JCDR - Register at Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X
Surgery Section DOI : 10.7860/JCDR/2018/28496.12089
Year : 2018 | Month : Oct | Volume : 12 | Issue : 10 Full Version Page : PC06 - PC09

Prediction of Difficult Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy during the First Conversation with the Patient

Kumar Nishant1, Varun Kumar Singh2, Phuchungla Bhutia3, Bikram Kharga4, Barun Kumar Sharma5, Nitin Jain6

1 Associate Professor, Department of General Surgery, Sikkim Manipal Institute of Medical Sciences, Gangtok, Sikkim, India.
2 Associate Professor, Department of General Surgery, Sikkim Manipal Institute of Medical Sciences, Gangtok, Sikkim, India.
3 Assistant Professor, Department of General Surgery, Sikkim Manipal Institute of Medical Sciences, Gangtok, Sikkim, India.
4 Professor, Department of General Surgery, Sikkim Manipal Institute of Medical Sciences, Gangtok, Sikkim, India.
5 Professor, Department of General Radiology, Sikkim Manipal Institute of Medical Sciences, Gangtok, Sikkim, India.
6 Senior Resident, Department of Paediatric Surgery, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, Delhi, India.


NAME, ADDRESS, E-MAIL ID OF THE CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Dr. Varun Kumar Singh, Department of Surgery, Sikkim Manipal Institute of Medical Sciences, 5th Mile, Tadong, Gangtok, Sikkim, India.
E-mail: varunsingh.vks@gmail.com
Abstract

Introduction

Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard now for symptomatic cholelithiasis. Any unexpected turn of events intra-operatively has significant implications which get multiplied many fold due to high number of procedures. If degree of technical difficulty could be predicted before starting the procedure, concerned team can be better prepared and adverse outcomes can be potentially minimised or forestalled.

Aim

To study clinical factors responsible for technically difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy during the first visit of the patient to outdoor.

Materials and Methods

This prospective analytical study, based on convenient sampling method, was used to select 125 patients sequentially, who underwent LC. Difficulty assessment was done by a Likert type questionnaire. Weighted Difficulty Score (WDS) was calculated and compared against pre-operative parameters.

Results

Difficulty of doing surgery increased with age, history of diabetes mellitus and hypertension and obesity. No difference was found in difficulty score for gender and previous history of surgery. Recurrent cholecystitis, prior-hospitalisation, length of hospital-stay and duration since first episode predicted a difficult LC but not duration since last episode. Icterus and palpable gall bladder were also found to increase the difficulty but presence of tenderness and Murphy’s sign had no relation with the difficulty score.

Conclusion

Our results demonstrate that difficult LC can be predicted based on parameters on history and physical examination alone at the first visit of the patient to OPD. Both the patient and surgical team can, therefore, be better prepared for the possible complications and conversions in an environment of confidence and mutual trust.

Keywords

Introduction

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is currently the established gold standard for symptomatic cholelithiasis. Frequency of this procedure is progressively increasing globally. Any unexpected turn of events intra-operatively has significant immediate and long-term implications for the patient, operating team, anaesthesia team, operation theatre management and the hospital in general. In case of LC these implications get multiplied many fold, mainly by virtue of the high number of cases. Another aspect is that high volume of cases, though good for the surgical skill learning curve, can induce a casual approach and limit preparedness for technical difficulty, thus catching the team off-guard. When a surgical team, unprepared for technical difficulties, struggles around unpaired vital structures like common bile duct, portal vein, common hepatic artery, significant morbidities and even mortality can result. Even if morbidity and mortality are avoided, a lot of un-booked time is lost, and skilled manpower can be squandered unnecessarily [1,2].

Thus, if the degree of technical difficulty could be predicted before starting the procedure, the concerned team can be better prepared and several of the adverse outcomes can be potentially minimised or forestalled. The need for such a system has been felt since the time LC was established as the gold standard for treatment of cholelithiasis. Several scoring systems have been coming up in scientific literature for almost the last couple of decades by various authors. But unfortunately none has been universally accepted or established to the level of being integrated into practice. This article aims to address this knowledge gap. The article is a part of larger study part of which has already been published [3].

Materials and Methods

It was a one-year prospective analytical study, from August 2012 to July 2013, conducted in Sikkim Manipal Institute of Medical Sciences, Gangtok. We calculated a sample size of 125 (for an α error of 0.05 and a β error of 0.20) using Medcalc© software.

Patients undergoing LC for symptomatic cholelithiasis as well as for already established indications for asymptomatic cholelithiasis viz., size of calculus <3 mm or >3 cm, associated with polyp, life expectancy of >20 years and associated diabetes mellitus were included in the study. Equipment or other technical failure, complicated cholelithiasis (associated with pancreatitis, choledocholithiasis), co-morbidities other than hypertension or diabetes mellitus were the exclusions. Experience of the surgeons was another major confounding factor which was best taken care of by excluding those cases which were performed by surgeons who had an experience of less than one year or had not performed at least 30 cases. Surgeries done in the institute are both conventional four port as well as reduced port surgeries. To maintain uniformity, care was taken not to include those patients in the final analysis who had undergone reduced port surgeries or any other deviation (like using 5 mm port in the epigastrium) from the operative protocol standardised for the study. Only those patients were included where the cystic duct was clipped (and not ligated) and retrieval bag was used to bring the gall bladder out.

A list of pre-operative variables was prepared to be compared with the outcome variable that was the difficult LC. Difficulty assessment was done by a Likert type questionnaire which was e-mailed to practising laparoscopic surgeons across the country. On the basis of the personal experience and perception, surgeons were asked to grade the operative events on a scale of 1-5, depending on how important each factor was for the surgeon in making a LC difficult. On the basis of responses obtained from them, a WDS was calculated as WDS=∑ (PR x DRS) where PR was the parameter response recorded as one [1] for its presence or zero [0] for absence and DRS was the difficulty response score on a scale from 1 to 5. Mean WDS was then compared against pre-operative parameters. Data was tabulated and analysed using Microsoft© Excel© 2013 and IBM© SPSS© 20.0.

Results

For the last ten years, about 250-400 cholecystectomies are being done in the study hospital. A total of 125 successive consenting patients were recruited, who underwent LC in the study duration. There was no difference found when these 125 patients were matched for their age and sex to total number of patients who underwent LC during the study duration thus, reducing the inclusion bias [Table/Fig-1].

Age and sex standardization. [All cases are the total number of cholecystectomies in study duration. Study group is the sample size of 125 patients.

ParameterAll casesStudy groupp
Female to male ratio2.942.90>0.05 [χ2 test]
Mean ageOverall40.1639.71>0.05 [t-test]
Female39.138.96
Male43.341.91

Mean of the responses to questionnaire obtained from different surgeons was calculated and has been shown in [Table/Fig-2].

Parmeter response and diffculty response score.

The demography and findings of clinical examination have been presented in [Table/Fig-1,3].

History and physical examination findings on first visit.

VariableOverallFemaleMale
Body mass index [mean]*22.9722.7823.53
Hypertension [n]8 [6.4%]71
Diabetes [n]34 [27.2%]2113
Pre-operative scar [n]#19 [15.2%]190
≥3 previous episodes [n]**79 [63.6]5722
Duration of ≥6 months from 1st episode of pain [n]##56 [44.8]4214
Duration of ≥3 months from last episode of pain [n]@84 [67.2%]6222
Hospitalization due to cholecystitis [n]18 [14.4%]171
Duration of previous hospital stay [days, mean]4.34.44
Time since discharge [weeks, mean]10.112.53
Icterus [n]2 [1.6%]20
Palpable GB [n]2 [1.6%]11
Murphy’s sign [n]4 [3.2%]40
Emergency surgery [n]211

[*91.2% have BMI in normal range. #13 Pfannenstiel, 3 infra-umbilical midline, 3 umbilical. **Average number of previous episodes 3.8. ##Average duration since 1st episode 7.3 months. @Average duration since last episode of pain 4.13 months.


The cases from five surgeons who had requisite experience of laparoscopic surgery were included in the study. All the LCs was done using 12 mmHg of capnoperitoneum and an average of 144.7 litres of CO2 was used. Harmonic scalpel was the major energy source used [84.8%] followed by the bipolar. The operative findings are tabulated in [Table/Fig-4].

Operative findings.

Operative FindingsOverallFemaleMale
Contracted GB7 [5.6%]61
Cystic duct not visualized initially7 [5.6%]52
CBD not visualized initially5 [4%]41
Adhesions of GB to anterior abdominal wall9 [7.2%]54
Adhesions of GB and omentum92 [73.6%]6626
Adhesions of GB to bowel17 [13.6%]134
Adhesion of omentum over Calot’s triangle22 [17.6%]139
Adhesions of bowel over Calot’s triangle1 [0.8%]10
Adhesions of liver to anterior abdominal wall or diaphragm28 [22.4%]208
Adhesionsof bowel to anterior abdominal wall1 [0.8%]01
Adhesions of omentum to anterior abdominal wall or falciform ligament13 [10.4%]121
Narrow cystic duct and CBD angle [<40°]4 [3.2%]31
Frozen Calot’s triangle13 [10.4%]103
Multiple/ abnormal vessels4 [3.2]40
Bile spillage56 [44.8%]3917
Stone spillage15 [12%]111
Injury to CBD1 [0.8%]10
Injury to cystic artery000
Bleeding due to injury to minor vessels55 [44%]3619
Difficult GB removal due to frozen bed/ cystic plate8 [6.4]53
Bleeding from GB bed21 [16.8]129
Conversion to open surgery8 [6.4%]62
Mean duration of surgery [minutes]100.56100.75100

Mean WDS was found to increase with age (r=0.343, p<0.004), however gender was not significantly associated (male=15.6, female=13.6, p=0.404). A significant difference in WDS was found between hypertensive (22.6) and non-hypertensive (17.2) patients (p=0.030) as well as in diabetic (20.6) and non-diabetic (11.7) patients (p<0.001). Height (r=0.183, p=0.041), weight (0.298, p=0.001) and BMI (r=0.266, p=0.003) of the patients were also significantly associated with WDS. Difference of WDS between patients with (16.5) and without (13.7) previous operative scar was insignificant (p=0.316). Number of previous episodes of cholecystitis [r=0.701, p<0.001], duration since first episode of pain (r=0.369, p<0.001), a history of hospitalisation due to cholecystitis (WDS=25.6 and 12.1 in hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients, p<0.001) as well as duration of hospital stay [r=0.390, p<0.001] and time since discharge [r=0.437, p<0.001] were also positively and significantly correlated with WDS [Table/Fig-5,6]

Correlation Coefficient of preoperative clinical parameters.

Significance of correlation of various clinical parameters in predicting difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy [in descending order].

ParameterStatistical associationrp-value
Number of previous episodes of painSignificant0.701<0.001
Time since discharge from hospitalSignificant0.437<0.001
Previous hospitalization for acute cholecystitisSignificant-<0.001
Duration of stay in a hospitalSignificant0.390<0.001
Duration since first episodeSignificant0.369<0.001
Diabetes mellitusSignificant-<0.001
AgeSignificant0.343<0.001
IcterusSignificant-0.002
Body mass indexSignificant0.2660.003
Palpable gall bladderSignificant-0.025
HypertensionSignificant-0.03
Duration since last episodeInsignificant0.1720.055
Elective or emergency surgeryInsignificant-0.825
Positive Murphy’s signInsignificant-0.538
SexInsignificant-0.404
Previous surgeryInsignificant-0.316

[r is Pearson’s correlation coefficient, p<0.05 is taken as significant.


WDS was found to be increased with presence of icterus (38.3 and 13.7 for with and without icterus, p=0.002) and with a palpable gallbladder (32.2 for palpable and 13.8 for non-palpable gall bladder, p=0.025). However, presence (10.6) or absence (14.2) of Murphy’s sign had no significant effect on WDS (p=0.538). The difference in WDS in the setting of an emergency (15.9) or elective (14.1) surgery remained insignificant (p=0.8250) [Table/Fig-5,6].

Discussion

The availability of literature related to gallstone disease from North East India and particularly Sikkim is almost non-existent compared to that from the rest of India. In our setup, majority (70%) of the surgeries being performed are cholecystectomies [4-13]. Sikkim is a state in the lap of the Himalayas, and its usual for the patients to cover a long and time taking distance to seek specialised hospital care. It is not uncommon for them to tolerate pain and adapt to local socio-cultural practices rather than making an attempt to go out in a difficult terrain. And this reflects while doing LC as the sight of a difficult gall bladder is more than a common occurrence [7].

We found increasing age to be closely associated with difficulty in surgery. Various studies support this and have found an age more than 50 years to be associated with difficult Calot’s triangle dissection, fibrosis and adhesions [14-16]. However, not all studies have found an association between increasing age and difficult LC [17,18].

Many studies have shown that gender affected the difficulty level and ultimately the conversion risk, especially with male patients, but any such association of gender with the difficulty in surgery could not be established [15-18].

Though most of the patients in present study had their BMI in normal range, we concluded that with an increasing BMI, the difficulty score increases. As far as BMI is concerned there is conflict of results in various studies while some associate higher BMI to increased difficulty and higher rate of conversion and some not [17-22]. In another study, we found that incidence of “symptomatic” cholelithiasis increases with every increase in BMI and as the present study pointed out that the average number of episodes, the patients usually suffered before cholecystectomy was 3.8. This may well explain the increase in the difficulty score during surgery which may range from access to peritoneal cavity, presence of adhesions due to multiple episodes or thick fat laded falciform ligament obscuring the Calot’s triangle [8,23].

Both hypertension and diabetes, the common co-morbidities were found to be significantly associated with an increased risk of difficult surgery and was supported by various other studies especially in the elderly patients [18,24,25].

Contrary to the belief that a difficult surgery should be anticipated in those patients who had undergone some abdominal operation before, we did not find LC to be a difficult one in patients with abdominal scar due to previous abdominal surgery. Association of difficulty in surgery with previous abdominal surgery has also been disproved in many other studies including those by Yetkin G et al., Baki NAA et al., Bhar P et al., and Polychronidis A et al., [15,17,18,24].

In the present study, difficulty level increased with the number of previous episodes as well as with increasing time interval between first episode and surgery. A history of hospitalisation and time interval between discharge and cholecystectomy were found to be independent predictors of difficulty. Yetkin G et al., Younis KK et al., Vivek MAKM et al., and Kumar S et al., have shown that course of surgery tends to become difficult and conversion rate increases in patients with multiple previous episode [15,19,26,27]. While an association has also been found among the rising incidence of intra-operative difficulty and conversion rate and a history of hospitalisation [19,20,24,28-30].

Presence of icterus and a palpable gall bladder both predicted the surgery to be a difficult one. Baki NAA and Kumar S et al., found that patients with local signs of cholecystitis including palpable gall bladder and Murphy’s sign had a significantly longer operative time and difficult course of surgery [17,27]. Livingstone EH showed the signs of acute cholecystitis were associated with a conversion rate of 25% [31]. However, we couldn’t establish an association of difficult surgery with presence of Murphy’s sign.

Doing surgery in an emergency setting was not found to be more difficult compared to elective one in present study. Ferrarese AG et al., and Loalso C-M et al., found the difference in the difficulty level between the two settings insignificant [32,33].

Limitation

The criteria to define ease or difficulty was based on the responses obtained from various surgeons irrespective of their experiences and method (variation in number and size of ports, equipment variation etc.,) of doing it. There is scope to further refine the questionnaire and making it more objective.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has established itself as one of the safest surgical procedures. The technique has been standardised and complication rate and conversion to open surgery are almost rare in experts’ hands. LC is now considered the entry level surgery for the beginners in laparoscopy. With increasing awareness and trend of litigation, it is the responsibility of the surgeon to explain all the possible outcomes post-surgery, and even more so if the surgery is difficult and no time can be better than the patient’s first visit to outdoor and conversation becomes more convincing if we can predict a difficult LC.A better planning can help save both the time and the currency, establish a better patient surgeon relationship in terms of complications and in case conversion to open surgery occurs.

[*91.2% have BMI in normal range. #13 Pfannenstiel, 3 infra-umbilical midline, 3 umbilical. **Average number of previous episodes 3.8. ##Average duration since 1st episode 7.3 months. @Average duration since last episode of pain 4.13 months.[r is Pearson’s correlation coefficient, p<0.05 is taken as significant.

References

[1]Hariharan D, Psaltis E, Scholefield JH, Lobo DN, Quality of Life and Medico-Legal Implications Following Iatrogenic Bile Duct Injuries World J Surg 2017 41(1):90-99.10.1007/s00268-016-3677-927481349  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[2]Keus F, de Jong JA, Gooszen HG, van Laarhoven CJ, Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006 4:CD00623110.1002/14651858.CD006231  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]

[3]Kumar N, Bhutia P, Singh VK, Kharga B, Sharma BK, Jain N, Prediction of difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy while working up the patient for surgery International Journal of Surgery and Orthopaedics 2017 3(4):107-13.  [Google Scholar]

[4]Khurro MS, Mahajan R, Zargar S A, Javid G, Sapru S, Prevalence of biliary tract disease in India: a sonographic study in adult population in Kashmir Gut 1989 30:201-05.10.1136/gut.30.2.2012649414  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[5]Unisa S, Jagannath P, Dhir V, Khandelwal C, Sarangi L, Roy TK, Population-based study to estimate prevalence and determine risk factors of gallbladder diseases in the rural Gangetic basin of North India HPB (Oxford) 2011 13(2):117-25.10.1111/j.1477-2574.2010.00255.x21241429  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[6]International Institute of Population Sciences. [Retrieved on Aug 7, 2012]. Website: http://www.iipsindia.org/publications05_b_17.htm  [Google Scholar]

[7]Kotwal MR, Rinchen CZ, Gallstone disease in the Himalayas (Sikkim and North Bengal): causation and stone analysis Indian J Gastroenterol 1998 17:87-89.  [Google Scholar]

[8]Kharga B, Sharma BK, Singh VK, Nishant K, Bhutia P, Tamang R, Obesity not necessary, risk of symptomatic cholelithiasis increases as a function of BMI JCDR 2016 10(10):PC28-32.10.7860/JCDR/2016/22098.873627891394  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[9]Prakash A, Chronic cholecystitis and cholelithiasis in India Int Surgery 1968 49:79-85.  [Google Scholar]

[10]Gupta S, Incidence of cholelithiasis in India Int Surg 1977 62:169-71.  [Google Scholar]

[11]Sharma BC, Pal LS, Rana S, Etiology and dynamics of dyspepsia in Shimla: a study of 500 patients Trop Gastroenterol 1994 15:213-18.  [Google Scholar]

[12]Mohan H, Punia RPS, Dhawan SB, Ahal S, Sekhon MS, Morphological spectrum of gallstone disease in 1100 cholecystectomies in north India Indian J Surg 2005 68(3):140-42.  [Google Scholar]

[13]Jayanthi V, Palanivelu C, Prasanthi R, Methew S, Srinivasan V, Composition of gallstones in Coimbatore district of Tamilnadu state Indian J Gastroenterol 1998 17:134-35.  [Google Scholar]

[14]Randhawa JS, Pujahari AK, Preoperative prediction of difficult lap cholecystectomy: A scoring method Indian J Surg 2009 71:198-201.10.1007/s12262-009-0055-y23133154  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[15]Yetkin G, Uludag M, Citgez B, Akgun I, Karakoc S, Predictive factors for conversion of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with acute cholecystitis Bratisl lek listy 2009 110(11):688-91.  [Google Scholar]

[16]Sakpal SV, Bindra SS, Chamberlain RS, Laparoscopic cholecystectomy conversion rates two decades later JSLS 2010 14:476-83.10.4293/108680810X12924466008240PMC3083046  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[17]Baki NAA, Motawei MA, Soliman KE, Farouk AM, Pre-Operative Prediction of Difficult Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Using Clinical and Ultrasonographic Parameters Journal of the Medical Research Institute 2006 27(2):102-107.  [Google Scholar]

[18]Bhar P, Halder SK, Ray RP, Bhattacharjee PK, Pre-operative Prediction of Difficult Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Indian Medical Gazette 2013 :128-33.  [Google Scholar]

[19]Younis KK, Harbawi LQA, Ashoor OA, Evaluation of clinical parameters that predict difficulties during laparoscopic cholecystectomy The Iraqi Postgraduate Medical Journal 2013 12(2):175-80.  [Google Scholar]

[20]Nachnani J, Supe A, Pre-operative prediction of difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy using clinical and ultrasonographic parameters Indian Journal of Gastroenterology 2005 24(1):16-18.  [Google Scholar]

[21]Phillips EH, Carroll BJ, Fallas MJ, Pearlstein AR, Comparison of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in obese and nonobese patients Am Surg 1994 60(5):316-21.  [Google Scholar]

[22]Jethwani U, Singh G, Mohil RS, Kandwal V, Razdan S, Chouhan J, Prediction of difficulty and conversion in laparoscopic cholecystectomy OA Minimally Invasive Surgery 2013 1(1):210.13172/2054-2666-1-1-650  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]

[23]Schirmer BD, Die J, Edge SB, Hyser MJ, Hanks JB, Aguilar M, Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the obese patients Ann Surg 1992 216:146-52.10.1097/00000658-199208000-000051386981  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[24]Polychronidis A, Botaitis S, Tsaroucha A, Tripsianis G, Bounovas A, Pitiakoudis A, Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Elderly Patients J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2008 17(3):309-13.  [Google Scholar]

[25]Lipman JM, Claridge JA, Haridas M, Martin MD, Yao DC, Grimes KL, Preoperative findings predict conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy Surgery 2007 142(4):556-65.10.1016/j.surg.2007.07.01017950348  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[26]Vivek MAKM, Augustine AJ, Rao R, A comprehensive predictive scoring method for difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy Journal of Minimal Access Surgery 2104 10(2):62-67.10.4103/0972-9941.12994724761077  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[27]Kumar S, Tiwary S, Agrawal N, Prasanna G, Khanna R, Khanna A, Predictive factors for difficult surgery in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for chronic cholecystitis The Internet Journal of Surgery 2008 16(2)10.5580/154e  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]

[28]Kama NA, Kologlu M, Doganay M, Reis E, Atli M, Dolapci M, A risk score for conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy Am J Surg 2001 181(6):520-25.10.1016/S0002-9610(01)00633-X  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]

[29]Liu CL, Fan ST, Lai EC, Lo CM, Chu KM, Factors affecting conversion of laparoscopic cholecystectomy to open surgery Arch Surg 1996 131(1):98-101.10.1001/archsurg.1996.014301301000228546587  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[30]Fried GM, Barkun JS, Sigman HH, Joseph L, Clas D, Garjon J, Factors determining conversion to laparotomy in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy Am J Surg 1994 167(1):35-41.10.1016/0002-9610(94)90051-5  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]

[31]Livingstone EH, Rege RV, A nationwide study of conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy Am J Surg 2004 188(3):205-11.10.1016/j.amjsurg.2004.06.01315450821  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[32]Ferrarese AG, Solej M, Enrico S, Falcone A, Catalano S, Pozzi G, Elective and emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the elderly: our experience BMC Surgery 2013 (Suppl 2):S2110.1186/1471-2482-13-S2-S2124268106  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[33]Lo CM, Liu CL, Fan ST, Lai EC, Wong J, Prospective randomized study of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis Ann Surg 1998 227(4):461-67.10.1097/00000658-199804000-000019563529  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]