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