-
World Journal of Emergency Surgery :... Nov 2023An updated overview of ultrasound (US) for diagnosis of acute cholecystitis (AC) remains lacking. This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the diagnostic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
An updated overview of ultrasound (US) for diagnosis of acute cholecystitis (AC) remains lacking. This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the diagnostic performance of US for AC.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. We meticulously screened articles from MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, spanning from inception to August 2023. We employed the search strategy combining the keywords "bedside US", "emergency US" or "point-of-care US" with "AC". Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts of the retrieved articles to identify suitable studies. The inclusion criteria encompassed articles investigating the diagnostic performance of US for AC. Data regarding diagnostic performance, sonographers, and sonographic findings including the presence of gallstone, gallbladder (GB) wall thickness, peri-GB fluid, or sonographic Murphy sign were extracted, and a meta-analysis was executed. Case reports, editorials, and review articles were excluded, as well as studies focused on acalculous cholecystitis. The study quality was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool.
RESULTS
Forty studies with 8,652 patients were included. The majority of studies had a low risk of bias and applicability concerns. US had a pooled sensitivity of 71% (95% CI, 69-72%), a specificity of 85% (95% CI, 84-86%), and an accuracy of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.82-0.83) for the diagnosis of AC. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 71% (95% CI, 67-74%) and 92% (95% CI, 90-93%) performed by emergency physicians (EPs), 79% (95% CI, 71-85%) and 76% (95% CI, 69-81%) performed by surgeons, and 68% (95% CI 66-71%) and 87% (95% CI, 86-88%) performed by radiologists, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences among the three groups.
CONCLUSION
US is a good imaging modality for the diagnosis of AC. EP-performed US has a similar diagnostic performance to radiologist-performed US. Further investigations would be needed to investigate the impact of US on expediting the management process and improving patient-centered outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Cholecystitis, Acute; Ultrasonography; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 38037062
DOI: 10.1186/s13017-023-00524-5 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jul 2023This systematic review aims to investigate whether percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder biliary drainage (PTGBD) is superior to emergency cholecystectomy (EC) as a... (Review)
Review
Management of Acute Cholecystitis in High-Risk Patients: Percutaneous Gallbladder Drainage as a Definitive Treatment vs. Emergency Cholecystectomy-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
This systematic review aims to investigate whether percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder biliary drainage (PTGBD) is superior to emergency cholecystectomy (EC) as a definitive treatment in high-risk patients with acute cholecystitis (AC).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed until December 2022 using the Scopus, Medline/PubMed and Web of Science databases.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies have been included with a total of 783,672 patients (32,634 treated with PTGBD vs. 4663 who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 343 who had open cholecystectomy and 746,032 who had some form of cholecystectomy, but without laparoscopic or open approach being specified). An analysis of the results shows that PTGBD, despite being less invasive, is not associated with lower morbidity with respect to EC (RR 0.77 95% CI [0.44 to 1.34]; I = 99%; = 0.36). A lower postoperative mortality was reported in patients who underwent EC (2.37%) with respect to the PTGBD group (13.78%) (RR 4.21; 95% CI [2.69 to 6.58]; < 0.00001); furthermore, the risk of hospital readmission for biliary complications (RR 2.19 95% CI [1.72 to 2.79]; I = 48%; < 0.00001) and hospital stay (MD 4.29 95% CI [2.40 to 6.19]; < 0.00001) were lower in the EC group.
CONCLUSIONS
In our systematic review, the majority of studies have very low-quality evidence and more RCTs are needed; furthermore, PTGBD is inferior in the treatment of AC in high-risk patients. The definition of high-risk patients is important in interpreting the results, but the methods of assessment and definitions differ between studies. The results of our systematic review and meta-analysis failed to demonstrate any advantage of using PTGBD over ER as a definitive treatment of AC in critically ill patients, which suggests that EC should be considered as the treatment of choice even in very high-risk patients. Most likely, the inferiority of PTGBD versus early LC for high-risk patients is related to an association of various patient-side factor conditions and the severity of acute cholecystitis.
PubMed: 37568306
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12154903 -
Cureus Oct 2023Cholecystectomy is a widespread surgical procedure for gallbladder diseases. Evolving techniques and technologies, such as intraoperative cholangiography (IOC), enhance... (Review)
Review
Cholecystectomy is a widespread surgical procedure for gallbladder diseases. Evolving techniques and technologies, such as intraoperative cholangiography (IOC), enhance safety and outcomes by providing real-time biliary system visualization during surgery. This systematic review explored available data on using IOC during cholecystectomy, highlighting its effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness. To perform this systematic review, a thorough literature search was conducted using relevant keywords in electronic databases, such as PubMed, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. We included studies published during the last 10 years exploring the use of IOC during cholecystectomy. The findings showed success rates of up to 90% with a median time of 21.9 minutes without complications. Most (90%) patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis underwent cholecystectomy with IOC, with unclear IOC results in 10.7% and failure in 14.7%. IOC failure factors included age, body mass index (BMI), male sex, concurrent acute cholecystitis, common bile duct (CBD) stone evidence on imaging, CBD diameter of >6 mm, total bilirubin of >4 mg/dL, abnormal liver tests, and gallstone pancreatitis. The detection of choledocholithiasis by IOC prompted trans-cystic duct exploration and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Biliary abnormalities and stone identification were observed using IOC, and routine use increased bile duct stone detection while decreasing bile duct injury and readmission rates. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of IOC for common bile duct stone detection were reported at 77%, 98%, 97.2%, 63%, and 99%, respectively. Routine IOC was projected to provide substantial quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and cost-effectiveness gains compared to selective IOC. Regarding safety, IOC was generally associated with reduced complication and open surgery conversion risks, with similar rates of CBD injury and bile leaks. These findings indicate that IOC enhances cholecystectomy outcomes through precision and decreasing complications.
PubMed: 37899894
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.47646 -
Cureus Dec 2023We aim to investigate the potential of laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) as a replacement for intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) in the context of laparoscopic... (Review)
Review
We aim to investigate the potential of laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) as a replacement for intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) in the context of laparoscopic cholecystectomy focusing on various aspects related to both techniques. We made our search through PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus, with the use of the following search strategy: ("laparoscopic ultrasonography" OR LUS OR "laparoscopic US" OR "laparoscopic ultrasound") AND ("laparoscopic cholecystectomy" OR LC). We incorporated diverse studies that addressed our topic, offering data on the identification of biliary anatomy and variations, the utilization of laparoscopic ultrasound in cholecystitis, the detection of common bile duct stones, and the criteria utilized to assess the accuracy of LUS. A total of 1526 articles were screened and only 20 were finally included. This systematic review assessed LUS and IOC techniques in cholecystectomy. IOC showed higher failure rates due to common duct catheterization challenges, while LUS had lower failure rates, often linked to factors like steatosis. Cost-effectiveness comparisons favored LUS over IOC, potentially saving patients money. LUS procedures were quicker due to real-time imaging, while IOC required more time and personnel. Bile duct injuries were discussed, highlighting LUS limitations in atypical anatomies. LUS aided in diagnosing crucial conditions, emphasizing its relevance post surgery. Surgeon experience significantly impacted outcomes, regardless of the technique. A previous study discussed that LUS's learning curve was steeper than IOC's, with proficient LUS users adjusting practices and using IOC selectively. Highlighting LUS's benefits and limitations in cholecystectomy, we stress its value in complex anatomical situations. LUS confirms no common bile duct stones, avoiding cannulation. LUS and IOC equally detect common bile duct stones and visualize the biliary tree. LUS offers safety, speed, cost-effectiveness, and unlimited use. Despite the associated expenses and learning curve, the enduring benefits of using advanced probes in LUS imaging suggest that it could surpass traditional IOC. The validation of this potential advancement relies heavily on incorporating modern probe studies. Our study could contribute to the medical literature by evaluating their clinical validity, safety, cost-effectiveness, learning curve, patient outcomes, technological advancements, and potential impact on guidelines and recommendations for clinical professionals.
PubMed: 38283459
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.51192 -
Translational Gastroenterology and... 2023Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in patients admitted with acute cholecystitis is considered the preferred, feasible and safe mode of managing gallstone disease. The...
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in patients admitted with acute cholecystitis is considered the preferred, feasible and safe mode of managing gallstone disease. The objective of this study is to evaluate the role of single-dose pre-operative prophylactic antibiotics in patients undergoing emergency LC for mild to moderate acute cholecystitis.
METHODS
All randomized control trials (RCTs) reporting the use of single-dose pre-operative prophylactic antibiotics in patients undergoing acute cholecystectomy were retrieved from the search of standard medical electronic databases and analysis was conducted by using the principles of meta-analysis on the statistical software RevMan version 5.
RESULTS
Standard medical databases search produced only 3 RCTs on 781 patients undergoing acute cholecystectomy. There were 384 patients in single dose pre-operative antibiotics group whereas 397 patients were recruited in the no-antibiotics group. In the random effects model analysis, the use of single-dose preoperative prophylactic antibiotics in patients undergoing acute cholecystectomy for mild to moderate cholecystitis failed to demonstrate any extra advantage of reducing the risk of [risk ratio (RR) =0.69; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-1.03; Z=1.80; P=0.07] infective complications. There was no heterogeneity [Tau =0; Chi =1.74, df =2 (P=0.42; I=0%)] among included studies.
CONCLUSIONS
A preoperative single dose of prophylactic antibiotics in patients undergoing acute LC for mild to moderate acute cholecystitis does not offer extra benefits to reduce infective complications.
PubMed: 38021359
DOI: 10.21037/tgh-23-48 -
Cureus Oct 2023This systematic review aims to review articles that evaluate the risk of conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy and to analyze the identified preoperative... (Review)
Review
This systematic review aims to review articles that evaluate the risk of conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy and to analyze the identified preoperative and intraoperative risk factors. The bibliographic databases CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, Medline, and PubMed were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Only English-language retrospective studies and systematic reviews with more than 200 patients were included. The time of publication was limited from 2012 to 2022. Our systematic review identified 30 studies with a total of 108,472 patients. Of those, 92,765 cholecystectomies were commenced laparoscopically and 5,477 were converted to open cholecystectomy (5.90%). The rate of conversion ranges from 2.50% to 50%. Older males with acute cholecystitis, previous abdominal surgery, symptom duration of more than 72 hours, previous history of acute cholecystitis, C-reactive protein (CRP) value of more than 76 mg/L, diabetes, and obesity are significant preoperative risk factors for conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. Significant intraoperative risk factors for conversion include gallbladder inflammation, adhesions, anatomic difficulty, Nassar scale of Grades 3 to 4, Conversion from Laparoscopic to Open Cholecystectomy (CLOC) score of more than 6 and 10-point gallbladder operative scoring system (G10) score more than 3.
PubMed: 38021611
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.47774 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2023Although the past decade has witnessed unprecedented medical progress, no consensus has been reached on the optimal approach for patients with acute cholecystitis....
Comparison of the safety profile, conversion rate and hospitalization duration between early and delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Although the past decade has witnessed unprecedented medical progress, no consensus has been reached on the optimal approach for patients with acute cholecystitis. Herein, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the differences in patient outcomes between Early Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (ELC) and Delayed Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (DLC) in the treatment of acute cholecystitis. Our protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (registration number: CRD42023389238).
OBJECTIVES
We sought to investigate the differences in efficacy, safety, and potential benefits between ELC and DLC in acute cholecystitis patients by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
The online databases PubMed, Springer, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies published between Jan 1, 1999 and Jan 1, 2022.
RESULTS
21 RCTs and 13 retrospective studies with a total of 7,601 cases were included in this research. After a fixed-effects model was applied, the pooled analysis showed that DLC was associated with a significantly high conversion rate (OR: 0.6247; 95%CI: 0.5115-0.7630; z = -4.61, < 0.0001) and incidence of postoperative complications (OR: 0.7548; 95%CI: 0.6197-0.9192; z = -2.80, = 0.0051). However, after applying a random-effects model, ELC was associated with significantly shorter total hospitalization duration than DLC (MD: -4.0657; 95%CI: -5.0747 to -3.0566; z = -7.90, < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION
ELC represents a safe and feasible approach for acute cholecystitis patients since it shortens hospitalization duration and decreases the incidence of postoperative complications of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=389238, identifier (CRD42023389238).
PubMed: 38148916
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1185482 -
Surgical Endoscopy Jun 2024When pregnant patients present with nonobstetric pathology, the physicians caring for them may be uncertain about the optimal management strategy. The aim of this...
BACKGROUND
When pregnant patients present with nonobstetric pathology, the physicians caring for them may be uncertain about the optimal management strategy. The aim of this guideline is to develop evidence-based recommendations for pregnant patients presenting with common surgical pathologies including appendicitis, biliary disease, and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
METHODS
The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Guidelines Committee convened a working group to address these issues. The group generated five key questions and completed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. An expert panel then met to form evidence-based recommendations according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Expert opinion was utilized when the available evidence was deemed insufficient.
RESULTS
The expert panel agreed on ten recommendations addressing the management of appendicitis, biliary disease, and IBD during pregnancy.
CONCLUSIONS
Conditional recommendations were made in favor of appendectomy over nonoperative treatment of appendicitis, laparoscopic appendectomy over open appendectomy, and laparoscopic cholecystectomy over nonoperative treatment of biliary disease and acute cholecystitis specifically. Based on expert opinion, the panel also suggested either operative or nonoperative treatment of biliary diseases other than acute cholecystitis in the third trimester, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography rather than common bile duct exploration for symptomatic choledocholithiasis, applying the same criteria for emergent surgical intervention in pregnant and non-pregnant IBD patients, utilizing an open rather than minimally invasive approach for pregnant patients requiring emergent surgical treatment of IBD, and managing pregnant patients with active IBD flares in a multidisciplinary fashion at centers with IBD expertise.
Topics: Humans; Pregnancy; Female; Pregnancy Complications; Laparoscopy; Appendicitis; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Appendectomy; Biliary Tract Diseases
PubMed: 38700549
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-10810-1 -
Clinical and Experimental Vaccine... Jan 2024Conduct a systematic review of case reports and case series regarding the development of acute abdomen following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination, to...
PURPOSE
Conduct a systematic review of case reports and case series regarding the development of acute abdomen following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination, to describe the possible association and the clinical and demographic characteristics in detail.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study included case report studies and case series that focused on the development of acute abdomen following COVID-19 vaccination. Systematic review studies, literature, letters to the editor, brief comments, and so forth were excluded. PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched until June 15, 2023. The Joanna Briggs Institute tool was used to assess the risk of bias and the quality of the study. Descriptive data were presented as frequency, median, mean, and standard deviation.
RESULTS
Seventeen clinical case studies were identified, evaluating 17 patients with acute abdomen associated with COVID-19 vaccination, which included acute appendicitis (n=3), acute pancreatitis (n=9), diverticulitis (n=1), cholecystitis (n=2), and colitis (n=2). The COVID-19 vaccine most commonly linked to acute abdomen was Pfizer-BioNTech (messenger RNA), accounting for 64.71% of cases. Acute abdomen predominantly occurred after the first vaccine dose (52.94%). All patients responded objectively to medical (88.34%) and surgical (11.76%) treatment and were discharged within a few weeks. No cases of death were reported.
CONCLUSION
Acute abdomen is a rare complication of great interest in the medical and surgical practice of COVID-19 vaccination. Our study is based on a small sample of patients; therefore, it is recommended to conduct future observational studies to fully elucidate the underlying mechanisms of this association.
PubMed: 38362368
DOI: 10.7774/cevr.2024.13.1.42 -
Therapeutic Advances in... 2023Acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) represents about one-third of all surgical emergencies. The gold standard management of ACC is laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Although...
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) represents about one-third of all surgical emergencies. The gold standard management of ACC is laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Although cholecystectomy is a safe procedure, it may be dangerous and contraindicated in patients with complex comorbidities. Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder stenting (ETGBS) and drainage had been widely used to manage patients suffering from ACC with comorbidities.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for relevant studies assessing the use of ETGBS in patients suffering from ACC with various comorbidities. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the National Institues of Health (NIH) tool. We included the following outcomes: clinical success, technical success, late complications, and pancreatitis.
RESULTS
We included seven studies that met our inclusion criteria. We found that the pooled proportion of clinical success, technical success, late complications, and pancreatitis was [91.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) (86.8%, 95.9%)], [92.8%, 95% CI (89%, 96.5%)], [5.4%, 95% CI (2.9%, 7.9%)], and [3.5%, 95% CI (1.2%, 5.8%)], respectively.
CONCLUSION
We found that an ETGBS was an effective and well-tolerated method for the treatment of cholecystitis, especially in high-risk individuals.
PubMed: 37664530
DOI: 10.1177/26317745231192177