Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Time trend and variability of open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with symptomatic gallstone disease

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare length of stay, as one of the efficacy indicators, and effectiveness, in terms of operative complications and mortality, between laparoscopic (LC) and open cholecystectomy, and to verify the 10-year temporal trends in the application of the LC technique in a large regional population.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study based on 73,853 hospital discharge records of cholecystectomies for gallstone disease (GD) in residents of the Veneto from 2001 to 2010, at both public and accredited private hospitals. The data are from a regional administrative database. The main epidemiological rates calculated, and expressed per 100,000 residents, were the cholecystectomy rate (CR) for gallstones by surgical technique (laparoscopic or open surgery), and the in-hospital mortality rate (MR), considered as the in-hospital MR regardless of the specific cause of death.

Results

The CR was 139.7 higher in females, with a male-to-female ratio of 1:1.5. LC was performed more frequently in females than in males and in younger than in older patients. From 2001 to 2010, there was a significant linear rising trend in the use of LC, in fact during the period considered, the use of laparoscopic surgery increased significant (χ 2 trend: 316,917; p < 0.05), reaching 93.6 % of surgical procedures for gallstones during the year 2010.

Conclusions

There are still some age- and gender-related disparities in its usage, although LC is an increasingly widely applied, as effective procedure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Festi D, Dormi A, Capodicasa S, Staniscia T, Attili AF, Loria P, Pazzi P, Mazzella G, Sama C, Roda E, Colecchia A (2008) Incidence of gallstone disease in Italy: results from a multicenter, population-based Italian study (the MICOL project). World J Gastroenterol 14(34):5282–5289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Berthou JCh, Dron B, Charbonneau P, Moussalier K, Pellissier L (2007) Evaluation of laparoscopic treatment of common bile duct stones in a prospective series of 505 patients: indications and results. Surg Endosc 21(11):1970–1974

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Suuronen S, Koski A, Nordstrom P, Miettinen P, Paajanen H (2010) Laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy in surgical training. Dig Surg 27(5):384–390

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kuwabara K, Matsuda S, Ishikawa KB, Horiguchi H, Fujimori K (2010) Comparative quality of laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy in the elderly using propensity score matching analysis. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2010:490147

  5. Ammori BJ, Vezakis A, Davides D, Martin IG, Larvin M, McMahon MJ (2001) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in morbidly obese patients. Surg Endosc 15(11):1336–1339

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Simopoulos C, Polychronidis A, Botaitis S, Perente S, Pitiakoudis M (2005) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in obese patients. Obes Surg 15(2):243–246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Farkas DT, Moradi D, Moaddel D, Nagpal K, Cosgrove JM (2012) The impact of body mass index on outcomes after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 26(4):964–969

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Keus F, Gooszen HG, van Laarhoven CJHM (2010) Open, small-incision, or laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. An overview of Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 20(1):CD008318. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008318

  9. Matovic E, Hasukic S, Ljuca F, Halilovic H (2012) Quality of life in patients after laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy. Med Arh 66(2):97–100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Epidemiologia e Ricerca Applicata, Atlante ERA (2009). Le procedure a rischio di inappropriatezza. http://www.atlantesanitario.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82&Itemid=93. Accessed 1 Sep 2012

  11. Legorreta AP, Silber JH, Costantino GN, Kobylinski RW, Zatz SL (1993) Increased cholecystectomy rate after the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JAMA 270(12):1429–1432

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Pagliarulo M, Fornari F, Fraquelli M, Zoli M, Giangregorio F, Grigolon A, Peracchi M, Conte D (2004) Gallstone disease and related risk factors in a large cohort of diabetic patients. Dig Liver Dis 36(2):130–134

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. European charter on counteracting obesity, EUR/06/5062700/8 16 November 2006 61995 (Original: English)

  14. ISTAT (2011) Italia in Cifre. www.istat.it/it/files/2011/06/italiaincifre2011.pdf. Accessed 1 Sep 2012

  15. International Diabetes Federation (2012) Diabetes Atlas 2012 update. International Diabetes Federation, Brussels

  16. Csikesz NG, Tseng JF, Shah SA (2008) Trends in surgical management for acute cholecystitis. Surgery 144(2):283–289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sakpal SV, Bindra SS, Chamberlain RS (2010) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy conversion rates two decades later. JSLS 14(4):476–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dubecz A, Langer M, Stadlhuber RJ, Schweigert M, Solymosi N, Feith M, Stein HJ (2012) Cholecystectomy in the very elderly: is 90 the new 70? J Gastrointest Surg 16(2):282–285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tucker JJ, Yanagawa F, Grim R, Bell T, Ahuja V (2011) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is safe but underused in the elderly. Am Surg 77(8):1014–1020

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kuwabara K, Matsuda S, Fushimi K, Ishikawa KB, Horiguchi H, Fujimori K (2011) Relationships of age, cholecystectomy approach and timing with the surgical and functional outcomes of elderly patients with cholecystitis. Int J Surg 9(5):392–399

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kuwabara K, Matsuda S, Ishikawa KB, Horiguchi H, Fujimori K (2010) Comparative quality of laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy in the elderly using propensity score matching analysis. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2010:490147

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tagle FM, Lavergne J, Barkin JS, Unger SW (1997) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the elderly. Surg Endosc 11(6):636–638

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Zacks SL, Sandler RS, Rutledge R, Brown RS Jr (2002) A population-based cohort study comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and open cholecystectomy. Am J Gastroenterol 97(2):334–340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Purkayastha S, Tilney HS, Georgiou P, Athanasiou T, Tekkis PP, Darzi AW (2007) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomised control trials. Surg Endosc 21(8):1294–1300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dipartimento della Programmazione e dell’Ordinamento del Servizio Sanitario Nazionale Dir. Gen. della Programmazione sanitaria Ufficio VI. Rapporto annuale sull’’attività di ricovero ospedaliero. Dati SDO 2010

  26. D Keus F, de Jonge T, Gooszen HG, Buskens E, van Laarhoven CJ (2009) Cost-minimization analysis in a blind randomized trial on small-incision versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy from a societal perspective: sick leave outweighs efforts in hospital savings. Trials 10:80. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-10-80

  27. Secco GB, Cataletti M, Bonfante P, Baldi E, Davini MD, Biasotti B, Ravera G, Ferraris R (2002) Laparoscopic versus mini-cholecystectomy: analysis of hospital costs and social costs in a prospective randomized study. Chir Ital 54(5):685–692

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Shea JA, Healey MJ, Berlin JA, Clarke JR, Malet PF, Staroscik RN, Schwartz JS, Williams SV (1996) Mortality and complications associated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A meta-analysis. Ann Surg 224(5):609–620

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Richards C, Edwards J, Culver D, Emori TG, Tolson J, Gaynes R, National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2003) Does using a laparoscopic approach to cholecystectomy decrease the risk of surgical site infection? Ann Surg 237(3):3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hannan EL, Imperato PJ, Nenner RP, Starr H (1999) Laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy in New York State: mortality, complications, and choice of procedure. Surgery 125(2):223–231

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Wiseman JT, Sharuk MN, Singla A, Cahan M, Litwin DE, Tseng JF, Shah SA (2010) Surgical management of acute cholecystitis at a tertiary care center in the modern era. Arch Surg 145(5):439–444. doi:10.1001/archsurg.2010.54.58-62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Donabedian A (1998) The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA 260(12):1743–1748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Thomas EJ, Petersen L (2003) Measuring errors and adverse events in health care. J Gen Intern Med 18(1):61–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ospedalizzazione e Mobilità in Veneto: le Dimissioni Ospedaliere negli Anni 2000–2010 a cura di: Servizio Epidemiologico Regionale; Servizio Controllo Investimenti Prezzi Acquisti SSR. www.ser-veneto.it

  35. Jurek AM, Greenland S, Maldonado G, Church TR (2005) Proper interpretation of non-differential misclassification effects: expectations vs observations. Int J Epidemiol 34(3):680–687

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

Mario Saia, Domenico Mantoan, Alessandra Buja, Chiara Bertonecello, Tatjana Baldovin, Giampietro Callegaro, and Vincenzo Baldo have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Veneto Region Health Directorate, Venice, Italy

    Mario Saia & Domenico Mantoan

  2. Laboratory of Public Health and Population Studies, Department of Molecular Medicine, University of Padua, Via Loredan, 18, Padua, 35128, Italy

    Alessandra Buja, Chiara Bertoncello, Tatjana Baldovin & Vincenzo Baldo

  3. Veneto Region Local Health Unit n. 8, Venice, Italy

    Giampietro Callegaro

Authors
  1. Mario Saia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Domenico Mantoan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alessandra Buja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chiara Bertoncello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tatjana Baldovin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Giampietro Callegaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Vincenzo Baldo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandra Buja.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Saia, M., Mantoan, D., Buja, A. et al. Time trend and variability of open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with symptomatic gallstone disease. Surg Endosc 27, 3254–3261 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-2902-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-2902-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation