The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Acute Cholecystitis: Is It Really Safe?
Abstract
The prospectively collected data from 530 cholecystectomies performed in a university clinic from October 1989 to March 1991 were analyzed after 1 to 3 years of follow‐up. The aim of this study was to compare the results of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for acute cholecystitis with that for routine symptomatic gallbladders. The preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters of 424 routine (noninflamed) LCs and 54 LCs for acutely inflamed gallbladders were compared under the “intention to treat” principle. Operating time was longer in the inflamed group (median 97 minutes versus 75 minutes; p< 0.0001). Significantly more adhesions (20% versus 8%), more blood loss (48% versus 19%), a higher incidence of bile spillage (28% versus 12%), and lost stones (19% versus 8%) were encountered in patients with acute cholecystitis. Common bile duct (CBD) injuries were also more frequent in that group (5.5% versus 0.2%;p= 0.005). The rate of conversion to open surgery was higher than with routine LCs (13% versus 4%). There were two deaths in the routine LC group and none in the acutely inflamed group. There was no difference in postoperative pain intensity or postoperative fatigue according to visual analog scale measurements. Patients with acute cholecystitis stayed only 1 day longer (median 4 days versus 3 days) in hospital. The quality of life scores indicate return to almost normal values by the 14th postoperative day. Long‐term follow‐up (1–3 years) did not reveal any delayed clinical adverse effects. In summary, LC for inflamed gallbladders has a higher conversion rate than LC for routine symptomatic gallbladders. If successfully performed, it has definite benefit for the patient in terms of better postoperative recovery. The trade‐off is that the risk of CBD injury is significantly higher.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Randomised trial of laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for acute and gangrenous cholecystitis
Kiviluoto, T., Sirén, J., Luukkonen, P., & Kivilaakso, E. (1998) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(97)08447-x · Cited by 437
Sauerland, S., Agresta, F., Bergamaschi, R., Borzellino, G., Budzynski, A., Champault, G., Fingerhut, A., Isla, A., Johansson, M., Lundorff, P., et al. (2006) · Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques · doi:10.1007/s00464-005-0564-0 · Cited by 395
Self-citationGurusamy, K., Samraj, K., Gluud, C., Wilson, E., & Davidson, B. R. (2010) · Journal of British Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.6870 · Cited by 366
Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for people with acute cholecystitis
Gurusamy, K. S., Davidson, C., Gluud, C., & Davidson, B. R. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005440.pub3 · Cited by 327
Waage, A. (2006) · Archives of Surgery · doi:10.1001/archsurg.141.12.1207 · Cited by 314
Metadata
- Authors
- Kum, C., Eypasch, E., Lefering, R., Paul, A., Neugebauer, E., & Troidl, H.
- Venue
- World Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1996-01
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 43-49
- ISSN
- 0364-2313 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-2323
- OpenAlex
- W1966508617
- Cited by
- 220
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Acute Cholecystitis: Is It Really Safe? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s002689900008
- The paper
- Kum, C., Eypasch, E., Lefering, R., Paul, A., Neugebauer, E., & Troidl, H. (1996). Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Acute Cholecystitis: Is It Really Safe? World Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002689900008
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.