Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

[The comparison of conventional open cholecystectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy and minor-incision cholecystectomy].

Authors: K, Luo; S, Lin; Y, Yang;

[The comparison of conventional open cholecystectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy and minor-incision cholecystectomy].

Abstract

To study the clinical value of minor incision for cholecystectomy, compared conventional open cholecystectomy (300 patients, group A), alparoscopic cholecytectomy (300 patients, group B), and minor-incision cholecystectomy (300 patients, group C) with regard to duration (day) of operation, amount of intraoperative bleeding, complications, time (day) of gastrointestinal function recovery, intravenous infusion, and expense and time (day) of hospitalization. The results showed that the operating time, amount of bleeding, duration of intravenous infusion, time of gastrointestinal function recovery and hospitalization in group A were significantly different from those in group B and C (P < 0.05), but the incidence in group A was lower than that in group B. The operating time, amount of intraoperative bleeding, and the time of gastrointestinal function recovery and intravenous infusion in group B were similar to those in group C, but there was a high rate of intraoperative and postoperative complication in group B (1.66%). There was no complication in group C (P < 0.05). Comparison of the effects among group A, B and C showed that it was superior in group C to those in group A and B.

Keywords

Adult, Aged, 80 and over, Common Bile Duct, Male, Blood Volume, Adolescent, Blood Loss, Surgical, Middle Aged, Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic, Cholelithiasis, Cholecystitis, Humans, Cholecystectomy, Female, Aged

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!