You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 143 No. 4, April 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Invited Critique
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Endoscopy/ Minimally Invasive Surgery
 •Randomized Controlled Trial
 •Prognosis/ Outcomes
 •Hepatobiliary Surgery
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

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


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2008 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.