUND

Cholecystectomy is one of the most frequently performed operations. Open cholecystectomy has been the gold standard for over 100 years. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was introduced in the 1980s.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched TheCochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (April 2004), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (1980 to January 2004), Web of Science (1988 to January 2004), and CINAHL (1982 to January 2004) for randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished randomised trials in patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis comparing any kind of laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus any kind of open cholecystectomy. No language limitations were applied.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently performed selection of trials and data extraction. The methodological quality of the generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up was evaluated to assess bias risk. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. Authors were requested additional information in case of missing data. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed when appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-eight trials randomised 2338 patients. Most of the trials had high bias risk. There was no significant difference regarding mortality (risk difference 0,00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.01). Meta-analysis of all trials suggests less overall complications in the laparoscopic group, but the high-quality trials show no significant difference ('allocation concealment' high-quality trials risk difference, random effects -0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.02). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients have a shorter hospital stay (weighted mean difference (WMD), random effects -3 days, 95% CI -3.9 to -2.3) and convalescence (WMD, random effects -22.5 days, 95% CI -36.9 to -8.1) compared to open cholecystectomy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences were observed in mortality, complications and operative time between laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay and a quicker convalescence compared with the classical open cholecystectomy. These results confirm the existing preference for the laparoscopic cholecystectomy over open cholecystectomy.

Small-incision versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis

BACKGROUND

Cholecystectomy is one of the most frequently performed operations. Open cholecystectomy has been the gold standard for over 100 years. Small-incision cholecystectomy is a less frequently used alternative.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of small-incision versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched TheCochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (6 April 2004), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (1980 to January 2004), Web of Science (1988 to January 2004), and CINAHL (1982 to January 2004) for randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished randomised trials in patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis comparing any kind of small-incision or other kind of minimal incision cholecystectomy versus any kind of open cholecystectomy. No language limitations were applied.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently performed selection of trials and data extraction. The methodological quality of the generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up was evaluated to assess bias risk. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. Authors were requested additional information in case of missing data. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed if appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven trials randomised 571 patients. Bias risk was high in the included trials. No mortality was reported. The total complication proportions are respectively 9.9% and 9.3% in the small-incision and open group, which is not significantly different (risk difference all trials, random-effects 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.06 to 0.07). There are also no significant differences considering severe complications and bile duct injuries. However, small-incision cholecystectomy has a shorter hospital stay (weighted mean difference, random-effects -2.8 days (95% CI -4.9 to -0.6)) compared to open cholecystectomy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Small-incision and open cholecystectomy seem to be equivalent regarding risks of complications, but the latter method is associated with a significantly longer hospital stay. The quicker recovery of small-incision cholecystectomy compared with open cholecystectomy confirms the existing preference of this technique over open cholecystectomy.

Laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis

BACKGROUND

Cholecystectomy is one of the most frequently performed operations. Open cholecystectomy has been the gold standard for over 100 years. Small-incision cholecystectomy is a less frequently used alternative. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was introduced in the 1980s.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched TheCochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (6 April 2004), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (1980 to January 2004), Web of Science (1988 to January 2004), and CINAHL (1982 to January 2004) for randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished randomised trials in patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis comparing any kind of laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus small-incision or other kind of minimal incision open cholecystectomy. No language limitations were applied.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently performed selection of trials and data extraction. The methodological quality of the generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up was evaluated to assess bias risk. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. Authors were requested additional information in case of missing data. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed if appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen trials randomised 2337 patients. Methodological quality was relatively high considering the four quality criteria. Total complications of laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy are high: 26.6% versus 22.9%. Total complications (risk difference, random-effects -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.07 to 0.05), hospital stay (weighted mean difference (WMD), random-effects -0.72 days, 95% CI -1.48 to 0.04), and convalescence were not significantly different. High-quality trials show a quicker operative time for small-incision cholecystectomy (WMD, high-quality trials 'blinding', random-effects 16.4 minutes, 95% CI 8.9 to 23.8) while low-quality trials show no significant difference.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy seem to be equivalent. No differences could be observed in mortality, complications, and postoperative recovery. Small-incision cholecystectomy has a significantly shorter operative time. Complications in elective cholecystectomy are prevalent.

[Laparoscopic versus mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy]

OBJECTIVES

To describe differences in operating time, pain scores, analgesic consumption, complications, length of hospital stay, and quality of life in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) vs mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy (MLC).

PATIENTS AND METHOD

Between 1991 and July 1999, we performed a study of 1041 patients with gallstones who underwent LC (group A, n = 421 patients) or MLC (group B, n = 620 patients). Age, sex, ASA score, pain scores (visual analog scale), analgesic and antiemetic consumption, operating time, complications and length of hospital stay were recorded. Nottingham Health Profile questionnaires were completed by a subgroup of 200 patients, and respiratory response was evaluated using a Fokuda spirometer before surgery and at 24 and 48 hours after surgery. Patient satisfaction and quality of life were evaluated. The results were interpreted using the SPSS program and descriptive statistics were performed with p = 0.05.

RESULTS

The mean age was 48.9 +/- 14.2 years; 80.5% of the patients were women; 87.88% of the patients were ASA I. Elective surgery was performed in 89.78%. The mean operating time was 94 +/- 45 minutes in LC and was 108 +/- 48 minutes in MLC (p < 0.001). LC was associated with lower postoperative pain (0 = 68.88%), lower analgesic-antiemetic requirements (0 = 9.03%) and shorter length of hospital stay. Complications were significantly more frequent in group B (p = 0.05); two patients in group B died within 30 days of surgery (0.32%).

CONCLUSIONS

LC appears to be associated with lower pain scores and analgesic-antiemetic requirements and shorter recovery times than MLC. The results in terms of quality of life in LC were excellent.

Cholecystectomy in Sweden 1987-99: a nationwide study of mortality and preoperative admissions

OBJECTIVE

Information on mortality after cholecystectomy in defined populations is limited. In this study we examined the case fatality rates and mortality ratios, based on register data.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Hospital discharge and death certificate data were linked for all patients undergoing cholecystectomy in Sweden in 1987-99. Mortality risk was calculated as the standardized mortality ratio (SMR).

RESULTS

From 1 January 1987 to 1 December 1999, 123,099 patients underwent cholecystectomy for acute or chronic gallbladder disease. Between 1987-91 and 1995-99, the incidence of cholecystectomy increased by 13%, median age of patients decreased and the proportion of women increased. From 1995 to 1999, 32% of all cholecystectomies were completed as open cholecystectomy. During this period, 82% of patients aged 70 years or older with acute gallstone disease had an open cholecystectomy. For patients with chronic gallstone disease, the proportion was 43%. Postoperative crude mortality within 30 days for all patients was 0.4%. Patients with acalculous gallbladder disease had double the mortality risk compared with patients with calculous disease, and patients with acute cholecystitis had double the risk compared with patients with chronic disease. High age, previous hospital admission for conditions other than gallbladder disease, and cholecystectomy completed as an open procedure increased the risk, whereas gender and calendar year did not significantly affect the mortality risk. Biliary tract diseases accounted for 61% of all postoperative deaths, whereas 26% were due to cardiovascular diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

During the 1990s, cholecystectomy incidence increased, whereas postoperative mortality risk remained unchanged. In order to further reduce the mortality risk, particular attention should be paid to elderly and frail patients and to patients with acalculous gallbladder disease.

Enhanced recovery after surgery: a consensus review of clinical care for patients undergoing colonic resection

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Clinical care of patients undergoing colonic surgery differs between hospitals and countries. In addition, there is considerable variation in rates of recovery and length of hospital stay following major abdominal surgery. There is a need to develop a consensus on key elements of perioperative care for inclusion in enhanced recovery programmes so that these can be widely adopted and refined further in future clinical trials.

METHODS

Medline database was searched for all clinical studies/trials relating to enhanced recovery after colorectal resection. Relevant papers from the reference lists of these articles and from the authors' personal collections were also reviewed. A combination of evidence-based and consensus methodology was used to develop the resulting enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) clinical care protocol.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Within traditional perioperative practice there is considerable evidence supporting a range of manoeuvres which, in isolation, may improve individual aspects of recovery after colonic surgery. The present manuscript reviews these issues in detail. There is also growing evidence that an integrated multimodal approach to perioperative care can result in an overall enhancement of recovery. However, effects on major morbidity and mortality remain to be determined. A protocol is presented which is in current use by the ERAS Group and may provide a standard of care against which either current or future novel elements of an enhanced recovery approach can be tested for their effect on outcome.

Small-incision (mini-laparotomy) versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a retrospective study in a university hospital

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Since the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy into general practice in 1990, it has rapidly become the dominant procedure for gallbladder surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the results of the laparoscopic, open and mini-laparotomy approaches to cholecystectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Our study covers a period of 6 years. A total of 1,276 patients underwent cholecystectomy for calculous biliary disease. The laparoscopic procedure was applied to 952 (74.6%) patients, while 210 (16.5%) underwent the traditional open cholecystectomy and the remaining 114 (8.9%) patients underwent mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients (3.9%) from the laparoscopic group required conversion to open cholecystectomy. Morbidity was similar in the open and laparoscopic groups (3.8%), while it was significantly lower in the mini-laparotomy group (0.8%). No major bile duct injuries occurred after the open or mini-laparotomy approaches. The median operation time was significantly shorter in the mini-laparotomy group than in the laparoscopic group (46 min vs 61 min). Hospital stay was significantly longer for the open cholecystectomy group (mean value 5.1 days) compared with the laparoscopic and mini-laparotomy groups (mean values 2.5 days and 2.7 days, respectively). Hospital expenses showed a saving of 786 Euro for each patient who underwent the open procedure and 980 Euro for each patient who underwent the mini-laparotomy approach compared with the laparoscopic one.

CONCLUSION

We believe that commissioners of healthcare should question whether the benefits of laparoscopic cholecystectomy justify the additional cost after the introduction of the mini-laparotomy approach.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study

OBJECTIVE

To analyze outcomes after open small-incision surgery (minilaparotomy) and laparoscopic surgery for gallstone disease in general surgical practice.

METHODS

This study was a randomized, single-blind, multicenter trial comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) to minilaparotomy cholecystectomy (MC). Both elective and acute patients were eligible for inclusion. All surgeons normally performing cholecystectomy, both trainees under supervision and consultants, operated on randomized patients. LC was a routine procedure at participating hospitals, whereas MC was introduced after a short training period. All nonrandomized cholecystectomies at participating units during the study period were also recorded to analyze the external validity of trial results. The randomization period was from March 1, 1997, to April 30, 1999.

RESULTS

Of 1,705 cholecystectomies performed at participating units during the randomization period, 724 entered the trial and 362 patients were randomized to each of the procedures. The groups were well matched for age and sex, but there were fewer acute operations in the LC group than the MC group. In the LC group 264 and in the MC group 150 operations were performed by surgeons who had done more than 25 operations of that type. Median operating times were 100 and 85 minutes for LC and MC, respectively. Median hospital stay was 2 days in each group, but in a nonparametric test it was significantly shorter after LC. Median sick leave and time for return to normal recreational activities were shorter after LC than MC. Intraoperative complications were less frequent in the MC group, but there was no difference in the postoperative complication rate between the groups. There was one serious bile duct injury in each group, but no deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

Operating time was longer and convalescence was smoother for LC compared with MC. Further analyses of LC versus MC are necessary regarding surgical training, surgical outcome, and health economy.

Midline or transverse abdominal incision for right-sided colon cancer-a randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

The influence of the type of abdominal incision on post-operative pain and pulmonary function was investigated in patients operated upon for a right-sided cancer of the large bowel.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty-three patients scheduled for a right hemicolectomy due to a right-sided colon cancer were randomized to a median vertical (M) or a transverse incision (T). Forty patients, 23 with a M and 17 with a T incision, completed the study and could be evaluated. Pain at rest and after physical activity was assessed with a visual analogue scale, and was also measured as reflected in the need for analgesics. Respiratory function was assessed with pre- and post-operative spirometry.

RESULTS

Pain after activity was significantly less in patients with a T incision. This group also needed less analgesia. Vital capacity (VC) and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1.0) were profoundly reduced after surgery in both groups of patients, but improvement of respiratory function was faster in patients with a transverse incision. No problem with access to the operative field was noted.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that a transverse incision is preferable to a midline incision and should be used in right hemicolectomy. This abdominal incision reduces effort-induced pain and interferes less with post-operative pulmonary function, and may reduce the risk of pulmonary complications.

Laparoscopic versus minilaparotomy cholecystectomy: a randomised trial

Although laparoscopic cholecystectomy has rapidly become routine practice in the UK, there has been no rigorous comparison of it with open cholecystectomy. In our trial, 302 patients were randomised to laparoscopic or minilaparotomy cholecystectomy. Recovery after surgery was assessed by length of hospital stay, outpatient review at 10 days and 4 weeks, and patient questionnaires 1, 4, and 12 weeks after surgery. The mean operation time was 14 min shorter for minilaparotomy, while median post-operative hospital stay was 2 days shorter after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The hospital costs were about 400 pounds greater for the laparoscopic procedure. Laparoscopic patients returned to work in the home sooner; at 1 week, they had better physical and social functioning, were less limited by physical problems, and had less pain and depression. At 4 weeks, only physical functioning and depression scores were better in the laparoscopic group, and by 3 months there were no differences. Laparoscopic patients were more satisfied with the appearance of their scars. The incidence of complications after both procedures was 20%. Compared to minilaparotomy cholecystectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy results in shorter hospital stay, less postoperative dysfunction, and quicker return to normal activities, but is more costly.

Comparison of metabolic responses to laparoscopic and minilaparotomy cholecystectomy

This randomized study compared the metabolic responses to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 10) and minilaparotomy cholecystectomy with a 5-7-cm incision (n = 10). Venous blood samples were taken before operation and at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 48, 72 and 168 h after incision and analysed for levels of C-reactive protein, interleukin 6, cortisol, albumin, transferrin, iron, fibrinogen, fibrin degradation products and polymorphonuclear elastase, and for neutrophil and lymphocyte counts. Urine samples (24 h) were analysed for urea, creatinine, 3-methylhistidine and catecholamines. The magnitude of the metabolic changes from baseline levels was quantified by calculating areas under each individual curve. A significant metabolic response with a similar time course and magnitude of changes occurred after laparoscopic and minilaparotomy cholecystectomy but with wide variation in magnitude between individuals.