Table 2

Comparison of postoperative complications, mortality and postoperative interventions among patients with severe cholecystitis who underwent LC and LSC

Complication or interventionNo. (%) of patients; study group
LC (n = 105)LSC (n = 46)RR (95% CI)
Postoperative complications
 Bile duct injury4 (3.8)00.3 (0.01–4.6)
 Bile leak4 (3.8)6 (13.0)3.4 (1.01–11.5)
 Subphrenic collection7 (6.7)10 (21.7)3.1 (1.3–8.0)
 Retained CBD stones5 (4.8)2 (4.3)0.9 (0.2–4.5)
 Wound infections3 (2.9)00.3 (0.02–6.1)
 Mortality2 (1.9)00.5 (0.02–9.2)
 Total25 (23.8)18 (39.1)1.6 (0.99–2.7)
Postoperative interventions
 Postoperative ERCP5 (4.8)7 (15.2)3.2 (1.1–9.5)
 Biliary stent insertion3 (2.9)6 (13.0)4.6 (1.2–17.5)
 Percutaneous drain insertion7 (6.7)7 (15.2)2.3 (0.8–6.1)
 Reoperation4 (3.8)2 (4.3)1.1 (0.2–6.0)
 Total19 (18.1)22 (47.8)2.6 (1.6–4.4)
  • CBD = common bile duct; CI = confidence interval; ERCP = endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; LC = laparoscopic cholecystectomy; LSC = laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy; RR = relative risk.