ADVANCES IN GALLBLADDER SURGERY: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LAPAROSCOPIC AND OPEN CHOLECYSTECTOMY

Authors

  • Akhmatov Akhmadulloh Akramjon ugli,Salahiddinov Kamoliddin Zukhriddinovich Andijan State Medical Institute

Abstract

Gallbladder surgery, primarily cholecystectomy, remains one of the most frequently performed abdominal procedures worldwide due to the high prevalence of gallstone disease. This study compares laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy techniques, focusing on operative outcomes, complication rates, and recovery profiles. A total of 320 patients undergoing elective and emergency cholecystectomy were analyzed over a five-year period. Laparoscopic procedures demonstrated shorter operative time, reduced postoperative pain, and significantly decreased hospital stay compared to open approaches. Early implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols further improved functional outcomes. The findings underscore the importance of minimally invasive surgery and standardized perioperative care in optimizing patient recovery.

References

Strasberg, S. M. (1995). The critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 180(1), 101–105.

Keus, F., et al. (2010). Open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallbladder disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (3), CD006231.

Gurusamy, K. S., et al. (2013). Techniques for preventing bile duct injury in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2), CD006556.

Ljungqvist, O., et al. (2017). Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: ERAS protocols in abdominal surgery. World Journal of Surgery, 41(3), 583–594.

Giger, U., et al. (2011). Bile duct injury in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. British Journal of Surgery, 98(3), 391–400.

Published

2025-07-30

How to Cite

Akhmatov Akhmadulloh Akramjon ugli,Salahiddinov Kamoliddin Zukhriddinovich. (2025). ADVANCES IN GALLBLADDER SURGERY: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LAPAROSCOPIC AND OPEN CHOLECYSTECTOMY. Ethiopian International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 12(07), 207–209. Retrieved from https://www.eijmr.org/index.php/eijmr/article/view/3470