Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Day-Care Versus Clinical Observation

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
To determine the feasibility and desirability of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in day-care versus LC with clinical observation. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been performed regularly as outpatient surgery in patients with uncomplicated gallstone disease in the United States, but this has not been generally accepted in Europe. The main objections are the risk of early severe complications (bleeding) or other reasons for readmission, and the argument that patients might feel safer when observed for one night. Quality-of-life differences hitherto have not been investigated. Eighty patients (American Society of Anesthesiology [ASA] I/II) with symptomatic gallstones were randomized to receive LC either in day-care or with clinical observation. Complications, (re)admissions, consultations of general practitioners or the day-care center within 4 days after surgery, use of pain medication, quality of life, convalescence period, time off from professional activities, and treatment preference were assessed. The respective costs of day-care and clinical observation were determined. Of the 37 patients assigned to the day-care group who underwent elective surgery, 92% were discharged successfully after an observation period of 5.7 ± 0.2 hours. The remainder of the patients in this group were admitted to the hospital and clinically observed for 24 hours. For the 37 patients in the clinical observation group who underwent elective surgery, the observation time after surgery was 31 ± 3 hours. Three patients in the day-care group and one patient in the clinical observation group had complications after surgery. None of the patients in either group consulted a general practitioner or the hospital during the first week after surgery. Use of pain medication was comparable in both groups over the first 48 hours after surgery. There were no differences in pain and other quality-of-life indicators between the groups during the 6 weeks of follow-up. Of the patients in the day-care group, 92% preferred day-care to clinical observation. The same percentage of patients in the clinical observation group preferred at least 24 hours of observation to day-care. Costs for the day-care patients were substantially lower (approximately $750/patient) than for the clinical observation patients. Effectiveness was equal in both patient groups, and both groups appeared to be satisfied with their treatment. Because no differences were found with respect to the other outcomes, day-care is the preferred treatment in most ASA I and II patients because it is less expensive.