4.5 Review

Conversions during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Risk factors and effects on patient outcome

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
卷 10, 期 7, 页码 1081-1091

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gassur.2005.12.001

关键词

conversion; laparoscopic cholecystectomy; risk factors; adverse effects; proficiency gain curve

向作者/读者索取更多资源

in view of the substantial, at times conflicting, literature on conversion to open surgery during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), we have considered it timely to review the subject to identify the risk factors for conversion and its consequences. The review is based on a complete literature search covering the period 1990 to 2005. The search identified 109 publications on the subject: 68 retrospective series, 16 prospective nonrandomized studies, 8 prospective randomized clinical trials, 5 prospective case-controlled studies, 5 reviews and 7 others (3 observational, 2 population-based studies, I national survey, and I editorial). As the majority of reported studies are retrospective, firm conclusions cannot be reached. Single factors that appear to be important include male gender, extreme old age, morbid obesity, cirrhosis, previous upper abdominal surgery, severe/advanced acute and chronic disease, and emergency LC. The combination of patient- and disease-related risk factors increases the conversion risk. In the training of residents, the number of cases needed for reaching proficiency exceeds 200 cases. The value of predictive scoring systems is important in the selection of cases for resident training. Conversion exerts adverse effects on operating time, postoperative morbidity, and hospital costs, especially when it is enforced. There appears to be no absolute contraindication to LC that is agreed upon by all. There is consensus on certain individual risk factors and their additive effect on the likelihood of conversion. Predictive systems based on these factors appear to be useful in selection of cases for resident training.

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

4.5
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