Umeå University's logo

umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Safety of cholecystectomy performed by surgeons who prefer fundus first versus surgeons who prefer a standard laparoscopic approach
Department of Clinical Science and Education Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institute & Department of Surgery, Södersjukhuset, Sjukhusbacken 10, Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Clinical Science and Education Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institute & Department of Surgery, Södersjukhuset, Sjukhusbacken 10, Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Clinical Science and Education Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institute, Sjukhusbacken 10, Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Clinical Science and Education Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institute & Department of Surgery, Södersjukhuset, Sjukhusbacken 10, Stockholm, Sweden.
Show others and affiliations
2024 (English)In: Surgery Open Science, E-ISSN 2589-8450, Vol. 19, p. 141-145Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: An alternative method to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) is the “fundus first” method (FFLC). Concerns have been raised that FFLC can lead to misinterpretation of important anatomical structures, thus causing complications of a more serious kind than SLC. Comparisons between the methods are complicated by the fact that FFLC is often used as a rescue procedure in complicated cases. To avoid confounding related to this we conducted a population-based study with comparisons on the surgeon level.

Method: In GallRiks, the Swedish registry for Gallbladder surgery, we stratified all cholecystectomies performed 2006–2020 in three groups: surgeries carried out by surgeons that uses FFLC in <20 % of the cases (N = 150,119), in 20–79 % of the cases (N = 10,212) and in 80 % or more of the cases (N = 3176). We compared the groups with logistic regression, adjusting for sex, age, surgical experience, year of surgery and history of acute cholecystitis. All surgical complications (bleeding, gallbladder perforation, visceral perforation, infection, and bile duct injury) were included as outcome. A separate analysis was done with regards to operation time.

Results: No difference in incidence of all surgical complications or bile duct injury were seen between groups. The rates of bleeding (OR 0.34 [0.14–0.86]) and gallbladder perforation (OR 0.61 [0.45–0.82]) were significantly lower in the “fundus first > 80% group” and the operative time was shorter (OR 0.76 [0.69–0.83]).

Conclusion: In this study including >160,000 cholecystectomies, both methods was found to be equally safe.

Key message: During laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the standard method of dissection and fundus first dissection are equally safe surgical techniques. Surgeons need to learn both methods to be able to use the one most appropriate for each individual case.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2024. Vol. 19, p. 141-145
Keywords [en]
Bile duct injury, Cholecystectomy/adverse effects, Cohort studies, Gallbladder surgery, Intraoperative complications
National Category
Surgery
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-223949DOI: 10.1016/j.sopen.2024.04.004ISI: 001236184400001Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85191197780OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-223949DiVA, id: diva2:1855758
Funder
Swedish Research Council, 2018-06926Available from: 2024-05-03 Created: 2024-05-03 Last updated: 2025-04-24Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(371 kB)111 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 371 kBChecksum SHA-512
e3081991ee7d82285599f6fa80e10ed98d29df38eaca21ca92c76b52fc092abc63e30cb1edcaaab9c6c8bb1d5b583f7a493839226609402d214c9f345155d47d
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records

Cengiz, Yucel

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Cengiz, Yucel
By organisation
Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences
In the same journal
Surgery Open Science
Surgery

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 111 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 313 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf