ABSTRACT
Background: The ideal way to show treatment effectiveness is through randomized controlled trials the 'gold standard' in evidence-based surgery. Indeed, not all surgical studies can be designed as randomized trials, sometimes for ethical and otherwise, for practical reasons. This article aimed to compare laparoscopic cholecystectomy to open cholecystectomy, according to data from an administrative database, managed by a propensity matched analysis
Methods: Were included all patients with cholelithiasis admitted in Department B between June 1st, 2008 and December 31st, 2009. In this study, the propensity score represented the probability that a patient would be treated by a procedure based on variables that were known or suspected to influence group assignment and was developed using multivariable logistic regression used here to match patients who had laparoscopic cholecystectomy to a control patient who had open cholecystectomy. The main outcome measure was morbidity. This was expressed as the number of patients with 1 or more complications occurring during the hospital stay or within 30 days following discharge
Results:According to intention to treat, 535 patients had a laparoscopic approach [LC group] and 60 patients had a traditional open approach [OC group] regarding associated cardiac disease, previous laparotomy or when choledocholithiasis was suspected, however intra operative cholangiography showed that there was no choledocolithiasis. According to the propensity score, 28 patients in OC were matched with 58 in LC. Comparison between OC and LC before and after propensity matched analysis showed that OC was associated with a higher rate of Extra Surgical Site morbidity [p= 0.010], a longer median duration of intervention, post-operative stay and overall hospital stay [p= 0. 0001]
Conclusion: LC should be considered as first-line therapy to treat cholelithiasis surgically even if it becomes necessary to convert to OC because of intra operative findings