Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 199

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A population-based cohort study comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and open cholecystectomy

Zacks, S·2002·The American Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has become a popular alternative to open cholecystectomy (OC). Previous studies comparing outcomes in LC and OC used small selected cohorts of patients and did not control for comorbid conditions that might affect outcome. The aims of this study were to characterize the morbidity, mortality, and costs of LC and OC in a large unselected cohort of patients. METHODS: We used the population-based North Carolina Discharge Abstract Database (NCHDAD) for January 1, 1991, to September 30, 1994 (n = 850,000) to identify patients undergoing OC and LC. We identified the indications for surgery, complications, and type of perioperative biliary imaging used. We compared length of stay, hospital charges, complications, morbidity, and mortality between OC and LC patients. To account for variations in outcomes from differences in age and comorbidity between the OC and LC groups, we used the age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index in regression analyses quantifying the association between type of surgery and outcome. RESULTS: Our cohort consisted of 43,433 patients (19,662 LC and 23,771 OC). The mean age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index score was slightly higher for the OC compared to the LC group (4.3 vs 4.1, p < 0.05). The OC patients had longer hospitalizations, generated more charges ($12,125 vs $9,139, p < 0.05), and required home care more often. The crude risk ratio comparing risk of death in OC to LC was 5.0 (95% CI = 3.9-6.5). After controlling for age, comorbidity, and sex, the odds of dying in the OC group was still 3.3 times (95% CI = 1.4-7.3) greater than in the LC group. In the LC group, the number of patients with acute cholecystitis rose over the study period, whereas the number of patients with chronic cholecystitis declined. In the OC group, the number of patients with acute and chronic cholecystitis declined. The use of intraoperative cholangiography was greater in the OC group but declined in both groups over the study period. The use of ERCP was greater in the LC group and increased in both groups over time. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of LC has resulted in a change in the management of cholecystitis. Despite a higher proportion of patients with acute cholecystitis, the risk of dying was significantly less in LC than in OC patients, even after controlling for age and comorbidity. Based on lower costs and better outcomes, LC seems to be the treatment of choice for acute and chronic cholecystitis.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0002-9270(01)04028-x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 199

Metadata

Authors
Zacks, S.
Venue
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
2002-02
Volume
97
Issue
2
Pages
334-340
ISSN
0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2093075873
Cited by
199
References
1
FWCI
4.69
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: A population-based cohort study comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and open cholecystectomy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0002-9270(01)04028-x
The paper
Zacks, S. (2002). A population-based cohort study comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and open cholecystectomy. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9270(01)04028-x

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.