Comparative study of ambulatory versus inpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Thailand: Assessing effectiveness and safety with a propensity score matched analysis.

IF 1.1 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery Pub Date : 2024-08-31 Epub Date: 2024-05-20 DOI:10.14701/ahbps.24-056
Nattawut Keeratibharat, Sirada Patcharanarumol, Sarinya Puranapanya, Supat Phupaibul, Nattaporn Khomweerawong, Jirapa Chansangrat
{"title":"Comparative study of ambulatory versus inpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Thailand: Assessing effectiveness and safety with a propensity score matched analysis.","authors":"Nattawut Keeratibharat, Sirada Patcharanarumol, Sarinya Puranapanya, Supat Phupaibul, Nattaporn Khomweerawong, Jirapa Chansangrat","doi":"10.14701/ahbps.24-056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Backgrounds/aims: </strong>Ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is increasingly recognized for its advantages over the inpatient approach, which advantages include cost-effectiveness and faster recovery. However, its acceptance is limited by patient concerns regarding safety, and the potential for postoperative complications. The study aims to compare the operative and postoperative outcomes of ambulatory LC versus inpatient LC, specifically addressing patient hesitations related to early discharge.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a retrospective analysis, patients who underwent LC were divided into ambulatory or inpatient groups based on American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, age, and the availability of postoperative care. Propensity score matching was utilized to ensure comparability between the groups. Data collection focused on demographic information, perioperative data, and postoperative follow-up results to identify the safety of both approaches.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included a cohort of 220 patients undergoing LC, of which 48 in each group matched post-propensity score matching. The matched analysis indicated that ambulatory LC patients seem to experience shorter operative times and reduced blood loss, but these differences were not statistically significant (35 minutes vs. 46 minutes, <i>p</i>-value = 0.18; and 8.5 mL vs. 23 mL, <i>p</i>-value = 0.14, respectively). There were no significant differences in complication rates or readmission frequencies, compared to the inpatient cohort.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Ambulatory LC does not compromise safety or efficacy, compared to traditional inpatient procedures. The findings suggest that ambulatory LC could be more widely adopted, with appropriate patient education and selection criteria, to alleviate concerns and increase patient acceptance.</p>","PeriodicalId":72220,"journal":{"name":"Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11341881/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14701/ahbps.24-056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Backgrounds/aims: Ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is increasingly recognized for its advantages over the inpatient approach, which advantages include cost-effectiveness and faster recovery. However, its acceptance is limited by patient concerns regarding safety, and the potential for postoperative complications. The study aims to compare the operative and postoperative outcomes of ambulatory LC versus inpatient LC, specifically addressing patient hesitations related to early discharge.

Methods: In a retrospective analysis, patients who underwent LC were divided into ambulatory or inpatient groups based on American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, age, and the availability of postoperative care. Propensity score matching was utilized to ensure comparability between the groups. Data collection focused on demographic information, perioperative data, and postoperative follow-up results to identify the safety of both approaches.

Results: The study included a cohort of 220 patients undergoing LC, of which 48 in each group matched post-propensity score matching. The matched analysis indicated that ambulatory LC patients seem to experience shorter operative times and reduced blood loss, but these differences were not statistically significant (35 minutes vs. 46 minutes, p-value = 0.18; and 8.5 mL vs. 23 mL, p-value = 0.14, respectively). There were no significant differences in complication rates or readmission frequencies, compared to the inpatient cohort.

Conclusions: Ambulatory LC does not compromise safety or efficacy, compared to traditional inpatient procedures. The findings suggest that ambulatory LC could be more widely adopted, with appropriate patient education and selection criteria, to alleviate concerns and increase patient acceptance.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
泰国门诊与住院腹腔镜胆囊切除术的比较研究:通过倾向得分匹配分析评估有效性和安全性。
背景/目的:门诊腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)因其优于住院方法而日益得到认可,其优点包括成本效益高、恢复快。然而,由于患者对安全性和术后并发症可能性的担忧,其接受程度受到限制。本研究旨在比较门诊LC与住院LC的手术和术后效果,特别是解决患者对提前出院的犹豫不决:方法:在一项回顾性分析中,根据美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)的分类、年龄和术后护理的可用性,将接受 LC 的患者分为门诊组和住院组。为确保组间的可比性,采用了倾向得分匹配法。数据收集的重点是人口统计学信息、围手术期数据和术后随访结果,以确定两种方法的安全性:该研究包括 220 名接受腹腔镜手术的患者,其中每组有 48 名患者在倾向评分匹配后进行了匹配。匹配分析表明,非卧床 LC 患者的手术时间似乎更短,失血量也更少,但这些差异并无统计学意义(分别为 35 分钟对 46 分钟,P 值 = 0.18;8.5 毫升对 23 毫升,P 值 = 0.14)。与住院患者队列相比,并发症发生率或再入院频率没有明显差异:结论:与传统的住院手术相比,非住院腹腔镜手术的安全性和疗效都不会打折扣。研究结果表明,通过适当的患者教育和选择标准,可以更广泛地采用非住院腹腔镜手术,以减轻患者的担忧并提高患者的接受度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Three-dimensional printing of intra-abdominal cavity to prevent large-for-size syndrome in liver transplantation: Correspondence. A rare case of a large solid pseudopapillary neoplasm with extensive liver metastasis. Improved graft survival by using three-dimensional printing of intra-abdominal cavity to prevent large-for-size syndrome in liver transplantation. ArtiSential® laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-fulcrum laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Which minimally invasive surgery is better? Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy with combined venous vascular resection: A comparative analysis with open approach.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1