4.1 Article

Smoking History and the Development of Incisional Umbilical Hernia After Laparoscopic and Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Cholecystectomy

Journal

AMERICAN SURGEON
Volume 89, Issue 8, Pages 3501-3502

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/00031348231161708

Keywords

smoking; cholecystecomy; general surgery; hernia

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to analyze umbilical hernia occurrences in patients who underwent laparoscopic or LESS cholecystectomy. Survey data from 253 patients who underwent cholecystectomy by a single surgeon between 2015 and 2020 were analyzed. The study found a significant association between umbilical hernia occurrence and smoking history, indicating that active smokers have a higher risk of developing an umbilical hernia following a minimally invasive cholecystectomy.
The aim of this study was to analyze umbilical hernia occurrences in patients who underwent laparoscopic or laparoendoscopic single-sight (LESS) cholecystectomy. Patients who underwent cholecystectomy by a single surgeon between 2015 and 2020 were surveyed. Data are presented as median (mean +/- standard deviation). Two hundred and fifty-three patients were sent the survey and 130 (51%) patients responded. The overall age was 57 (31 +/- 18) and the overall BMI was 30 (31 +/- 7). Twelve (9%) patients developed an umbilical hernia. Seventeen patients were active smokers and four (24%) developed an umbilical hernia. One hundred and thirteen patients were inactive smokers and eight (7%) developed an umbilical hernia. There was a statistical significance between umbilical hernia occurrence and smoking history (P < .05). Active smokers have a higher risk of developing an umbilical hernia following a minimally invasive cholecystectomy, regardless of operative approach. Elective cholecystectomy should be reconsidered for current smokers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available