Novosti
Khirurgii

 This journal is
indexed in Scopus
journal cover
android icon Android Applicaion

Year 2008 Vol. 16 No 1

GENERAL AND PARTICULAR SURGERY

GARELIK P.V., MOGILEVETS E.V.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS OF STANDARD AND MODIFIED LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY

116 case histories of the patients who underwent the laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCE) have been analyzed. The efficiency of the standard and modified techniques of LCE on the own material has been estimated. The life quality of the patients after the operation and the development of local adhesions have been studied. The intensity of the adhesions was less and life quality was higher in the patients after the modified LCE in comparison with the patients after the standard surgery. The development of local adhesions after the standard LCE depends on the traumatism during the operation and leads to the worsening of the results of this surgery. The biochemical and immunologic analyses of the peritoneal liquid after LCE can be used as the prognosis factors of the operation results in the distant period. The investigation of some biochemical parameters in the peritoneal liquid is perspective as the prognosis of the adhesions intensity after LCE.

Keywords: laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCE), quality of life, adhesion process, peritoneal.
p. 17 – 24 of the original issue
References
  1. Шерлок, Ш. Заболевания печени и желчных путей / Ш. Шерлок, Дж. Дули. – М.: Гэотар-Медицина, 1999. – 860 с.
  2. Ros, A. Abdominal pain and patient overall and cosmetic satisfaction one year after cholecystectomy: outcome of a randomized trial comparing laparoscopic and minilaparotomy cholecystectomy / A. Ros, E. Nilsson // Scand. J. Gastroenterol. – 2004. – Vol. 39, N 8. – Р. 773-777.
  3. Марахвский, Ю. Ф. Общая гастроэнтерология. Основная терминология и диагностические критерии / Ю. Ф. Марахвский. – Минск: ротапринтое издание, 1998. – 178 с.
  4. Metzger, J. 1-year follow-up of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an unselected patient sample. Objective findings and subjective status / J. Metzger, C. Muller // Helv. Chir. Acta. – 1994. – Vol. 60, N 5. – Р. 767-772.
  5. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy late follow-up results and quality of life of patients / Z. S. Mekhtikhanov [et al.] // Klin. Khir. – 2001. – Vol. 3. – Р. 22-25.
  6. Postcholecystectomy complaints one year after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Results of a prospective study of 253 patients / R. Peterli [et al.] // Chirurg. – 1998. – Vol. 69, N 1. – Р. 55-60.
  7. Ware, John E. SF-36 Health Survey update / John E. Ware // Spine. – 2000. – Vol. 25, N 24. – Р. 3130-3139.
  8. Bickerstaff, K. I. Early postoperative endoscopic spincterotom, for retained biliary stones / K. I. Bickerstaff, A. R. Berry, R. M. Chapman // Am. Roy. Coli. Surg. – 1998. – Vol. 70, N 6. – Р. 350-351.
  9. Chin, P. T. «Gallstone hip» and other sequelae of retained gallstones / P. T. Chin, S. Boland, J. P. Percy // HPB Surg. – 1997. – Vol. 10, N 3. – Р. 165-168.
  10. A comparative study of postoperative adhesion formation after laparoscopic vs open cholecystectomy / G. Polymeneas [et al.] // Surg. Endosc. – 2001. – Vol. 15, N 1. – Р. 41-43.
  11. Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy: reaction in the liver bed / G. Szabo [et al.] // Magy Seb. – 2005. – Vol. 58, N 2. – Р. 106-110.
  12. The influence of intraoperative complications on adhesion formation during laparoscopic and conventional cholecystectomy in an animal model / E. M. Gamal [et al.] // Surg. Endosc. – 2001. – Vol. 15, N 8. – Р. 873-877.
  13. Торбунов, А. С. Сонография и лапароскопический адгеолизис в лечении спаечной болезни брюшной полости / А. С. Торбунов, А. И. Кушнеров, Д. К. Сорокин // Эндоскопическая хирургия. – 2001. – № 3. – С. 79.
  14. Гланц, C. Медико-биологическая статистика / С. Гланц; пер. с англ. Ю. А. Данилова; под ред. Н. Е. Бузикашвили, Д. В. Самойлова. – Москва: «Практика», 1999. – 459 с.
Contacts | ©Vitebsk State Medical University, 2007-2023