• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
    • Why Should You Support SAGES?
    • SAGES Swag
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Annual Meeting
      • 2027 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2027 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Lead Up Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • Innovative Surgical Trends
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Advanced Laparoscopy and Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
    • Foregut Video Atlas
  • Opportunities
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs
  • Learning Hub
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy After a Quarter of a Century: Why Do We Still Convert?

Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy After a Quarter of a Century: Why Do We Still Convert?

Balazs I Lengyel, MD, Dan E Azagury, MD, Maria T Panizales, MS, Jill Steinberg, MPH RN, David C Brooks, MD, Stanley W Ashley, MD, Ali Tavakkolizadeh, MD. Department of General Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Surgical Planning Laboratory, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard procedure for gallbladder removal in the United States. Although conversion to open surgery is sometimes necessary, the factors underlying this decision are often unclear. However, an association between the duration of laparoscopic procedures and increased complications and cost is frequently hypothesized, suggesting that clinicians should consider early conversion. The purpose of this study is 1) to identify the main reasons of conversion; 2) compare the outcome of converted LC versus long LC that remain non-converted.

METHODS: Using the NSQIP database and financial records, we retrospectively reviewed 1,193 cholecystectomies performed at our institution between 2002 and 2009. We compared the longest 10% of all laparoscopic cases (Long-LC) with converted (CONV) procedures. Length of stay (LOS), 30-day complications, operative times and charges, as well as hospital charges were compared. An independent surgical reviewer identified the reasons and circumstances of conversion in all CONV cases. Primary conversion was defined as due to pre-existing adhesions or inflammatory changes precluding laparoscopy. Secondary conversion was defined as being performed due to a complication secondary to a surgical maneuver. Number of trocars inserted at the time of conversion and length of dissection before conversion was also evaluated. Poisson regression and Wilcoxon test were used to compare outcomes.

RESULTS: 110 Long-LC and 62 CONV cases were included in the analysis (Table 1). Long-LC took on average 35 minutes longer to perform, however there were no differences in the post-operative complication rates between the groups. LOS was significantly shorter in the Long-LC compared to CONV group (1.4 vs. 4.6, respectively, p<0.01). Although Long-LC cases had higher operative charges, the overall hospital charges for Long-LC cases were substantially lower (Table 1). In 91% of CONV cases, the conversion was primary. In 92% of primary conversions, the conversion followed minimal or no attempt at dissection. In 24% of these conversions, the average number of trocars placed before conversion was less than 2 (1.3 ± 1.3), further highlighting lack of laparoscopic attempt at dealing with adhesions. Out of 5 secondary conversions, bleeding occurred in 2 cases and concerns of CBD injury in 3 other cases. There were however no actual CBD injuries.

CONCLUSIONS: Comparing CONV with Long –LC, conversion is associated with shorter operative times, but leads to a 3-day increase in LOS and significantly higher hospital charges, without a reduction in complications. In more than 90% of CONV group, conversion was carried out without serious attempt at adhesiolysis or dissection. Our outcome data however, favors pursuing a laparoscopic approach instead of early conversion to open surgery. With such an approach, a high percentage of conversions can be prevented with no increased risk to the patient, and significant benefit to the health care system.

Table 1. Outcome and charge data

Long-LC CONV p-value
Number of cases 110 62
Median OR time (min) 123 88 <0.01
Post-operative complication rate (%) 9 11 NS
Length of Stay (days) 1.4 4.6 <0.01
Total hospital charges ($) 24,200 31,768 <0.01

Session: SS06
Program Number: S032

Related



Hours & Info

15821 Ventura Blvd Ste 400
Encino, CA 91436

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2026 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals

Refine Search