4.1 Article

C-Reactive Protein as a Predictor of Difficult Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Patients with Acute Calculous Cholecystitis: A Multivariate Analysis

期刊

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/lap.2017.0139

关键词

acute cholecystitis; C-reactive protein; difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy; laparoscopic cholecystectomy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the treatment of choice for mild and moderate acute cholecystitis. The aim of this study was to analyze the utility of C-reactive protein (CRP) as a predictor of difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy (DLC) in patients with acute cholecystitis. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective study. All patients included were treated with emergency LC. Patients were analyzed as DLC and nondifficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy (NDLC). Multiple logistic regression and receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis were employed to explore which variables were statistically significant in predicting a DLC. Two different models were analyzed. Results: A total of 66 patients were included (37.9% DLC versus 62.1% NDLC). Ideal cutoff point for CRP was calculated as 11mg/dL, with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for predicting DLC being 92% (95% CI 75-97.8), 82.9% (95% CI 68.7-91.5), 76.7%, and 94.4%, respectively. In the first model multivariate analysis, age >45 years, male sex, gallbladder wall thickness 5mm, and pericholecystic fluid collection were significant predictors of DLC, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.89. In the second model multivariate analysis, only CRP 11 (odds ratio, OR=17.9, P=.013) was significant predictor of presenting DLC, with an AUC of 0.96. Conclusions: Preoperative CRP with values 11mg/dL was associated with the highest odds (OR=17.9) of presenting DLC in our study. This value possesses good sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for predicting DLC in our population with acute calculous cholecystitis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据