Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2025
Is the presence of a catheter and time of surgery effective in conversion to open surgery in interval cholecystectomies after percutaneous drainage in acute cholecystitis?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Demiral Gökhan, Özdemir Ali, Kalcan Süleyman, Gündoğdu Hasan, Pergel Ahmet
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: There are no guidelines regarding intraoperative or preoperative catheter removal in patients eligible for surgery following percutaneous drainage in acute cholecystitis. In this study, we evaluated the factors affecting the conversion to open surgery after percutaneous drainage and analyzed the relationship between catheter presence and time to operation in interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
METHODS: In total, 50 patients with acute cholecystitis who underwent interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy after percutaneous drainage were retrospectively evaluated and grouped according to conversion to open surgery (Group 1) and non (Group 2). Factors that may be associated with conversion to open surgery and the presence of an intraoperative catheter were evaluated, and the time to surgery was calculated.
RESULTS: There were 28 (56%) men and 22 (44%) women, and the mean age was 64 (±13) years. The severity of acute cholecystitis was moderate in 37 (74%) patients and severe in 13 (26%). When the groups were compared, no statistically significant difference was found between the presence of a catheter, the time of surgery 8 weeks before and after, and the conversion to open surgery. Postoperative hospitalization days were significantly higher in Group 1 (p=0.014).
CONCLUSION: In patients who underwent interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy after insertion of a percutaneous drainage catheter in acute cholecystitis, the presence of a catheter and the waiting time for surgery after catheter insertion do not affect the rates of conversion to open surgery and complications.
METHODS: In total, 50 patients with acute cholecystitis who underwent interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy after percutaneous drainage were retrospectively evaluated and grouped according to conversion to open surgery (Group 1) and non (Group 2). Factors that may be associated with conversion to open surgery and the presence of an intraoperative catheter were evaluated, and the time to surgery was calculated.
RESULTS: There were 28 (56%) men and 22 (44%) women, and the mean age was 64 (±13) years. The severity of acute cholecystitis was moderate in 37 (74%) patients and severe in 13 (26%). When the groups were compared, no statistically significant difference was found between the presence of a catheter, the time of surgery 8 weeks before and after, and the conversion to open surgery. Postoperative hospitalization days were significantly higher in Group 1 (p=0.014).
CONCLUSION: In patients who underwent interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy after insertion of a percutaneous drainage catheter in acute cholecystitis, the presence of a catheter and the waiting time for surgery after catheter insertion do not affect the rates of conversion to open surgery and complications.