1.A comparison od clinical results for laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus standard open cholecystectomy.
Ho Sungtomy KIM ; Kyung Choun CHI ; Jeong Hyo LEE ; In Taik CHANG ; Sang Jhoon KIM
Journal of the Korean Surgical Society 1993;45(5):663-671
No abstract available.
Cholecystectomy*
;
Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic*
2.Comparison of Single-Incision Robotic Cholecystectomy, Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy and 3-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy -Postoperative Pain, Cosmetic Outcome and Surgeon's Workload.
Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery 2018;21(4):139-140
No abstract available.
Cholecystectomy*
;
Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic*
3.Comparative analysis of the direct hospitalization cost of laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy at the Philippine General Hospital
Leona Bettina P. Dungca ; Anthony R. Perez
Philippine Journal of Health Research and Development 2020;24(3):37-44
Objective:
This study aimed to compare the cost of hospitalization for open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (OC and LC) among adult patients with cholelithiasis in the Philippine General Hospital.
Methodology:
The billing records of all patients admitted for elective cholecystectomy from February to July 2017, were reviewed. An item by item costing for room and board, laboratories, radiologic exams, surgical and anesthesia needs for each patient meeting the inclusion criteria was done.
Results:
From February to July 2017, a total of 391 cholecystectomies were performed; 156 cases (78 OC and 78 LC) were included in the analysis. There is no significant difference between the mean total cost for the laparoscopic group which was 20,549 +/- 4,972 pesos and 18,465 +/- 7,908 pesos (p < 0.05) for the open group.
Conclusion
Total cost of LC is comparable to OC. However, when the total expenses were divided into categories, the OC group incurred significantly bigger charges than the LC group in room and board, laboratories, radiology, pharmacy, and surgery needs. On the other hand, the LC group had significantly higher mean charges for the surgery needs inclusive of the laparoscopic machine and disposable instruments.
Cholecystectomy
;
Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic
;
Laparoscopy
4.A clinical analysis of laser laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Kyung Soo YU ; Kyung Chun CHI ; Jung Hyo LEE ; In Taik CHANG ; Sang Jhoon KIM
Journal of the Korean Surgical Society 1992;42(3):313-319
No abstract available.
Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic*
5.A prelimonary report of 111 cases of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Sung Hwan HWANG ; Young Kil CHOI ; Sang Hyo KIM
Journal of the Korean Surgical Society 1993;45(5):672-678
No abstract available.
Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic*
6.Clinical analysis of complications of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Sung Pil AHN ; Jong Won YOO ; Jung Hyo LEE ; Yong Keum PARK ; Kyung Chun CHI ; In Taik CHANG ; Sang Jhoon KIM
Korean Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery 2000;4(1):93-99
No abstract available.
Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic*
7.A Clinical Analysis of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.
Un Yong LEE ; Won Jong LEE ; Dae Hwa CHOI
Journal of the Korean Surgical Society 1997;53(4):571-578
No abstract available.
Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic*
8.Considerations for problems and unusual findings in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Byeong Rhong CEOL ; Shin SON ; Kyung Hwan PARK ; Moon Kyu PARK
Journal of the Korean Surgical Society 1993;44(4):558-565
No abstract available.
Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic*
9.Clinical Analysis of 253 Cases of laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.
Nam Hyun YOON ; Jong Gill JEONG ; Ung Gill JEONG
Journal of the Korean Surgical Society 1997;52(6):876-882
No abstract available.
Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic*
10.Superior somatic pain relief and improved visceral pain control is achieved using pre-emptive analgesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial
Koh PS ; Cha KH ; Lucy C ; Rampal S ; Yoong BK
Journal of University of Malaya Medical Centre 2012;15(2):1-7
BACKGROUND:
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, although is less invasive than open surgery, is not completely pain free. The
use of local anaesthesia to relieve pain following this procedure is a common practice. However, it remains
debatable whether a pre- or post-operative drug administration is more effective. Here, we investigated
the role of preemptive local anaesthetic infiltration given pre- or post-incisional, in relieving the pain during
laparoscopic surgery.
METHODOLOGY:
A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 96 patients receiving 0.5% Bupivacaine 100mg. Group
A (n=48) received post-incisional skin infiltration whilst Group B (n=48) received pre-incisional infiltration.
Incisional (somatic) and intra-abdominal (visceral) pain was assessed using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at day
0, day 1 and day 7 post-operative days.
RESULT:
Baseline characteristics between the two groups were similar. Incisional pain was lower in Group B as compared
to Group A at day 0 (P=0.03) and day 1 (P<0.01). Intra-abdominal pain was also lower in Group B at day 0 and
day 1 (P= 0.04). VAS score was similar at day 7 although analgesia requirement is higher in Group A (P>0.05).
CONCLUSION:
Administration of pre-incisional local anaesthesia offers better pre-emptive pain relief measure than postincisional
administration by reducing somatic and visceral pain in laparoscopic gall bladder surgery.
Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic
Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail