Observational studyBMC surgery2025
Early experience with ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a regional hospital with limited ambulatory infrastructure: a retrospective cohort study using propensity score matching.
Observational study in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundData on outcomes of ambulatory surgery in Thailand remain limited. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the first procedure included in Thailand's national policy for ambulatory surgery requiring more than local anesthesia or intravenous sedation. This study aimed to compare outcomes of ambulatory versus conventional inpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a regional hospital lacking dedicated ambulatory surgery infrastructure.
methodsThis retrospective observational cohort study included patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy between May 2022 and June 2024. Data were obtained from the hospital's ambulatory surgery registry and electronic medical records. The hospital did not have an established ambulatory unit, and ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy had been implemented less than one year prior to the study period. Treatment allocation (ambulatory vs. inpatient) was determined by the attending surgeons and patient preference. To reduce bias, 1:1 nearest-neighbor propensity score matching was performed based on age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists class III status, obesity, and complicated gallstone disease. The primary outcomes were readmission and postoperative morbidity or mortality.
resultsA total of 570 eligible patients were included. After matching, 358 patients (179 per group) remained for analysis. Readmission and complication rates were comparable between groups, with no observed mortality. Risk ratios (95% confidence intervals) for readmission and complications were 2.00 (0.51, 7.89) and 0.67 (0.19, 2.32), respectively. Although the ambulatory group showed a slightly higher readmission rate, length of hospital stay was significantly shorter by approximately two days.
conclusionsIn the early implementation phase, among predominantly healthy patients, ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy appeared safe and feasible in a resource-limited setting, with comparable morbidity and a non-significant increase in readmissions-likely attributable to the learning curve and limited patient familiarity with the ambulatory pathway.
trial registrationNot applicable as this study is a retrospective cohort study and not a clinical trial.
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.