Department of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Centre for Clinical Research Dalarna, Uppsala University, Falun, Sweden.
World J Emerg Surg. 2024 Nov 13;19(1):34. doi: 10.1186/s13017-024-00565-4.
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy with ultrasonic dissection presents a compelling alternative to conventional electrocautery. The evidence for elective cholecystectomy supports the adoption of ultrasonic dissection, citing advantages such as reduced operating time, diminished bleeding, shorter hospital stays and decreased postoperative pain and nausea. However, the efficacy of this procedure in emergency surgery and patients diagnosed with acute cholecystitis remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of electrocautery and ultrasonic dissection in patients with acute cholecystitis.
A randomized, parallel, double-blinded, multicentre controlled trial was conducted across eight Swedish hospitals. Eligible participants were individuals aged ≥ 18 years with acute cholecystitis lasting ≤ 7 days. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed in the emergency setting as soon as local circumstances permitted. Random allocation to electrocautery or ultrasonic dissection was performed in a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was the total complication rate, analysed using an intention-to-treat approach. The primary outcome was analysed using logistic generalized estimated equations. Patients, postoperative caregivers, and follow-up personnel were blinded to group assignment.
From September 2019 to March 2023, 300 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to electrocautery dissection (n = 148) and ultrasonic dissection (n = 152). No significant difference in complication rate was observed between the groups (risk difference [RD] 1.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI], - 7.2% to 10.4%, P = 0.720). No significant disparities in operating time, conversion rate, hospital stay or readmission rates between the groups were noted. Haemostatic agents were more frequently used in electrocautery dissection (RD 10.6%, 95% CI, 1.3% to 19.8%, P = 0.025).
Ultrasonic dissection and electrocautery dissection demonstrate comparable risks for complications in emergency surgery for patients with acute cholecystitis. Ultrasonic dissection is a viable alternative to electrocautery dissection or can be used as a complementary method in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis.
The trial was registered prior to conducting the research on http://clinical.
gov , NCT03014817.
与传统电烙术相比,腹腔镜胆囊切除术结合超声切割具有更大的吸引力。针对择期胆囊切除术的证据支持采用超声切割,其优点包括手术时间缩短、出血减少、住院时间缩短以及术后疼痛和恶心减轻。然而,这种方法在急诊手术和急性胆囊炎患者中的疗效尚不确定。本研究旨在比较电烙术和超声切割在急性胆囊炎患者中的治疗效果。
在瑞典的 8 家医院进行了一项随机、平行、双盲、多中心对照试验。纳入的参与者为年龄≥18 岁且急性胆囊炎持续时间≤7 天的患者。一旦当地情况允许,就在紧急情况下进行腹腔镜胆囊切除术。电烙术或超声切割的随机分组按 1:1 比例进行。主要终点是总并发症发生率,采用意向治疗分析。主要结局采用逻辑广义估计方程进行分析。患者、术后护理人员和随访人员对分组情况不知情。
从 2019 年 9 月至 2023 年 3 月,共纳入 300 名患者,并随机分为电烙术组(n=148)和超声切割组(n=152)。两组并发症发生率无显著差异(风险差异 [RD] 1.6%,95%置信区间 [CI],-7.2%至 10.4%,P=0.720)。两组之间手术时间、转化率、住院时间或再入院率无显著差异。电烙术组更频繁地使用止血剂(RD 10.6%,95% CI,1.3%至 19.8%,P=0.025)。
在急性胆囊炎患者的急诊手术中,超声切割和电烙术显示出相似的并发症风险。超声切割是电烙术的一种可行替代方法,也可以作为急性胆囊炎腹腔镜胆囊切除术的补充方法。
该试验在进行研究前在 http://clinical.
gov 上进行了注册,NCT03014817。