Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 1991 Jun;213(6):651-3; discussion 653-4.
doi: 10.1097/00000658-199106000-00016.

Open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A comparison of postoperative pulmonary function

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A comparison of postoperative pulmonary function

R C Frazee et al. Ann Surg. 1991 Jun.

Abstract

Upper abdominal surgery is associated with characteristic changes in pulmonary function which increase the risk of lower lobe atelectasis. Sixteen patients undergoing open cholecystectomy and 20 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were prospectively evaluated by pulmonary function tests (forced vital capacity [FVC], forced expiratory volume [FEV-1], and forced expiratory flow [FEF] 25% to 75%) before operation and on the morning after surgery to determine if the laparoscopic technique lessens the pulmonary risk. Fraction of the baseline pulmonary function was calculated by dividing the postoperative pulmonary function by the preoperative pulmonary function and multiplying by 100%. Postoperative FVC measured 52% of preoperative function for open cholecystectomy and 73% for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (p = 0.002). Postoperative FEV-1 measured 53% of baseline function for open cholecystectomy and 72% for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (p = 0.006). Postoperative FEF 25% to 75% measured 53% for open cholecystectomy and 81% for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (p = 0.07). It is concluded that laparoscopic cholecystectomy offers improved pulmonary function compared to the open technique.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Intensive Care Med. 1985;11(5):247-51 - PubMed
    1. Am Surg. 1975 Oct;41(10):615-9 - PubMed
    1. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1983 Apr;127(4):431-6 - PubMed
    1. Anesthesiology. 1982 Mar;56(3):161-3 - PubMed
    1. Anesth Analg. 1981 Jan;60(1):46-52 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources