 |
|
Randomized Clinical Trial of Small-Incision and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Patients With Symptomatic Cholecystolithiasis: Primary and Clinical Outcomes—Invited Critique
Charles D. Mabry, MD
Arch Surg. 2008;143(4):377-378.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.—Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
The authors have chosen to question and then to carefully examine whether laparoscopy is a better method to remove a diseased gallbladder than by means of a minilaparotomy (defined as < 8-cm incision). In these halcyon days of laparoscopy and natural-orifice surgery, they were bold enough to question which minimal operation is best for cholecystectomy—and the answers, while not surprising, are important for the larger debate now under way in America regarding methods of approach and incision. The authors have done so by carefully constructing a study to analyze both initial outcome measures (complications, length of procedure, etc) and secondary outcomes (cost, time to return to work, etc). Their study is both unique among publications as well as interesting, in that they . . . [Full Text of this Article]
AUTHOR INFORMATION
RELATED ARTICLE
Randomized Clinical Trial of Small-Incision and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Patients With Symptomatic Cholecystolithiasis: Primary and Clinical Outcomes
Frederik Keus, Johanna E. M. Werner, Hein G. Gooszen, Henk J. M. Oostvogel, and Cornelis J. H. M. van Laarhoven
Arch Surg. 2008;143(4):371-377.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
