Analysis of Conversion Rates and Reasons in Minimally Invasive Surgery

Open access

Analysis of Conversion Rates and Reasons in Minimally Invasive Surgery

Nowadays the number and range of laparoscopic procedures is quickly increasing and contraindications are limited. But laparoscopic operations cannot be performed in every case, what leads to conversion.

The aim of the study was to present the conversion rates and reasons in different types of laparoscopic procedures, both emergency and elective.

Material and methods. 7685 patients operated laparoscopically in the 2nd Department of General Surgery of the Jagiellonian University between 1993 and 2008 were included in the study. Minimally invasive approach was used at the beginning in 608 patients with acute appendicitis (average age = 28,4 years), in 101 patients with perforated peptic ulcer (average age = 46.4 years), in 236 patients who underwent splenectomy (average age = 41 years), in 166 patients who had adrenalectomy (average age = 53 years), in 117 patients who underwent Nissen fundoplication (average age = 44,4 years), in 834 individuals who had inguinal hernia repair (average age = 49.4 years), in 5311 who had cholecystectomy (average age = 52.1 years and in 212 patients who underwent other procedures.

Results. The conversion rates in the analyzed period were 2.88% in whole material, in case of appendectomy 3,95%, perforated ulcer operation 19,80%, splenectomy 2.12%, adrenalectomy 1.81%, Nissen fundoplication 1.71%, inguinal hernia repair 0.96% and cholecystectomy 2.92%. Emergency surgery was related to higher (4.98%) conversion rate than elective procedures (1.88%). Most frequently convestions were related to technical reasons (2,48%), than enforced by complications (0.41%).

Conclusion. Most conversions were caused by technical reasons, not complications. The change of the approach from laparoscopic to open one was more frequent in case of emergency procedures.

Korolija D, Sauerland S, Wood-Dauphinee S, et al.: Evaluation of quality of life after laparoscopic surgery: evidence - based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery. Surg Endosc 2004; 18: 879-97.

Kama NA, Doganay M, Dolapci M, et al.: Risk factors resulting in conversion of laparoscopic cholecystectomy to open surgery. Surg Endosc 2001; 15: 965-68.

Champault A, Polliand C, Mendes da Costa P, et al.: Laparoscopic appendectomies: retrospective study of 2074 cases. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2008; 18: 168-72.

Brody FJ, Chekan EG, Pappas TN, et al.: Conversion factors for laparoscopic splenectomy for immune thrombocytopenic purpura. Surg Endosc 1999; 13: 789-91.

Siu WT, Chau CH, Law BK, et al.: Routine use of laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg 2004; 91: 481-84.

Lunevicius R, Morkevicius M: Management strategies, early results, benefits, and risk factors of laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer. World J Surg 2005; 29: 1299-10.

Gill J, Booth MI, Stratford J, et al.: The extended learning curve for laparoscopic fundoplication: a cohort analysis of 400 consecutive cases. J Gastrointest Surg 2007; 11: 487-92.

Rosenthal R, Peterli R, Guenin MO, et al.: Laparoscopic antireflux surgery: long-term outcomes and quality of life. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2006; 16: 557-61.

Schultz C, Baca I, Götzen V: Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Surg Endosc 2001; 15: 582-84.

Rosen M, Brody F, Ponsky J: Predictive factors for conversion of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 2002; 184: 254-58.

Ishizaki Y, Miwa K, Yoshimoto J, et al.: Conversion of elective laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy between 1993 and 2004. Br J Surg 2006; 93: 987-91.

Nachnani J, Supe A: Pre-operative prediction of difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy using clinical and ultrasonographic parameters. Indian J Gastroeterol 2005; 24: 16-18.

Kanaan SA, Murayama KM, Merriam LT, et al.: Risk factors for conversion of laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. J Surg Res 2002; 106: 20-24.

Gourgiotis S, Dimopoulos N, Germanos S, et al.: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a safe approach for management of acute cholecystitis. JSLS 2007; 11(2): 219-24.

Suter M, Meyer A: A 10-year experience with the use of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: is it safe? Surg Endosc 2001; 15(10): 1187-92.

Giger U, Michel JM, Vonlanthen R, et al.: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis: indication, technique, risk and outcome. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2005; 390(5): 373-80.

Liu S-I, Siewert B, Raptopoulos V, et al.: Factors associated with conversion to laparotomy in patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy. J Am Coll Surg 2002; 194: 298-305.

Brodsky JA, Brody FJ, Walsh RM, et al.: Laparoscopic splenectomy. Surg Endosc 2002; 16(5): 851-54.

Eto M, Harano M, Koga H, et al.: Clinical outcomes and learning curve of a laparoscopic adrenalectomy in 103 consecutive cases at a single institute. Int J Urol 2006; 13(6): 671-76.

Shen ZJ, Chen SW, Wang S, et al.: Predictive factors for open conversion of laparoscopic adrenalectomy: a 13-year review of 456 cases. J Endourol 2007; 21: 1333-37.

Shen WT, Kebebew E, Clark OH, et al.: Reasons for conversion from laparoscopic to open or hand-assisted adrenalectomy: review of 261 laparoscopic adrenalectomies from 1993 to 2003. World J Surg 2004; 28: 1176-79.

Budzyński A, Rembiasz K, Biesiada K, i wsp.: Laparoskopowe operacje narządów miąższowych. Pol Przegl Chir 2006; 78: 257-70.

Budzyński A, Huszno B, Rembiasz K, i wsp.: Przezotrzewnowa adrenalektomia laparoskopowa w leczeniu hormonalnie czynnych i niemych guzów nadnerczy. Pol Przegl Chir 2005; 77: 1161-71.

Polish Journal of Surgery

The Journal of Foundation of the Polish Journal of Surgery

Journal Information


CiteScore 2016: 0.29

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.166
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.207

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 110 70 5
PDF Downloads 49 31 2