- Research article
- Open Access
- Open Peer Review
Open cholecystectomy for all patients in the era of laparoscopic surgery – a prospective cohort study
© Leo et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2006
- Received: 18 December 2005
- Accepted: 03 April 2006
- Published: 03 April 2006
Open cholecystectomy through a small incision is an alternative to laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
From 1 January 2002 through 31 December 2003, all operations upon the gallbladder in a district hospital with emergency admission and responsibility for surgical training were done as intended small-incision open cholecystectomy.
182 women and 90 men with a median age of 56 (interquartile range 45 to 68 years) underwent cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallbladder disease, 170 as elective and 102 as emergency cases. Trainee surgeons assisted by consultants or registrars having passed an examination for open cholecystectomy performed surgery in 194 cases (71%). The common bile duct was explored in 52 patients. Total postoperative morbidity was six percent. Median postoperative stay was one day and mean total (pre- and postoperative) hospital stay 3.1 days. 32 operations (12%) were done as day surgery procedures. Nationally in Sweden in 2002, mean total hospital stay was 4.4 days, and 13% of all cholecystectomies were performed on an outpatient basis.
Open, small-incision cholecystectomy for all patients is compatible with short hospital stay, evidence-based gall-bladder surgery, and training of surgical residents.
- Common Bile Duct
- Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
- Acute Cholecystitis
- Common Bile Duct Stone
- Open Cholecystectomy
Soon after its introduction, laparoscopic cholecystectomy was considered the method of choice for treatment of gallstone disease, and an early consensus conference concluded that it might confer economic advantages over open surgery. At that time, little information was available concerning mini-laparotomy or small-incision, open cholecystectomy. Later single-blind, randomised controlled trials have indicated that convalescence differences between laparoscopic and small-incision surgery are small[2, 3]. In previous reports from a controlled trial, no significant differences were observed between mini-laparotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in terms of patients' opinion of general well-being, abdominal pain, and scarring one year after surgery[4, 5]. Health-care costs are lower after mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy than after laparoscopic cholecystectomy [5–8].
Against this background it was appropriate to assess open, small-incision cholecystectomy as a treatment for all patients with gallstone disease in a district hospital with responsibility for surgical training. The assessment emphasised early surgery for patients with acute cholecystitis or mild pancreatitis, single-stage cholecystectomy and common bile duct clearance for patients with common bile duct stones, and surgical education of trainees.
During the study period Motala District Hospital in Sweden was responsible for elective and emergency surgical care as well as for primary surgical training in cooperation with a nearby university hospital. According to the local training programme a trainee had to perform 50 open cholecystectomies under supervision and pass an examination on surgical skills and medical knowledge before undertaking an unsupervised cholecystectomy. Each cholecystectomy was prospectively recorded according to a protocol that involved patient characteristics, surgical details and intra-operative and postoperative complications, including re-operations. In spring 2004 all data were rechecked against hospital records. Postoperative complications were classified according to Clavien et al. Numbers in brackets indicate severity of complication according to this scale.
Patients undergoing elective cholecystectomy were given verbal and written information concerning the operation, the expected hospital stay (including the possibility of ambulatory surgery), convalescence, and sick leave, which was recommended for one week. Those admitted through the emergency unit were transferred to a general surgical ward; from there they were placed on the operation list for cholecystectomy after diagnosis had been confirmed and preoperative measures begun. We tried to operate on patients with acute cholecystitis in the acute or subacute phases of the disease, normally on the day after admission, and on patients with mild pancreatitis during the first hospital stay. An operation on a patient admitted through the emergency unit and placed on the operation list after confirmation of gallstone disease (acute cholecystitis, pancreatitis, jaundice/cholangitis, or severe biliary pain) was defined as an acute operation. Betametason 8 mg iv; zolpidem 5–10 mg, ondansetron 4 mg, and paracetamol 1 g were given preoperatively p. o. and antibiotics (doxycycline or cefuroxime) were given to patients over 70 years of age as well as to patients with acute cholecystitis or signs of common bile duct stones. Thrombosis prophylaxis was administered as tinzaparin subcutaneously the evening before surgery or five hours after surgery.
The surgical technique described by Ledet and Seale was used[12, 13]. Headlights and long, narrow retractors were routine and magnification glasses were recommended. A small cushion was placed under the caudal portion of the right thoracic cage in order to raise the gallbladder region. A transverse incision 4 to 8 cm in length, was placed over the right rectus muscle, approximately 5 cm below the xiphoid process. As a routine, the muscle was split longitudinally after transverse cutting of the anterior rectus sheath. The posterior rectus sheath was cut transversely. If distended, the gallbladder was emptied. The gallbladder was usually dissected from the fundus region and downwards. In case of severe inflammation with dissection difficulties, the gallbladder wall within the liver bed was left in situ and the mucosa cauterised. We tried to perform intra-operative cholangiography in all operations[14, 15]. Suspicion of common bile duct stones with diameters exceeding 4 to 5 mm in combination with a wide common bile duct (10 mm) was considered an indication for exploration of the common bile duct. Stone extraction through the cystic duct was tried initially; if it was unsuccessful, the common bile duct was opened longitudinally to allow stone removal. In case of smooth bile duct clearance primary closure was performed, otherwise a T-tube was placed in the common bile duct. Ringer's solution was used for washing the abdominal cavity before wound closure. Local anaesthesia, 20 – 40 ml of bupivacin 0.25% mg, was infiltrated in the wound at the end of surgery. Early mobilisation was encouraged. Paracetamol was recommended as routine pain medication for five days, if necessary supplemented by diclofenac. Those who were treated on an outpatient basis were contacted by telephone on the first postoperative day.
As minilaparotomy cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy were compatible with routine surgical practice, ethics approval was not sought.
From 1 January 2002 through 31 December 2003, 182 women and 90 men, age between 12 and 91 years old (median 56), underwent cholecystectomy. 170 cholecystectomies were done as elective procedures and 102 as acute operations. Ultrasonography confirmed the gallstone diagnosis for 268 patients, computerized tomography in three cases, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in one case.
Characteristics of patients
Gender, ASA – score
ASA I & II
ASA III & IV
Skin incision, operation time, and postoperative hospital stay
Skin incision (cm)
Operation time (min)
Postoperative hospital stay (days)
Morbidity of all patients was six percent. Altogether five patients were re-operated. One 81 year-old woman admitted with acute cholecystitis and perforated gallbladder died in multiorgan failure after re-operation for bleeding (IV). Another patient with severe acute cholecystitis, who was re-operated because of bleeding from the liver bed made an uneventful recovery (IIb). One 76 year-old man, admitted with jaundice and cholangitis, had previously undergone subtotal gastrectomy because of severe pancreatitis. Bile leak was seen after cholecystectomy, and at re-operation a carcinoma in the distal common bile duct was found, unidentified on repeated computerized tomographies before the diagnostic laparotomy (IIb). A palliative operation with bile diversion was performed after referral to a hepatobiliary centre. Leakage from the cystic duct required open drainage, endoscopic cholangiography and temporary endoprosthesis (IIb) in one patient. Finally, one patient underwent open drainage for deep infection (IIb).
Postoperative complications treated without re-operation were noted in 12 patients. In one patient calculi in the common bile duct stones had to be removed with sphincterotomy and temporary endoprosthesis (IIb); another patient was erroneously administered low molecular weight heparin intra-operatively and developed multiple intra-abdominal haematomas, which resolved spontaneously (II b). Wound infections were identified in 10 patients (grade I in eight patients and grade IIa in two patients). Patients with wound infection were older than those without wound infection, mean 67 versus 54 years, but they did not differ significantly from patients without wound infection with respect to emergency indication (30% versus 38%) or BMI (mean 27.3 versus 28.2).
In the present cohort study of cholecystectomy with intended small-incision cholecystectomy for all patients (and no laparoscopic cholecystectomy), one-third of all operations were acute procedures. Exploration of the common bile duct was done in 52 of 272 patients. Median postoperative hospital stay was one day, total mean hospital stay (pre-and postoperative stay) 3.1 days, and 12% of all procedures were done on an outpatient basis.
The strength of this report is the inclusion of all cholecystectomies performed in one unit with emergency admission during a two-year period. Mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy is usually defined as open cholecystectomy through an incision of 4 to 7 cm[8, 13] or less than 6 cm. In this prospective and consecutive series, median length of incision was 7 cm for elective operations and 8 cm for acute operations. This demonstrates that surgical training and safety were prioritised in the present study, and it also indicates possibilities of further improvements in day-case rate and convalescence.
Operation time included intra-operative cholangiography in 96% of the cases, common bile duct exploration in 19%, and training of surgical residents in 71% of all operations. The complication rate in this series was six percent. Eight of 17 complications were wound infections of minor clinical importance (Clavien grade I). In previous randomised controlled trials comparing mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy complication rates between 3 and 20% have been observed without significant difference between the two techniques[2, 3, 19–22]. Total hospital stay in our study was 3.1 days (mean) with 12% of all procedures done as day-cases. These figures compare favourably with national statistics for gallbladder surgery. In 2002, 12,357 cholecystectomies were done in Sweden, and 9,836 of these were completed laparoscopically. The day surgery rate for laparoscopic cholecystectomy was 17%, or 13% of all cholecystectomies. The mean hospital stay was 2.7 days for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 8.8 days for open cholecystectomy, and 4.4 days for all cholecystectomies, i.e. approximately one day longer than in our study.
We utilised no screening program for common bile duct stones and had to rely on endoscopic stone removal for two patients postoperatively. Frequent use of intra-operative common bile duct exploration minimised the use of postoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy with its inherent risk of rare but serious complications. Randomised controlled trials of open[26, 27]. and laparoscopic[28, 29] cholecystectomy have shown that single – stage treatment of common bile duct stones, i.e. cholecystectomy and common bile duct clearance during the same operation, is preferable compared to bile duct clearance before or after cholecystectomy. Early surgery is the optimal treatment for acute cholecystitis (within seven days of the onset of illness), and in mild gallstone pancreatitis surgery should be considered within two to four weeks. Surgical education should therefore prepare the trainee for emergency or urgent gallbladder surgery.
The main advantage of using small-incision open cholecystectomy for all patients is its general applicability and elimination of double learning curves. Nationwide studies have shown that after the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy 20 to 30% of all gallbladder operations are completed openly, and that patients thus treated are older and have more co-morbidities than patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy [32–34]. From 1995 through 1999, 82% of Swedish patients over the age 70 treated for acute gallstone disease and 43% of those treated for chronic gallstone disease had an open operation. The limited exposure to open biliary surgery creates a dilemma for training of residents[36, 37]. The surgical community has to develop strategies to meet the growth of workload accompanying the increasing age of populations in the western world. The present cohort study indicates that small-incision open cholecystectomy is an attractive alternative for elderly patients, with their high incidence of acute cholecystitis and common bile duct stones. We agree with Syrakos et al that commissioners of health care should question whether laparoscopic gallbladder surgery gives value for the cost. Further cost-utility studies comparing mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy are necessary, ideally performed as expertise based randomised controlled trials. As pointed out earlier, register studies with their inherent difficulties in controlling for patient characteristics are unlikely to answer questions concerning relative merits cholecystectomy techiques[35, 41].
Open cholecystectomy, with intended mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy, is compatible with short hospital stay, evidence-based gall-bladder surgery, and training of surgical residents.
The authors thank colleagues who worked at the Department of Surgery, Motala Hospital, Sweden, during the study period for their cooperation. Late secretary Gunnel Pettersson and IT-coordinator Sven Falk provided invaluable help with data work.
- NIH Consensus conference: Gallstones and laparoscopic cholecystecomy. JAMA. 1993, 269: 1018-24. 10.1001/jama.269.8.1018.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Majeed AW, Troy G, Nicholl JP, Smythe A, Reed MWR, Stoddard CJ, Peacock J, Johnson AG: Randomised, prospective, single-blind comparison of laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy. Lancet. 1996, 347: 989-94. 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)90143-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ros A, Gustafsson L, Krook H, Nordgren C-E, Thorell A, Wallin G, Nilsson E: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy. A prospective, randomised, single-blind study. Ann Surg. 2001, 234: 741-9. 10.1097/00000658-200112000-00005.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Ros A, Nilsson E: Abdominal pain and patient overall and cosmetic satisfaction one year after cholecystectomy. Outcome of a randomised trial comparing laparoscopic and minilaparotomy cholecystectomy. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2004, 39: 773-7. 10.1080/00365520410005540.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nilsson E, Ros A, Rahmqvist M, Bäckman K, Carlsson P: Cholecystectomy: costs and health-related quality of life: a comparison of two techniques. Int J Qual Health Care. 2004, 16: 473-82. 10.1093/intqhc/mzh077.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Calvert NW, Troy GP, Johnson AG: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a good buy? A cost comparison with small-incision (mini) cholecystectomy. Eur J Surg. 2000, 166: 782-6. 10.1080/110241500447416.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Srivastava A, Srinivas G, Misra MC, Pandav CV, Seenu V, Goyal A: Cost-effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic versus minilaparotomy cholecystectomy for gallstone disease. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001, 17: 497-502.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Syrakos T, Antonitsis P, Zacharakis E, Takis A, Manousari A, Bakogiannis K, Efthimiopolous G, Achoulias I, Trikoupi A, Kiskinis D: Small incision (mini-laparotomy) versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a retrospective study in a university hospital. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2004, 389: 172-7. 10.1007/s00423-004-0481-z.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Clavien P-A, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM: Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery. 1992, 111: 518-26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Trowbridge RL, Rutkowski NK, Shojania KG: Does this patient have acute cholecystitis?. JAMA. 2003, 289: 80-6. 10.1001/jama.289.1.80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Kehlet H, Rosenberg J: Preoperative dexamethasone improves surgical outcome after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2003, 238: 651-60. 10.1097/01.sla.0000094390.82352.cb.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Ledet WP: Ambulatory cholecystectomy without disability. Arch Surg. 1990, 125: 1434-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Seale AK, Ledet WP: Minicholecystectomy: a safe, cost-effective day surgery procedure. Arch Surg. 1999, 134: 308-10. 10.1001/archsurg.134.3.308.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fletcher DR, Hobbs MST, Tan P, Valinsky LJ, Hockey RL, Pikora TJ, Knuiman MW, Sheiner HJ, Edis A: Complications of cholecystectomy: risks of the laparoscopic approach and protective effects of operative cholangiography. Ann Surg. 1999, 229: 449-57. 10.1097/00000658-199904000-00001.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Flum DR, Dellinger P, Chan L, Koepsell T: Intraoperative cholangiography and risk of common bile duct injury during cholecystectomy. JAMA. 2003, 289: 1639-44. 10.1001/jama.289.13.1639.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Seale AK, Ledet WP: Primary common bile duct closure. Arch Surg. 1999, 134: 22-4. 10.1001/archsurg.134.1.22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tsimoyannis EC, Siakas P, Tassis A, Lekkas ET, Tzourou H, Kambili M: Intraperitoneal normal saline infusion for postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. World J Surg. 1998, 22: 824-8. 10.1007/s002689900477.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Oyogoa SO, Komenaka K, Ilkhani R, Wise L: Mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy in the era of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a community-based hospital perspective. Am Surg. 2003, 69: 604-7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kunz R, Orth K, Vogel J, Steinacker JM, Meitinger A, Brückner U, Beger HG: Laparoskopische Cholecystektomie versus Mini-Lap-Cholecystektomie. Ergebnisse einer prospektive, randomisierten studie. Chirurg. 1992, 63: 291-5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Barkun JS, Barkun AN, Sampalis JS, Fried G, Taylor B, Wexler MJ, Goresky CA, Meakins JL: Randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus mini cholecystectomy. The Mc Gill Gallstone Treatment Group. Lancet. 1992, 340: 1116-9. 10.1016/0140-6736(92)93148-G.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- McGinn FP, Miles AJG, Uglow M, Ozmen M, Terzi C, Humby M: Randomized trial of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and mini-cholecystectomy. Br J Surg. 1995, 82: 1374-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- McMahon AJ, Russell IT, Baxter JN, Ross S, Anderson JR, Morran CG, Sunderland G, Galloway D, Ramsay G, O'Dwyer PJ: Laparoscopic versus minilaparotomy cholecystectomy: a randomised trial. Lancet. 1994, 343: 135-8. 10.1016/S0140-6736(94)90932-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nordic medico-statistical comittee: Health statistics in the nordic countries. 2004, Ch.3, Table 3.32, Table 3.33, [http://www.nom-nos.dk/Nombook/NOMBOOK]Google Scholar
- Spetz C-L: Length of stay for cholecystectomy in Sweden 2002. Personal Communication. 2005, National Board of Health and Welfare, SwedenGoogle Scholar
- Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, Haber GB, Herman ME, Dorsher PJ, Moore JP, Fennerty MB, Ryan ME, Shaw MJ, Lande JD, Pheley AM: Complications of endoscopic biliary sphicterotomy. N Engl J Med. 1996, 335: 909-18. 10.1056/NEJM199609263351301.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Stain SC, Cohen H, Tsuishoysha M, Donovan AJ: Choledocholithiasis. Endoscopic sphincterotomy or common bile duct exploration. Ann Surg. 1991, 213: 627-34.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Targarona EM, Ayuso RMP, Bordas JM, Ros E, Pros I, Martinez J, Teres J, Trias M: Randomised trial of endoscopic sphincterotomy with gallbladder left in situ versus open surgery for common bileduct calculi in high-risk patients. Lancet. 1996, 347: 926-9. 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)91413-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rhodes M, Sussman L, Cohen L, Lewis MP: Randomised trial of laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct versus postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography for common bile duct stones. Lancet. 1998, 351: 159-61. 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)09175-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cuschieri A, Lezoche E, Morino M, Croce E, Lacy A, Toouli J, Faggioni A, Ribeiro VM, Jakimowicz J, Visa J, Hanna GB: E.A.E.S. multicenter prospective randomized trial comparing two-stage vs single-stage management of patients with gallstone disease and ductal calculi. Surg Endosc. 1999, 13: 952-7. 10.1007/s004649901145.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Papi C, Catarci M, D'Ambrosio L, Gili L, Koch M, Grassi BM, Capurso M: Timing of cholecystectomy for acute calculous cholecystitis: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004, 99: 147-55. 10.1046/j.1572-0241.2003.04002.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Glazer G, Mann NW: United Kingdom guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis. Gut. 1998, 42 (Suppl 2): 1-13.Google Scholar
- McMahon AJ, Fischbacher CM, Frame SH, MacLeod CM: Impact of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a population-based study. Lancet. 2000, 356: 1632-7. 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03156-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ros A, Haglund B, Nilsson E: Reintervention after laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy in Sweden 1987 – 1995. Analysis of data from a hospital discharge register. Eur J Surg. 2002, 168: 695-700.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Livingston EH, Rege RV: A nationwide study of conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. Am J Surg. 2004, 188: 205-11. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2004.06.013.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nilsson E, Fored M, Granath F, Blomqvist P: Cholecystectomy in Sweden 1987–1999. A nationwide study of mortality and preoperative admissions. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2005, 40: 1478-85. 10.1080/00365520510023972.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chung RS, Wojtasik L, Pham Q, Chari V, Chen P: The decline of training in open biliary surgery. Effect on the residents' attitude towards bile duct surgery. Surg Endosc. 2002, 17: 338-40. 10.1007/s00464-002-8621-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Reines HD, Seneca RP: Enough, but not too much: or, are we the dinosaurs?. J Am Coll Surg. 2005, 200: 930-1. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2005.03.024.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Etzioni DA, Liu JH, Maggard MA, Ko S: The aging population and its impact on the surgery workforce. Ann Surg. 2003, 238: 170-7. 10.1097/00000658-200308000-00003.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Jørgensen T: Treatment of gallstone patients. Copenhagen: National Institute of Public Health, Denmark, and Danish Institute for Health Technology Assessment. 2000Google Scholar
- Devereaux PJ, Bhandari M, Clarke M, Montori VM, Cook DJ, Yusuf S: Need for expertice based randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 2005, 330: 88-93. 10.1136/bmj.330.7482.88.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Flum DR: Laparoscpic cholecystectomy safer than open? Administrative data gone astray. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004, 99: 1399-10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.20229.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2482/6/5/prepub
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.