4.1 Article

Is C-reactive protein the single most useful predictor of difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy or its conversion A pilot study

Journal

JOURNAL OF MINIMAL ACCESS SURGERY
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages 26-32

Publisher

MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS & MEDIA PVT LTD
DOI: 10.4103/0972-9941.158963

Keywords

C-reactive protein; difficult dissection; laparoscopic cholecystectomy; predicting conversion

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Both converted and difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LC) have impact on operating time and training of juniors. The aim of this study is to evaluate parameters that predict difficult LC or conversion (C), and find predictive values for different cut-off points of C-reactive protein (CRP) for conversion. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study of cholecystectomies performed from January 2011 to December 2012 at NHS trust was undertaken. Association of intra-operative difficulties or conversion with the following factors was studied: Age, gender, CRP, white blood cell count (WBC), history of pancreatitis, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Results: Two hundred and ninety one patients were analysed (222 laparoscopic, 45 difficult LC and 24 C). Only 141 patients had a recorded CRP. Median CRP was highest for patients who were converted (286.20) compared to those who had difficult LC (67.40) or LC (7.05). Those patients who did not have preoperative CRP (8/150, 5.3%) had less chance of conversion than those who had CRP (16/141, 11.34%) (P = 0.063). Patients with CRP of %220 (3/91, 3.2%) had significantly less chance of conversion than those with CRP > 220 (13/21, 61.9%) (P < 0.001). High preoperative CRP, WBC count and ERCP, were predictors of conversion. These factors were only marginally better than CRP alone in predicting conversion. Conclusion: CRP can be a strong predictor of conversion of LC. Further validation of the results is needed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available