Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
World J Surg. 1993 Nov-Dec;17(6):755-9.

Minicholecystectomy vs conventional cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized trial--implications in the laparoscopic era.

Author information

  • 1Department of Surgery B, Rambam Medical Center, Haifa, Israel.


The objective of this study was to compare results of elective "open" conventional cholecystectomy (CC) to those of minicholecystectomy (MC). A clinical prospective, randomized trial was designed. The setting was an academic general surgical unit. In the CC group were 26 patients; in the MC group were 24 patients. In the CC group a conventional open cholecystectomy was performed through a subcostal incision; in the MC group operation through an initial 5-cm subcostal incision was done. Mean length of wound was 14.4 cm and 5.4 cm in the two groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Mean operative time was 60 and 59 minutes, respectively. Mean operative difficulty, estimated on a 1-10 scale, was 3.4 and 5.6, respectively (p < 0.05). Mean postoperative analgesia requirements (number of doses of 10 mg morphine sulphate) were 5.8 and 4.0, respectively (p = 0.002). Mean duration of hospitalization was 4.7 and 3.0 days, respectively (p < 0.001). Mean "overall patient satisfaction," estimated on 1-10 scale, was 6 and 8.3, respectively (p = 0.002). We conclude that Minicholecystectomy offers less pain, earlier recovery, and better cosmetic results than the conventional "open" procedure. Published results of MC compare favorably with those of laparoscopic procedures. The implications of these results in the "laparoscopic era" are discussed.

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk