akademik gastroenteroloji dergisi 2014; 13(3): 96-100 complicated forms of the . Traditional laparotomic, laparoscop laparotomic, Traditional disease. the of forms complicated choosing access, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of vari of disadvantages and advantages the as well as other access, and choosing cholecystitis calculous chronic and acute cholelithiasis, with ALVENDOVA were usedin793cases,including 341patientsoperated cated formsofthedisease. Minimally invasivemethods and chroniccalculouscholecystitis,othercompli- ment resultsin1038patientswithcholelithiasis,acute The current study is based on the evaluation of treat- MATERIALS andMETHODS cess forpatientswithcholelithiasis. was to evaluate the selection of variants in surgical ac- mini-laparotomic access (5,7,10). The aimofthis study surgical methods,includingbothvideo-endoscopicand of minimallyinvasiveinterventionscombinesdifferent remains clinicallyrelevant(1,2).Thecurrentconception of laparotomicaccessinthetreatmentcholelithiasis for thetreatmentofdisease.Conversely,application minimally invasiveinterventionsarethe“goldstandard” persistently high(1-3).Thereisacommonbeliefthat complicated formsofthecalculouscholecystitisremains 10% oftheadultpopulation.Additionally,number crements in the are detected in approximately Cholelithiasis isanextremelycommondiseaseandcon- INTRODUCTION access mini- by lecystectomy, discussed. are patients for cholelithiasis Indications in options performed. surgical were ous approaches invasive patients minimally 1038 of and ic treatment surgical of results the presents article This 2 1 F.S. KURBANOV Laparotomik veminimalinvazivyaklaşımlacerrahikolelitiazistedavisininsonuçları minimally invasiveaccesses Results ofsurgicaltreatmentcholelithiasisbylaparotomicand Chronic cholecystitis, acute cholecystitis, laparoscopic cho laparoscopic cholecystitis, acute cholecystitis, Chronic words: Key ORIGINAL RESEARCH Friendship UniversityofRussia,CityMoscow,RussianFederation 96 E. EfendiyevCityClinicalHospitalNo.2,MedicalCentre“International MedicalCentre-2”,CityofBaku,RepublicAzerbaijan Department ofHospitalSurgerywiththeCoursePaediatricStateHigherEducationInstitutionPeople’s E-mail: [email protected] “International Medical Centre-2”CityofBaku,RepublicAzerbaijan E. EfendiyevCityClinicalHospitalNo.2Medical Centre Correspondence: YusufALIYEV 1 1 , Y.G.ALIYEV 2 , M.A.CHINIKOV 1 , I.S.PANTELEEVA - - - eai oulr trıımkaı. eaie eeesl aaooi, la laparotomik, geleneksel Tedavide tartışılmaktadır. sonuçları tedavi endikasyonların yanı sıra safra taşı hastalarında çeşitli cerrahi seçenekle cerrahi çeşitli hastalarında taşı safra sıra yanı endikasyonların hastalıklaının diğer karmaşık formlarını içeren 1038 hastanın cerrahi cerrahi hastanın 1038 içeren formlarını karmaşık diğer hastalıklaının rin avantajları ve dezavantajları tartışılmıştır. için tartışılmıştır. seçim Yazıda dezavantajları ve sergilenmiştir. avantajları rin yaklaşım invaziv minimal ve paroskopik patients operatedbylaparoscopy wereolderthan60, tients amongthestudygroups showedthatafifthof (P>0.05). Analysisoftheratioyoungandelderlypa- groups butthedifferencewasnotstatisticallysignificant laparoscopic accesswasslightlyyoungerthantheother in Figure2.Theageofpatientsoperatedonthrough The meanageofpatientsinthestudygroupsisshown Azerbaijan. ternational MedicalCentre–2”,CityofBaku,Republic Efendiyev CityClinicalHospitalNo.2,MedicalCentre“In- Hospital No.17, CityofMoscow,Russian Federation; E. the People’sFriendshipUniversityofRussia;CityClinical atric SurgeryoftheStateHigherEducationInstitution Department of Hospital with the Course of Pedi- Data from clinical sites involved in this study include: the across groups. the Figure1.Thenumberofpatientswerecomparable sion by8-10cm).Ratioofpatientsgroupisshownin erations performed by laparotomic access (Kocher inci- rotomic (4-5cm)access.245patientshadtraditionalop- by (standard 4 port) and 452 by mini-lapa- kolesistektomi ile mini-laparotomi tektomi, Anahtar kelime: kelime: Anahtar Bu çalışmada kolelitiazis, akut ve kronik taşlı kolesistit ve safra yolları yolları safra ve kolesistit taşlı kronik ve akut kolelitiazis, çalışmada Bu Manuscript Received: 08.11.2014•Accepted:12.12.2014 1 Kronik kolesistit, akut kolesistit, laparoskopik kolesis laparoskopik kolesistit, akut kolesistit, Kronik , S.R.DOBROVOLSKY 1 , L.R. - - - The results of laparotomic and minimally invasive cholecystectomy

while slightly more than a third underwent operation by that included chronic calculous cholecystitis; other cases laparotomic access. included intervention due to acute calculous cholecystitis of various severity (Table 1). The main diagnoses of patients in the study groups are listed in Table 1. Patients with acute phlegmonous and gangrenous in- flammation represented the smallest number of patients RESULTS operated by laparoscopy (10%) and the largest number performed by laparotomic access (52%) (p>0.01). The Ratio of patients with chronic and acute patients who underwent intervention by mini-laparoto- in the study groups varied (Figure 3). Figure 3 shows that nearly an equal number of patients with acute and mic access ranged in the middle according to results and chronic cholecystitis underwent minimally invasive inter- significantly differed in the incidence of phlegmonous ventions, although, among patients operated by laparos- cholecystitis compared with patients operated by lapa- copy, there was a lower number with acute inflammation roscopic access. compared with those who underwent mini-laparotomic Maximum duration of the disease in the group of pa- access (P>0.05). Conversely, only about a fifth of the tients operated by traditional access was 28 years; patients operated by laparotomic access had indications mini-laparotomic access, 20 years; and laparoscopic ac- cess, 15 years. Mean disease duration also significant- ly differed, including a statistically significant difference (p>0.05), with the groups of patients operated by lapa- roscopy compared to the other two groups. The American Surgical Association (ASA) Physical Status Classification System was used to determine the physi- cal condition and the severity of concomitant disease in these patients prior to interventions. There was a signifi- cant difference among groups, notably between patients who underwent minimally invasive interventions (laparo- Figure 1. Distribution of patients by groups (%) scopic and mini--laparotomic access) and those operated by traditional laparotomic access (Figure 4). The lapa- rotomic access group significantly differed by the large incidence of severe concomitant compared with patients who underwent minimally invasive operations.

Figure 2. Average age of patients in groups (years)

Figure 4. Distribution of patients by asa ACE scale (%)

Complications of cholelithiasis were detected at the stage of preoperative examination in the patients of all study groups but their incidence varied. In the group of patients operated by traditional access, a third had complications of the primary disease, while a fifth of the patients experienced complications following opera- Figure 3. Correlation of patients with acute and chronic cholecystitis (%) tion using the mini-laparotomic access. Only a seventh

97 KURBANOV et al.

Table 1. Main diagnosis in patients operated due to the cholelithiasis

Intervention by Intervention by Intervention by laparotomic access mini-access laparoscopic access N % N % N % Acute calculous cholecystitis 93 38.0 192 42.5 132 38.7 (catarrhal inflammation stage) Acute calculous cholecystitis 59 24.1 48 10.6 9 2.6 (phlegmonous inflammation stage) Acute calculous cholecystitis 42 17.1 22 4.9 5 1.5 (gangrenous inflammation stage) Chronic calculous cholecystitis 51 20.8 190 42.0 195 57.2 Total 245 100.0 452 100.0 341 100.0

Table 2. Complications of the main disease in patients operated due to the cholelithiasis

Intervention by Intervention by Intervention by laparotomic access mini-access laparoscopic access N % N % N % Gallbladder hydrops 8 17.0 2 2.2 4 4.3 Gallbladder empyema 7 14.9 22 24.7 25 26.9 Obstructive jaundice 2 4.3 8 9.0 11 11.8 Choledocholithiasis 2 4.3 7 7.9 11 11.8 Stricture of the terminal portion of the common - - 5 5.6 4 4.3 Local serous peritonitis 1 2.1 24 27.0 28 30.1 Perivesical abscess 1 2.1 3 3.4 8 8.6 Acute reactive pancreatitis 4 8.5 7 7.9 10 10.8 Local bile peritonitis - - - - 2 2.2 Diffuse serous peritonitis - - - - 6 6.5 Generalized bile/purulent peritonitis - - - - 6 6.5 Purulent cholangitis - - - - 2 2.2 Indurative pancreatitis - - - - 1 1.1 Pancreatic pseudocyst - - - - 1 1.1 Cholecysto-colonic fistula - - 1 1.1 - - Cholecysto-choledochal fistula (Mirizzi syndrome) - - 1 1.1 - - Cholecysto-duodenal fistula - - - - 1 1.1

of the laparoscopy patients experienced complications extending outside of the gallbladder were detected in following their operation (p>0.05). The combination of isolated cases in patients undergoing laparoscopic ac- two or more complications was found quite frequently; cess. Specifically, surgeons diagnosed the presence of therefore, the number of detected complications exceed- 30 mL of cloudy effusion in the subhepatic space as a ed the total number of patients with complications of perivesical abscess, and serous effusion along the right cholelithiasis. lateral canal and in the small pelvis in a patient with acute phlegmonous calculous cholecystitis as local serous peri- The complications differed significantly by nature and se- tonitis. Analysis of patients operated by mini-laparotomic verity among study groups (Table 2). The percentages access showed that the nature of severe complications of were calculated for the total number of patients with the main diseases were the same as patients operated by complications in each group. Inflammatory complications laparoscopy, although, they occurred more frequently.

98 The results of laparotomic and minimally invasive cholecystectomy

Complications detected in the laparotomic access group patients required puncture of the gallbladder, which was were both severe and extensive. Presence of biliary, peri- significantly lower than the group of patients operated tonitis, pyogenic cholangitis, and formed subhepatic ab- by traditional access (p>0.05). Mean volume of the ex- scess were indications for intervention by laparotomic tracted punctate was also significantly less (from 10 to access. 200.0 mL, mean– 60.6±7.4 mL). Upon traditional intervention of the bile ducts, incision Reparative interventions of the bile ducts were required in the right hypochondrium according to Kocher (74.2% in 10 patients in this group (2.2%), combined operations of patients), or supramedian laparotomy (25.8% of pa- – in 5 patients (1.1%). Nature of interventions of the bile tients) was used as the access. Generally, the latter was ducts is provided in the Table 4. used when abdominoscopy was required due to reason- able suspicion for peritonitis, or in case of the concomi- Table 4. Interventions on the bile ducts in patients tant diseases requiring surgical intervention (e.g., median operated by the minilaparotomic access postoperative , or when intervention was conduct- Nature of interventions Number of interventions ed through hernia-laparotomic access). Average duration on the bile ducts Choledochotomy, drainage of the of operations was 75.2±2.6 minutes. 2 common bile duct according to Kerr Cholecystectomy by traditional access was conducted Choledochoduodenostomy 2 both in retrograde and antegrade variants, provided that according to Yurash preference was given to the retrograde method. Punc- Choledocholithotomy, drainage of the 6 ture of the gallbladder was required in 64 patients in this common bile duct according to Pikovskii group (26.2%), with evacuation of 10 to 300 mL of bile (mean – 86.3±10.3 mL), generally, admixed with pus. Laparoscopic interventions were conducted according to Intervention of the bile ducts were required in 18 pa- the standard method; isolated cholecystectomy was con- tients (7.4%) (Table. 3); and combined abdominal ope- ducted in all cases; puncture was required in 12 patients, rations (mainly hernioplasty and ) were with evacuation of 30 to 60 mL of the content of gall- required in 12 patients (4.9%). bladder (mean 44.6±2.4 mL). Mean duration of the op- eration in patients of this group was 46.4±0.8 minutes, and it was significantly lower than in patients operated Table 3. Interventions on the bile ducts in patients by the mini-laparotomic access and especially lower than operated by the traditional access those operated by laparotomic access. Nature of interventions Number of interventions on the bile ducts There were significant differences between study groups Choledochotomy, drainage of the 6 in patient duration of treatment. Total number of hospi- common bile duct according to Kerr talization days in the group of patients who underwent Choledochoduodenostomy 4 according to Yurash the traditional operation was 11.9±0.3; 5.8±0.2 days for the mini-laparotomic access patients; and 2.4±0.1 days in Drainage of the common bile duct 7 according to Pikovskii patients operated by laparoscopic access (p>0.05). The Choledochotomy, revision of the shorter hospital stay in the latter group was due in part 1 common bile duct to patients being treated under conditions that replaced in-patient treatment. Two principal types of incisions were used during inter- In the group of patients operated by the laparotomic ac- ventions by mini-laparotomy – right-sided transrectal and cess, postoperative complications were detected in 20 right-sided pararectal access, among which the former patients (8.6%), including postoperative in 8 significantly predominated. Size of the access was stan- patients (seroma, hematomas and, in one case, eventra- dard for interventions by the mini-laparotomy access in tion). There were three mortalities in this group (patients virtually all of the cases [i.e., within 4-5 cm (mean 4.5±0.1 aged 82 to 85 years); the patients were hospitalized with cm)]. Both antegrade and retrograde methods of inter- clinical signs of acute destructive cholecystitis and severe vention were used in these patients. Intervention time concomitant diseases. There were no mortalities in the averaged 62.5±1.7 minutes. In this group, 45 (10.0%) other groups.

99 KURBANOV et al.

In the group of patients operated by the mini-laparoto- carboxyperitoneum, difficulties in operations conducted mic access, postoperative complications were seen in 5 in cases of adhesive processes in the abdominal cavity, (1.3%) patients, including post-operative wounds in 3 rusk of damage of the adjacent organs, etc. (7,8). These patients. In the group operated by the laparoscopy, 4 circumstances require alternative variants of minimally in- (1.2%) patients had post-operative wounds, including vasive interventions. In the 90s, operations through the one patient who experienced pyosis of the . Thus, mini-access were widely performed (3-6,9-11); advantag- significant differences between study groups in the fre- es and disadvantages of these types of cholecystectomy quency of postoperative complications was seen. were discussed. In this study, based on the experience of the surgical in-patient departments where urgent oper- DISCUSSION ations are conducted, the number of patients operated Currently, most surgeons support laparoscopic access by the mini-laparotomic access was performed most fre- as the “gold standard” in cholecystectomy. Significant quently, suggesting its benefits and popularity. This re- extension of indications for laparoscopic operations of sult is no accident; interventions are generally conducted the bile ducts should be considered in older patients. The by the traditional surgical method and easily learned by number of publications on operations conducted suc- surgeons. Advantages of the operation include possibility cessfully in cases of severe concomitant diseases includ- for conduct of the operation on the bile ducts (drainage, ing cardiac malformations with abnormal hemodynam- anastomosis) without change of the access. ics, chronic coronary heart disease, cardiac arrhythmia, The fewest number of patients were operated by lap- bronchial asthma, obesity, acute cholecystitis, as well as arotomic access and were also the most complicated. other diseases and conditions have increased (1,2). It is Specifically, this group was comprised of patients with clear that the economic aspect is also important. Accord- severe complications of the disease, severe concomitant ing to B. I. Lengyel (12), treatment expenses in patients disease, and were elderly and advanced in years. Treat- who experienced “open” cholecystectomy are 26% high- ment results of the patients in this group were the worst; er than in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystec- however, it should be noted that refusal of laparotomic tomy, even when durable and complicated. access for minimally invasive interventions is currently not The results from our experience, presented in this article, possible. Therefore, the variety and complexity of situa- suggests that laparoscopic intervention of the bile ducts tions faced by a surgeon during interventions due to the can be sufficiently used in patients with cholelithiasis and cholelithiasis and its complications requires the consid- its complications. However, laparoscopic intervention eration of different variants of interventions, both tradi- has a range of disadvantages, including the necessity of tional and minimally invasive.

REFERENCES 1. Amelina MA. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with 3rd 7. Timoshin AD, Shestakov AL, Yurasov AV. Indications for interven- and 4th grade obesity: Author’s abstract ... Candidate of Medicine, tions from minilaparotomic access in cholelithiasis. International Moscow. 2005;24. conference “New technologies in the diagnostics and surgery of 2. Gallinger YI, Karpenkova VI. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Experi- organs of the biliopancreatoduodenal zone”. Moscow. 1995;101-2. ence of 3165 operations Endoscopic surgery 2007;2:3-7. 8. Timoshin AD, Shestakov AL, Yurasov AV. Cholecystectomy from 3. Dobrovolsky SR, Bogopolski PM, Nagai IV, et al. Advantages and minilaparotomic access. Russian Journal of Gastroenterology, disadvantages of different methods of cholecystectomy. Surgery Hepatology, Coloproctology. Materials of the 1st Russian Gastro- 2004;7:56-61. enterological week. Saint Petersburg. 1995;3:231. 4. Potashev LV, Vasilyev VV, Savranski VM, Semyonov DY. Capabili- 9. Shulutko AM, Danilov AI, Markov ZS, Kornev LV. Minilaparot- ties of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of choledocholi- omy in the surgical treatment of calculous cholecystitis. Surgery thiasis (Notes of the international conference “New capabilities and 1997;1:36-7. prospects for the development of endoscopic surgery.) Saint-Pe- 10. Daou R. Cholecystectomy using a minilaparotomy. Ann.Chir tersburg 1995;43-44. 1998;52:625-8. 5. Prudkov MI, Beburishvili AG, Shulutko AM. Minilaparotomy with el- 11. Horvath OP. Minimal invasive surgery. Acta Chir Hung 1997;36:130-1. ements of open laparoscopy in the surgical treatment of calculous 12. Lengyel BI, Panizales MT, Steinberg J, Ashley SW, Tavakkoli A. cholecystitis. Endoscopic surgery 1996;2:12-6. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: What is the price of conversion? / 6. Prudkov MI, Karmatskikh AY, Nishnevich EV. Experience of using Surgery 2012;152:173-8. cholecystectomy from minilaparotomic access in the treatment of acute calculous cholecystitis. Collection of scientific works of the All-Russian Scientific Conference “Current problems of sur- gery” dedicated to the 130th anniversary of the birth of professor N.N.Napalkov. Rostov-on-Don. 1998;56.

100