IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dbk/sicomu/2025v3a12.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative analysis of factors involved in the evolution and duration of hospitalization in patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy in a second-level hospital in Ecuador

Author

Listed:
  • José Vicente Fonseca Barragán
  • Mirtha Marisol Bautista Arana
  • Patricia Jordana Valdivieso Estupiñán
  • Lucia Mayte Medina Guevara

Abstract

Introduction: cholelithiasis and other diseases of the gallbladder are common pathologies, with high morbidity and mortality due to complications. The increasing prevalence of these conditions has driven the search for effective surgical approaches, especially in terms of optimizing health resources. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has established itself as the preferred option over open surgery, offering potential benefits in postoperative evolution. Methods: This study reviews clinical-surgical data of patients treated by open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy, analyzing the differences in postoperative complications, duration of hospitalization and outcome in patients with comorbidities. Discussion: the results suggest that laparoscopic cholecystectomy has advantages over open surgery, highlighting a lower incidence of complications and a reduced hospital stay. These advantages are especially notable in patients with comorbidities, who benefit from a faster recovery with the laparoscopic approach. Detailed evaluation of comorbidities is crucial as they may influence prognosis and prolong hospital stay. Conclusions: laparoscopic surgery is an effective option for the treatment of gallbladder disease, with significant benefits over open surgery. This study highlights the importance of assessing comorbidities to improve recovery and optimize health resource utilization, and highlights the need for appropriate reference guidelines for general practitioners.

Suggested Citation

Handle: RePEc:dbk:sicomu:2025v3a12
DOI: 10.62486/sic2025202
as

Download full text from publisher

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a
for a similarly titled item that would be available.

More about this item

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dbk:sicomu:2025v3a12. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Javier Gonzalez-Argote (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://sic.ageditor.org/ .

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.