Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (35)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Karayiannakis, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Karatzas, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Karayiannakis, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Karatzas, G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol 77, Issue 4 448-452, Copyright © 1996 by The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

CLINICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Postoperative pulmonary function after laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy

A. J. Karayiannakis, G. G. Makri, A. Mantzioka, D. Karousos and G. Karatzas
Second Department of Propaedeutic Surgery, University of Athens, Medical School, "Laikon" General Hospital, Athens, Greece; Department of Anaesthesiology, "Laikon" General Hospital, Athens, Greece

In this prospective, randomized study, we compared 42 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and 40 undergoing open cholecystectomy to determine if laparoscopic cholecystectomy results in less respiratory impairment and fewer respiratory complications. Pulmonary function tests, arterial blood-gas analysis and chest radiographs were obtained in both groups before operation and on the second day after operation. Postoperative pain scores and analgesic requirements were also recorded. After operation, a significant reduction in total lung capacity, functional residual capacity (FRC), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC) and mid-expiratory flow (FEF25-75%) occurred after both laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy. The reductions in FRC, FEV1, FVC and FEF25-75% were smaller after laparoscopic (7%, 22%, 19% and 23%, respectively) than after open (21%, 38%, 32% and 34%, respectively) cholecystectomy. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was also associated with a significantly lower incidence (28.6% vs 62.5%) and less severe atelectasis, better oxygenation and reduced postoperative pain and analgesia use compared with open cholecystectomy. We conclude that postoperative pulmonary function was impaired less after laparoscopic than after open cholecystectomy.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Arch SurgHome page
N. Ni Choileain and H. P. Redmond
Cell Response to Surgery
Arch Surg, November 1, 2006; 141(11): 1132 - 1140.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ANN INTERN MEDHome page
V. A. Lawrence, J. E. Cornell, and G. W. Smetana
Strategies to reduce postoperative pulmonary complications after noncardiothoracic surgery: systematic review for the American College of Physicians.
Ann Intern Med, April 18, 2006; 144(8): 596 - 608.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch SurgHome page
G. D. Bablekos, S. A. Michaelides, T. Roussou, and K. A. Charalabopoulos
Changes in Breathing Control and Mechanics After Laparoscopic vs Open Cholecystectomy
Arch Surg, January 1, 2006; 141(1): 16 - 22.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch. Dis. Child.Home page
B Jaffray
Minimally invasive surgery
Arch. Dis. Child., May 1, 2005; 90(5): 537 - 542.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch SurgHome page
A. A. Shelton and R. D. Madoff
Invited Critique: Pulmonary Function Following Laparoscopic or Conventional Colorectal Resection
Arch Surg, January 1, 1999; 134(1): 13 - 13.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.