Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy for difficult gall bladder disease: Outcomes of a reconstituting technique at a tertiary care centre.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Mahesh Kumar Sethi, Washim Firoz Khan, Aditya Baksi, Aditya Kumar, Yashvant Singh Rathode, Sandeep Aggarwal, Puneet Khanna, Hemanga K Bhattacharjee
{"title":"Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy for difficult gall bladder disease: Outcomes of a reconstituting technique at a tertiary care centre.","authors":"Mahesh Kumar Sethi, Washim Firoz Khan, Aditya Baksi, Aditya Kumar, Yashvant Singh Rathode, Sandeep Aggarwal, Puneet Khanna, Hemanga K Bhattacharjee","doi":"10.4103/jmas.jmas_79_26","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy (LSC) serves as a \"bailout\" technique in difficult intraoperative scenarios, which preserves the advantages of laparoscopy while ensuring patient safety. This study analyses the indications, intraoperative challenges and outcomes of LSC in a tertiary care teaching hospital.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent cholecystectomy between June 2021 and November 2024. Patients were categorised into laparoscopic total cholecystectomy (LTC), LSC and laparoscopic converted to open cholecystectomy (LCOC). The primary endpoint was to compare the post-operative morbidity between the three groups using Clavien-Dindo grading system, while secondary outcomes included early and late post-operative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 872 patients, 805 (92.3%) underwent LTC, 64 (7.3%) LSC and 3 (0.4%) LCOC. Among LSC cases, 81.3% were Nassar Grade III-IV, reflecting its need in higher intraoperative difficulty. Bile leak occurred in 3 (4.7%) patients of LSC group. LSC showed 52 patients (81.3%) had no complication, 5 (7.8%) had Grade I, 6 (9.3%) Grade II and 1 (1.6%) Grade III complications. The median post-operative hospital stay was longer in LSC (2 days) compared with LCOC (5 days). Two (3.9%) patients in LSC group had stump cholelithiasis with cholecystitis and had to undergo of redo completion cholecystectomy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LSC should be used cautiously as a bailout procedure reserved for difficult gall bladders when safe dissection is not possible, rather than as a risk-free substitute for standard cholecystectomy, because it was associated with lower risk of bile duct injury but carries its own long-term morbidity.</p>","PeriodicalId":48905,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jmas.jmas_79_26","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy (LSC) serves as a "bailout" technique in difficult intraoperative scenarios, which preserves the advantages of laparoscopy while ensuring patient safety. This study analyses the indications, intraoperative challenges and outcomes of LSC in a tertiary care teaching hospital.

Patients and methods: A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent cholecystectomy between June 2021 and November 2024. Patients were categorised into laparoscopic total cholecystectomy (LTC), LSC and laparoscopic converted to open cholecystectomy (LCOC). The primary endpoint was to compare the post-operative morbidity between the three groups using Clavien-Dindo grading system, while secondary outcomes included early and late post-operative outcomes.

Results: Of the 872 patients, 805 (92.3%) underwent LTC, 64 (7.3%) LSC and 3 (0.4%) LCOC. Among LSC cases, 81.3% were Nassar Grade III-IV, reflecting its need in higher intraoperative difficulty. Bile leak occurred in 3 (4.7%) patients of LSC group. LSC showed 52 patients (81.3%) had no complication, 5 (7.8%) had Grade I, 6 (9.3%) Grade II and 1 (1.6%) Grade III complications. The median post-operative hospital stay was longer in LSC (2 days) compared with LCOC (5 days). Two (3.9%) patients in LSC group had stump cholelithiasis with cholecystitis and had to undergo of redo completion cholecystectomy.

Conclusion: LSC should be used cautiously as a bailout procedure reserved for difficult gall bladders when safe dissection is not possible, rather than as a risk-free substitute for standard cholecystectomy, because it was associated with lower risk of bile duct injury but carries its own long-term morbidity.

腹腔镜胆囊次全切除术治疗难治性胆囊疾病:三级保健中心重建技术的结果。
腹腔镜胆囊次全切除术(LSC)在困难的术中作为一种“救助”技术,既保留了腹腔镜的优势,又保证了患者的安全。本研究分析了三级护理教学医院LSC的适应证、术中挑战和结果。患者和方法:对2021年6月至2024年11月接受胆囊切除术的患者进行回顾性研究。患者分为腹腔镜全胆囊切除术(LTC), LSC和腹腔镜转开胆囊切除术(LCOC)。主要终点是使用Clavien-Dindo分级系统比较三组患者的术后发病率,次要终点包括术后早期和晚期的预后。结果:872例患者中,805例(92.3%)行LTC, 64例(7.3%)行LSC, 3例(0.4%)行LCOC。LSC病例中81.3%为Nassar III-IV级,术中难度较高。LSC组发生胆漏3例(4.7%)。LSC显示52例(81.3%)无并发症,5例(7.8%)有I级并发症,6例(9.3%)有II级并发症,1例(1.6%)有III级并发症。LSC的中位术后住院时间(2天)比LCOC(5天)更长。LSC组2例(3.9%)患者因残端胆石症合并胆囊炎而行胆囊切除术。结论:LSC在无法安全切除困难胆囊时应谨慎使用,而不是作为标准胆囊切除术的无风险替代品,因为它与胆管损伤风险较低相关,但有其自身的长期发病率。
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
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
151
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Minimal Access Surgery (JMAS), the official publication of Indian Association of Gastrointestinal Endo Surgeons, launched in early 2005. The JMAS, a quarterly publication, is the first English-language journal from India, as also from this part of the world, dedicated to Minimal Access Surgery. The JMAS boasts an outstanding editorial board comprising of Indian and international experts in the field.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书