Evaluation of Early Cholecystectomy versus Delayed Cholecystectomy in the Treatment of Acute Cholecystitis

Miguel Sánchez-Carrasco, J. C. Rodríguez-Sanjuán, F. Martín-Acebes, Francisco J. Llorca-Díaz, M. Gómez‐Fleitas, Rocío Zambrano Muñoz, F. J. Sánchez-Manuel
{"title":"Evaluation of Early Cholecystectomy versus Delayed Cholecystectomy in the Treatment of Acute Cholecystitis","authors":"Miguel Sánchez-Carrasco, J. C. Rodríguez-Sanjuán, F. Martín-Acebes, Francisco J. Llorca-Díaz, M. Gómez‐Fleitas, Rocío Zambrano Muñoz, F. J. Sánchez-Manuel","doi":"10.1155/2016/4614096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective. To evaluate if early cholecystectomy (EC) is the most appropriate treatment for acute cholecystitis compared to delayed cholecystectomy (DC). Patients and Methods. A retrospective cohort study of 1043 patients was carried out, with a group of 531 EC cases and a group of 512 DC patients. The following parameters were recorded: (1) postoperative hospital morbidity, (2) hospital mortality, (3) days of hospital stay, (4) readmissions, (5) admission to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), (6) type of surgery, (7) operating time, and (8) reoperations. In addition, we estimated the direct cost savings of implementing an EC program. Results. The overall morbidity of the EC group (29.9%) was significantly lower than the DC group (38.7%). EC demonstrated significantly better results than DC in days of hospital stay (8.9 versus 15.8 days), readmission percentage (6.8% versus 21.9%), and percentage of ICU admission (2.3% versus 7.8%), which can result in reducing the direct costs. The patients who benefited most from an EC were those with a Charlson index > 3. Conclusions. EC is safe in patients with acute cholecystitis and could lead to a reduction in the direct costs of treatment.","PeriodicalId":77165,"journal":{"name":"HPB surgery : a world journal of hepatic, pancreatic and biliary surgery","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2016/4614096","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HPB surgery : a world journal of hepatic, pancreatic and biliary surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/4614096","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Objective. To evaluate if early cholecystectomy (EC) is the most appropriate treatment for acute cholecystitis compared to delayed cholecystectomy (DC). Patients and Methods. A retrospective cohort study of 1043 patients was carried out, with a group of 531 EC cases and a group of 512 DC patients. The following parameters were recorded: (1) postoperative hospital morbidity, (2) hospital mortality, (3) days of hospital stay, (4) readmissions, (5) admission to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), (6) type of surgery, (7) operating time, and (8) reoperations. In addition, we estimated the direct cost savings of implementing an EC program. Results. The overall morbidity of the EC group (29.9%) was significantly lower than the DC group (38.7%). EC demonstrated significantly better results than DC in days of hospital stay (8.9 versus 15.8 days), readmission percentage (6.8% versus 21.9%), and percentage of ICU admission (2.3% versus 7.8%), which can result in reducing the direct costs. The patients who benefited most from an EC were those with a Charlson index > 3. Conclusions. EC is safe in patients with acute cholecystitis and could lead to a reduction in the direct costs of treatment.
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
早期胆囊切除术与延迟胆囊切除术治疗急性胆囊炎的比较
目标。评估早期胆囊切除术(EC)是否比延迟胆囊切除术(DC)更适合治疗急性胆囊炎。患者和方法。对1043例患者进行回顾性队列研究,其中EC组531例,DC组512例。记录以下参数:(1)术后住院发病率,(2)住院死亡率,(3)住院天数,(4)再入院,(5)入住重症监护病房(ICU),(6)手术类型,(7)手术时间,(8)再手术。此外,我们估计了实施EC计划的直接成本节约。结果。EC组总发病率(29.9%)明显低于DC组(38.7%)。在住院天数(8.9天对15.8天)、再入院率(6.8%对21.9%)和ICU入院率(2.3%对7.8%)方面,EC的结果明显优于DC,这可以降低直接成本。从EC中获益最多的患者是那些Charlson指数为bb30的患者。结论。EC对急性胆囊炎患者是安全的,并可降低治疗的直接费用。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Posters Presentations Free Papers Prevalence of Steatosis Hepatis in the Eurotransplant Region: Impact on Graft Acceptance Rates. Proposal of Two Prognostic Models for the Prediction of 10-Year Survival after Liver Resection for Colorectal Metastases. The Falciform Ligament for Mesenteric and Portal Vein Reconstruction in Local Advanced Pancreatic Tumor: A Surgical Guide and Single-Center Experience.
×
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