Comparison of long-term quality of life after laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy

Topçu, Ömer; Karakayalı, Feza; Kuzu, Mehmet Ayhan; Özdemir, Seçil Kepil; Erverdi, Nezih; Elhan, Atilla Halil; Aras, Nusret

doi:10.1007/s00464-001-9231-2

Cited by 42 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Topcu et al (2b) [124] performed a retrospective comparative study on 200 patients. Prior to surgery, both groups were comparable, but 4 years after surgery laparoscopically treated patients reported significantly better QoL in all eight domains of the SF-36.…”

Section: Cholecystolithiasismentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of quality of life after laparoscopic surgery: evidence-based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Measuring health-related quality of life (QoL) after surgery is essential for decision making by patients, surgeons, and payers. The aim of this consensus conference was twofold. First, it was to determine for which diseases endoscopic surgery results in better postoperative QoL than open surgery. Second, it was to recommend QoL instruments for clinical research. Methods: An expert panel selected 12 conditions in which QoL and endoscopic surgery are important. For each condition, studies comparing endoscopic and open surgery in terms of QoL were identified. The expert panel reached consensus on the relative benefits of endoscopic surgery and recommended generic and disease-specific QoL instruments for use in clinical research. Results: Randomized trials indicate that QoL improves earlier after endoscopic than open surgery for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), cholecystolithiasis, colorectal cancer, inguinal hernia, obesity (gastric bypass), and uterine disorders that require hysterectomy. For spleen, prostate, malignant kidney, benign colorectal, and benign non-GERD esophageal diseases, evidence from nonrandomized trials supports the use of laparoscopic surgery. However, many studies failed to collect long-term results, used nonvalidated questionnaires, or measured QoL components only incompletely.

show abstract

Section: Cholecystolithiasismentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of quality of life after laparoscopic surgery: evidence-based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In minimally invasive surgery alone, it has been used to describe health-related quality of life following laparoscopic cholecystectomy (33), Nissen fundoplication (34), inguinal hernia repair (35), colectomy (36) and gastric bypass (37). In the field of LLDN, Perry et al showed that patients had reached population norms in all eight SF-36 domains by 6 to 12 months (38), but this was the first study to use the SF-36 to describe the recovery process within weeks following the procedure.…”

Section: Standardized Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Surgical Recovery: The Study of Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy

Bergman

Feldman

Mayo

et al. 2005

American Journal of Transplantation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…12,33,51 Minimally invasive lumbar fusion has also been shown to be safe and effective in treating lumbar pathology in elderly patients. 8 However, issues relating to a significant learning curve associated with minimally invasive lumbar fusion have arisen, including increased operative times and higher complication rates, [22][23][24]38,43,46 and concerns persist regarding inadequate neural element decompression during minimally invasive lumbar fusion, resulting in persistent symptoms and a need for reoperation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar fusion: meta-analysis and systematic review

Goldstein¹,

Macwan

Sundararajan

et al. 2016

SPI

212

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECT The objective of this study was to determine the clinical comparative effectiveness and adverse event rates of posterior minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared with open transforaminal or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF/PLIF). METHODS A systematic review of the Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases was performed. A hand search of reference lists was conducted. Studies were reviewed by 2 independent assessors to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or comparative cohort studies including at least 10 patients undergoing MIS or open TLIF/PLIF for degenerative lumbar spinal disorders and reporting at least 1 of the following: clinical outcome measure, perioperative clinical or process measure, radiographic outcome, or adverse events. Study quality was assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) protocol. When appropriate, a meta-analysis of outcomes data was conducted. RESULTS The systematic review and reference list search identified 3301 articles, with 26 meeting study inclusion criteria. All studies, including 1 RCT, were of low or very low quality. No significant difference regarding age, sex, surgical levels, or diagnosis was identified between the 2 cohorts (856 patients in the MIS cohort, 806 patients in the open cohort). The meta-analysis revealed changes in the perioperative outcomes of mean estimated blood loss, time to ambulation, and length of stay favoring an MIS approach by 260 ml (p < 0.00001), 3.5 days (p = 0.0006), and 2.9 days (p < 0.00001), respectively. Operative time was not significantly different between the surgical techniques (p = 0.78). There was no significant difference in surgical adverse events (p = 0.97), but MIS cases were significantly less likely to experience medical adverse events (risk ratio [MIS vs open] = 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.23–0.69, p = 0.001). No difference in nonunion (p = 0.97) or reoperation rates (p = 0.97) was observed. Mean Oswestry Disability Index scores were slightly better in the patients undergoing MIS (n = 346) versus open TLIF/PLIF (n = 346) at a median follow-up time of 24 months (mean difference [MIS – open] = 3.32, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The result of this quantitative systematic review of clinical comparative effectiveness research examining MIS versus open TLIF/PLIF for degenerative lumbar pathology suggests equipoise in patient-reported clinical outcomes. Furthermore, a meta-analysis of adverse event data suggests equivalent rates of surgical complications with lower rates of medical complications in patients undergoing minimally invasive TLIF/PLIF compared with open surgery. The quality of the current comparative evidence is low to very low, with significant inherent bias.

show abstract

Comparison of long-term quality of life after laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy

Abstract: The gastrointestinal clinical symptoms were similar in the two groups during the long-term follow-up evaluation, but laparoscopic cholecystectomy was found to be significantly superior to the open technique with respect to the quality of life over the long term.

Cited by 42 publications

References 17 publications

Evaluation of quality of life after laparoscopic surgery: evidence-based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery

Evaluation of quality of life after laparoscopic surgery: evidence-based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery

Measuring Surgical Recovery: The Study of Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy

Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar fusion: meta-analysis and systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About