New Proposed Classification of Difficulty in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

A. Tongyoo, Aekkaphod Liwattanakun, Ekkapak Sriussadaporn, Palin Limpavitayaporn, Chatchai Mingmalairak
{"title":"New Proposed Classification of Difficulty in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.","authors":"A. Tongyoo, Aekkaphod Liwattanakun, Ekkapak Sriussadaporn, Palin Limpavitayaporn, Chatchai Mingmalairak","doi":"10.1089/lap.2024.0045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has been challenging for surgeons. Randhawa's system used operative time, complications, and conversion to define three difficulty grades. However, using fixed numbers of operative time as dividers among three groups might not be applicable universally. This study aimed to propose new classification with more flexible parameters. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted with patients who underwent LC because of gallstone-related diseases between January 2017 and December 2021 at Thammasat University Hospital. The exclusion criteria were (1) emergent LC for acute cholecystitis, (2) other procedures performed in the same setting of LC, (3) incomplete information, and (4) LC converted to open cholecystectomy. Patients were categorized into three groups using Randhawa's classification. Thereafter, new classification using mean and standard deviation was applied to reclassify patients into three new groups. The comparison between two grading results was performed to prove the advantage of new classification. Results: Total of 523 patients who underwent LC were included with median age 59.3 years old and 60.8% female. By Randhawa classification, proportions of easy, difficult, and very difficult groups were 39%, 53.7%, and 7.3%, respectively. Then, the new operative-time dividers among three groups were changed from 60 and 120 minutes to mean and mean + 2SD, respectively. Reclassified three difficult groups were 38.9%, 57.1%, and 4%. The comparison demonstrated new classification as more flexible and more compatible with each individual surgeon. Conclusions: New surgeon-referenced grading system of difficult LC included surgeon's factors, not only unfavorable operative findings. This classification should be more flexible than the previous criterion-referenced one. Thai Clinical Trials Registry at https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org with Number TCTR20220426003.","PeriodicalId":508448,"journal":{"name":"Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A","volume":"75 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2024.0045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has been challenging for surgeons. Randhawa's system used operative time, complications, and conversion to define three difficulty grades. However, using fixed numbers of operative time as dividers among three groups might not be applicable universally. This study aimed to propose new classification with more flexible parameters. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted with patients who underwent LC because of gallstone-related diseases between January 2017 and December 2021 at Thammasat University Hospital. The exclusion criteria were (1) emergent LC for acute cholecystitis, (2) other procedures performed in the same setting of LC, (3) incomplete information, and (4) LC converted to open cholecystectomy. Patients were categorized into three groups using Randhawa's classification. Thereafter, new classification using mean and standard deviation was applied to reclassify patients into three new groups. The comparison between two grading results was performed to prove the advantage of new classification. Results: Total of 523 patients who underwent LC were included with median age 59.3 years old and 60.8% female. By Randhawa classification, proportions of easy, difficult, and very difficult groups were 39%, 53.7%, and 7.3%, respectively. Then, the new operative-time dividers among three groups were changed from 60 and 120 minutes to mean and mean + 2SD, respectively. Reclassified three difficult groups were 38.9%, 57.1%, and 4%. The comparison demonstrated new classification as more flexible and more compatible with each individual surgeon. Conclusions: New surgeon-referenced grading system of difficult LC included surgeon's factors, not only unfavorable operative findings. This classification should be more flexible than the previous criterion-referenced one. Thai Clinical Trials Registry at https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org with Number TCTR20220426003.
新提出的腹腔镜胆囊切除术难度分类。
背景:困难腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)一直是外科医生面临的挑战。Randhawa 的系统使用手术时间、并发症和转归来定义三个难度等级。然而,使用固定的手术时间作为三组之间的分界线可能并不普遍适用。本研究旨在提出具有更灵活参数的新分类方法。方法:这项回顾性队列研究的对象是 2017 年 1 月至 2021 年 12 月期间在 Thammasat 大学医院因胆结石相关疾病而接受 LC 手术的患者。排除标准为:(1)急性胆囊炎急诊行胆囊切除术;(2)在胆囊切除术的相同情况下进行其他手术;(3)信息不完整;(4)胆囊切除术转为开腹胆囊切除术。采用 Randhawa 的分类方法将患者分为三组。之后,使用平均值和标准差进行新的分类,将患者重新分为三组。对两种分级结果进行比较,以证明新分类法的优势。结果共纳入 523 名接受肝癌治疗的患者,中位年龄为 59.3 岁,60.8% 为女性。根据 Randhawa 的分级,易手术组、难手术组和非常难手术组的比例分别为 39%、53.7% 和 7.3%。然后,三组之间新的手术时间分界线分别从 60 分钟和 120 分钟改为平均值和平均值 + 2SD。三个困难组的重新分类率分别为 38.9%、57.1% 和 4%。比较结果表明,新的分类更灵活,更符合每个外科医生的情况。结论:新的疑难 LC 外科医生参考分级系统包括了外科医生的因素,而不仅仅是不利的手术结果。与之前的标准参考分级系统相比,该分级系统更具灵活性。泰国临床试验注册中心 https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org,编号 TCTR20220426003。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信