Background: Available scientific literature about open cholecystectomy (OC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) does not show univocal results in terms of postoperative pulmonary function. A meta-analysis was carried out to evaluate the postoperative pulmonary function after OC and LC focusing on the Tiffenau index. Methods: Electronic databases were consulted (Cochrane Library, Embase and Pubmed). Standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI was calculated for the Tiffenau Index. The kappa test was performed to evaluate agreement between the reviewers regarding the quality of the selected studies. A sensitivity analysis was carried out to assess the robustness of our study. Heterogeneity among studies was tested by using a χ2 test at 0.05 significance level. A random effects model meta-analysis was performed. Results: Meta-analysis of the 13 articles included, resulted in a SMD of 53% (95% CI 0.04, 1.02) for the Tiffenau Index in favor of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The χ2 test analysis showed the presence of heterogeneity among studies (Tiffenau index χ2 = 99.97, p = 0.03). The sensitivity analysis confirms the validity of our results. Conclusions: Postoperative pulmonary function is better preserved after laparoscopic cholecystectomy than open cholecystectomy.

Keywords:
Open cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, Pulmonary function, Forced expiratory volume in 1 second, Forced vital capacity, Meta-analysis, Tiffenau Index
1.
McMahon A, Fishbacher C, Frame S, MacLeod M: Impact of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a population-based study. Lancet 2000;356:1632–1637.
2.
Arnold C, Daley M, Pappas J, Henderson WG, Shukri K: Growing use of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the national veterans affairs surgical risk study: effects on volume, patients selection, and selected outcomes. Ann Surg 1998;227:12–24.
3.
Urbach D, Stukel T: Rate of elective cholecystectomy and the incidence of severe gallstones disease. JAMC 2005;172:1015–1019.
4.
Ferguson MK: Preoperative assessment of pulmonary risk. Chest 1999;115:58–63.
5.
Rademaker BM, Ringers J, Odoom J, de Wit L, Kalkman CJ, et al: Pulmonary function and stress response after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: comparison with subcostal incision and influence of thoracic epidural analgesia. Anesth Analg 1992;75:381–385.
6.
McKellar DP, Johnson RM, Dutro JA, Mellinger J, Bernie WA, Peoples JB: Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 1995;9:158–163.
7.
Bass E, Pitt H, Lillemoe KD: Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus open cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 1993;165:466–471.
8.
Sawyers L: Current status of conventional (open) cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 1996;223:1–3.
9.
Velanovich V: Laparoscopic versus open surgery. A preliminary comparison of quality of life outcomes. Surg Endosc 2000;14:16–21.
10.
Quintana Q, Cabriada J, Arostegui I, Lopez de Tejada I, Bilbao A: Quality-of-life outcomes with laparoscopic vs. open cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2003;17:1129–1134.
11.
Chen L, Tao SF, XU Y, Fang F, Peng S: Patients’ quality of life after laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy. J Zhejiang Univ Sci 2005;6B:678–681.
12.
Topcu O, Karakayali F, Kuzu MA, et al: Comparison of long-term quality of life after laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2003;17:291–295.
13.
Keus F, de Jong JA, Gooszen HG, van Laarhoven CJ: Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006.
14.
Bablekos GD, Roussou T, Rasmussen T, Vassiliou MP, Behrakis PK: Postoperative changes on pulmonary function after laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 2003;50:1193–1200.
15.
Hasukić S, Mesić D, Dizdarević E, Keser D, Hadziselimović S, Bazardzanović M: Pulmonary function after laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2002;16:163–165.
16.
Hendolin HI, Paakkonen ME, Alhava EM, Tarvainen R, Kemppinen T, Lahtinen P: Laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy: a prospective randomised trial to compare postoperative pain, pulmonary function, and stress. Eur J Surg 2000;166:394–399.
17.
Joris J, Cigarini I, Legrand M, et al: Metabolic and respiratory changes after cholecystectomy performed via laparotomy or laparoscopy. Br J Anaesth 1992;69:341–345.
18.
Karayannakis AJ, Makri G, Mantzioka A, Karousos D, Karatzas G: Postoperative pulmonary function after laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy. Br J Anaesth 1996;77:448–452.
19.
Kimberley N, Kirrkpartick S, Watters J: Alterations in respiratory mechanic after laparoscopic and open cholecystectectomy. Can J Surg 1996;39:312–316.
20.
Mimica Z, Biocic M, Bacic A, et al: Laparoscopic and laparotomic cholecystectomy: a randomized trial comparing postoperative respiratory function. Respiration 2000;67:153–158.
21.
Peters JH, Ortega A, Lehnerd S, et al: The physiology of laparoscopic surgery: pulmonary function after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1993;3:370–374.
22.
Putensen-Himmer G, Putensen C, Lammer H, Lingnau W, Aigner F, Benzer H: Comparison of postoperative respiratory function after laparoscopy or open laparotomy for cholecystectomy. Anaesthesiology 1992;72:675–680.
23.
Ravimohan M, Lileswar K, Ravul J, Singh R, Jindal R: Postoperative pulmonary function in laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy: a prospective, comparative study. Indian J Gastroenterol 2005;24:6–8.
24.
Rovina N, Bouros D, Tzanakis N, Velegakis M, Kandilakis S, et al: Effects of laparoscopic cholecystectomy on global respiratory muscle strength. Am J Resp Crit Care Med 1996;153:458–461.
25.
Volpino P, Cangemi V, D’Andrea N, Cangemi B, Piat G: Hemodynamic and pulmonary changes during and after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 1998;12:119–123.
26.
Williams MD, Sulentich SM, Murr PC: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy produces less postoperative restriction of pulmonary function than open cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 1993;7:489–492.
27.
Schauer P, Luna J, Ghiatas A, Glen M, Warren J, et al: Pulmonary function after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgery 1993;114:389–399.
28.
Fuso L, Cisternino L, Di Napoli A, Di Cosmo V, Tramaglino LM, et al: Role of spirometric and arterial gas data in predicting pulmonary complications after abdominal surgery. Resp Med 2000;94:1171–1176.
29.
Chetta A, Panagiota T, Marangio E, Carbognani P, Bobbio A, et al: Respiratory effects of surgery and pulmonary function testing in the preoperative evaluation. Acta Biomed 2006;77:69–74.
30.
Lawrence VA, Page CP, Harris GD: Preoperative spirometry before abdominal operations: a critical appraisal of its predictive value. Arch Intern Med 1989;149:280–285.
31.
McManus RJ, Wilson S, Delaney BC, Fitzmaurice D, Hyde C, et al: Review of the usefulness of contacting other experts when conducting a literature search for systematic review. BMJ 1998;317:1562–1563.
32.
Hunt DL, Haynes RB, Hanna SE, Smith K: Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physicians performance and patient outcomes. J Am Med Assoc 1998;280:1339–1346.
33.
Haynes RB, Walker C: Computer-aided quality assurance. Arch Intern Med 1987;147:1297–1301.
34.
Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]: Version 4.2 for Windows. Oxford, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2003.
35.
Higgins JPT, Green S (ed): Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.6 [updated September 2006]; in: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2006. Chichester, Wiley, 2006.
36.
Vatz JB: Meta-analysis: apples and oranges, or fruitless – statistical method for systematic synthesis of health care management and policy research findings – column. Physician Exec 1991;17:40–42.
© 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel
2008
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.