ArticleAnnals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery2024
Comparative study of ambulatory versus inpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Thailand: Assessing effectiveness and safety with a propensity score matched analysis.
Article in Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Pneumoperitoneum Pressure on Post-Cholecystectomy Pain.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsTrial
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Backgrounds/Aims: Ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is increasingly recognized for its advantages over the inpatient approach, which advantages include cost-effectiveness and faster recovery. However, its acceptance is limited by patient concerns regarding safety, and the potential for postoperative complications. The study aims to compare the operative and postoperative outcomes of ambulatory LC versus inpatient LC, specifically addressing patient hesitations related to early discharge. Methods: In a retrospective analysis, patients who underwent LC were divided into ambulatory or inpatient groups based on American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, age, and the availability of postoperative care. Propensity score matching was utilized to ensure comparability between the groups. Data collection focused on demographic information, perioperative data, and postoperative follow-up results to identify the safety of both approaches. Results: The study included a cohort of 220 patients undergoing LC, of which 48 in each group matched post-propensity score matching. The matched analysis indicated that ambulatory LC patients seem to experience shorter operative times and reduced blood loss, but these differences were not statistically significant (35 minutes vs. 46 minutes, Conclusions: Ambulatory LC does not compromise safety or efficacy, compared to traditional inpatient procedures. The findings suggest that ambulatory LC could be more widely adopted, with appropriate patient education and selection criteria, to alleviate concerns and increase patient acceptance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.