-
The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine Jul 2023Spinal cord injury (SCI) is associated with several gastrointestinal disorders, and the prevalence of cholelithiasis is high in this population. Because individuals with...
CONTEXT
Spinal cord injury (SCI) is associated with several gastrointestinal disorders, and the prevalence of cholelithiasis is high in this population. Because individuals with SCI may have atypical symptoms and more advanced disease, some treatment centers advocate prophylactic cholecystectomy for patients with SCI and gallstone disease.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the existence and quality of studies on prophylactic cholecystectomy in individuals with SCI and cholelithiasis.
METHODS
A systematic search of literature up to July 10, 2022 was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines using the Medline, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases. Keywords used were "cholecystectomy," "gallbladder," "cholelithiasis," "gallstone," and "spinal cord injury."
RESULTS
The search identified 118 articles, of which 4 met the inclusion criteria. All these were retrospective observational studies. Prophylactic cholecystectomy was performed in 4-16.5% of the participants. The causes of cholecystectomy were chronic cholecystitis with biliary colic (44.5-63.5%), acute cholecystitis (4-26%), choledocholithiasis (6-11%) and pancreatitis (2-6%). Operative times, conversion rates, estimated blood loss, severity of complications, morbidity and mortality did not differ significantly between individuals with SCI and neurologically able individuals.
CONCLUSION
No prospective cohort studies comparing prophylactic cholecystectomy with conservative management in individuals with SCI and gallstone disease have been conducted. Therefore, there is no robust evidence to support prophylactic cholecystectomy and further studies are required.
Topics: Humans; Spinal Cord Injuries; Retrospective Studies; Cholecystectomy; Cholelithiasis
PubMed: 36355833
DOI: 10.1080/10790268.2022.2144026 -
Surgical Endoscopy Apr 2023Surgical cholecystectomy is the gold standard strategy for the management of acute cholecystitis (AC). However, some patients are considered unfit for surgery due to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided cholecystostomy versus percutaneous cholecystostomy (PTC) in the management of acute cholecystitis in patients unfit for surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Surgical cholecystectomy is the gold standard strategy for the management of acute cholecystitis (AC). However, some patients are considered unfit for surgery due to certain comorbid conditions. As such, we aimed to compare less invasive treatment strategies such as endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) and percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD) for the management of patients with AC who are suboptimal candidates for surgical cholecystectomy.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was performed to identify all the studies comparing EUS-GBD versus PT-GBD for patients with AC who were unfit for surgery. A subgroup analysis was also performed for comparison of the group undergoing drainage via cautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) versus PT-GBD. The outcomes included technical and clinical success, adverse events (AEs), recurrent cholecystitis, reintervention, and hospital readmission.
RESULTS
Eleven studies including 1155 patients were included in the statistical analysis. There was no difference between PT-GBD and EUS-GBD in all the evaluated outcomes. On the subgroup analysis, the endoscopic approach with cautery-enhanced LAMS was associated with lower rates of adverse events (RD = - 0.33 (95% CI - 0.52 to - 0.14; p = 0.0006), recurrent cholecystitis (- 0.05 RD (95% CI - 0.09 to - 0.02; p = 0.02), and hospital readmission (- 0.36 RD (95% CI-0.70 to - 0.03; p = 0.03) when compared to PT-GBD. All other outcomes were similar in the subgroup analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
EUS-GBD using cautery-enhanced LAMS is superior to PT-GBD in terms of safety profile, recurrent cholecystitis, and hospital readmission rates in the management of patients with acute cholecystitis who are suboptimal candidates for cholecystectomy. However, when cautery-enhanced LAMS are not used, the outcomes of EUS-GBD and PT-GBD are similar. Thus, EUS-GBD with cautery-enhanced LAMS should be considered the preferable approach for gallbladder drainage for this challenging population.
Topics: Humans; Cholecystostomy; Cholecystitis, Acute; Endosonography; Cholecystitis
PubMed: 36289089
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09712-x -
Updates in Surgery Dec 2022The gallstone disease prevalence is up to 27% in the general adult population. Though most of the patients are asymptomatic, about 1-4% of these patients became... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Is fundus first laparoscopic cholecystectomy a better option than conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy for difficult cholecystectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
The gallstone disease prevalence is up to 27% in the general adult population. Though most of the patients are asymptomatic, about 1-4% of these patients became symptomatic every year and will require treatment. Fundus first laparoscopic cholecystectomy (FFLC) was first reported by Cooperman in 1990 when he utilized the approach to safely perform LC for patients with acute cholecystitis and dense adhesion around the calot's triangle which precluded safe dissection. Some surgeons reported that the FFLC may be quicker than the traditional dissection starting at the Calot's triangle, although no randomized trial has been undertaken to confirm that. We aim to perform this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare outcome of fundal first laparoscopic cholecystectomy with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Three reviewers independently searched the Pubmed, medline, google schoolar, Cochrane library and Embase databases for prospective or retrospective articles comparing outcomes of fundus first LC and conventional LC. The search terms were "retrograde cholecystectomy", "antegrade cholecystectomy", "fundus first cholecystectomy", "fundus down cholecystectomy", and "dome down cholecystectomy". Studies were selected based on predetermined criteria and data were extracted from the study for meta-analysis. Twelve studies were included for meta-analysis. Our analysis revealed that FFLC is associated with less conversion to open surgery, less time of surgery, less risk of bile duct injuries and shorter duration of hospital stay compared conventional cholecystectomy in patients with difficult cholecystectomy. In conclusion, fundus first laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a safer alternative to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with difficult cholecystectomy.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Male; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Cholecystectomy; Gallstones
PubMed: 36207659
DOI: 10.1007/s13304-022-01403-5 -
Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced... Mar 2023Single-stage laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) with cholecystectomy has superior outcomes over two-stage endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatogram...
Single-stage laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) with cholecystectomy has superior outcomes over two-stage endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatogram with interval cholecystectomy. With decreasing trend of LCBDE, this study aims to summarize the literature on learning curve (LC) in LCBDE. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for articles from inception to June 3, 2022 (PROSPERO Ref No: CRD42022328451). Basic clinical demographics were collected. Poisson means (95% confidence interval [95% CI]) was used to determine the number of cases required to surmount the LC (N). Eight articles ( = 2071 patients) reported LC outcomes in LCBDE with mean study period of 5.9 ± 2.8 years. Majority of studies (62.5%) used arbitrary methods of LC analysis. Most common outcomes reported were complications (any or major) (75%), open conversion (75%), length of stay (62.5%), and operating time (50%). Mean CBD diameter was 11.3 ± 4.8 mm ( = 1122 patients). Incidence of acute cholecystitis, acute cholangitis, and acute pancreatitis were 13.9% ( = 232/1668), 7.8% ( = 128/1629), and 13.7% ( = 229/1668), respectively. Pooled analysis of all the included studies showed N of 78.8 cases (95% CI: 71.9-86.3). Studies that used cumulative sum control chart analysis, nonarbitrary methods, and arbitrary-based LC had N of 152.0 (95% CI: 135.4-170.1), 108.0 (95% CI: 96.6-120.4), and 49.7 (95% CI: 42.0-58.3) cases, respectively. N was 37.0 cases (95% CI: 29.1-46.5) for single surgeon LC, and 99.8 cases (95% CI: 90.2-110.0) for institutional LC. Studies reporting N in LCBDE are heterogeneous. Further studies should use nonarbitrary methods of analysis for patient-reported outcome measures and procedure-specific morbidity.
Topics: Humans; Choledocholithiasis; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Learning Curve; Acute Disease; Pancreatitis; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Common Bile Duct; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36161969
DOI: 10.1089/lap.2022.0382 -
Acute Cholecystitis Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Polski Przeglad Chirurgiczny Jan 2022<br><b>Aim:</b> The aim of this study is to evaluate the prevalence of acute cholecystitis (AC) and review its possible management options during the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
<br><b>Aim:</b> The aim of this study is to evaluate the prevalence of acute cholecystitis (AC) and review its possible management options during the COVID-19 pandemic.</br> <br><b>Methods:</b> The present systematic review and meta-analysis was done in accordance with the PRISMA guideline. In August 2021, two independent reviewers reviewed a number of articles with the aim of finding studies on the management of acute cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic. Articles were searched in the Cochrane, Embassies, and Medline libraries. Using the Stata statistical software 14, the estimated pooled rates were calculated. Funnel plot and I2 indices were applied for evaluating the heterogeneity between the studies.</br> <br><b>Results:</b> An overall of 8 studies consisting of 654 patients suspected for AC were included. The prevalence of COVID-19 among our included patients was 82% (95% CI: 79-84%, I2: 99.2%). Regarding the type of management, 35% (95% CI: 26-45%, I2: 46.9%) of patients undergone cholecystectomy, 47% (95% CI: 43-51%, I2: 54.4%) were managed by non-surgical methods, and 19% (95% CI: 14-23%, I2: 68.1%) of patients were treated by percutaneous cholecystostomy. The prevalence of grade 2 and 3 among our patients was 44 and 15%, respectively.</br> <br><b>Conclusions:</b> Considering the fact that due to the current pandemic, the number of patients referring with higher grades is assumed to be increased, early cholecystectomy remains the best management option for AC patients. However, LC seems not to be the most favorable option since it is associated with a relatively higher risk of contamination with COVID-19. PC can also be considered as a temporary and safe method in high-risk patients which might enable us to protect both patients and healthcare providers.</br>.
Topics: COVID-19; Cholecystectomy; Cholecystitis, Acute; Cholecystostomy; Humans; Pandemics
PubMed: 36047359
DOI: 10.5604/01.3001.0015.7099 -
The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care... Nov 2022Timely management is critical for treating symptomatic common bile duct (CBD) stones; however, a single optimal management strategy has yet to be defined in the acute... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Timely management is critical for treating symptomatic common bile duct (CBD) stones; however, a single optimal management strategy has yet to be defined in the acute care setting. Consequently, this systematic review and network meta-analysis, comparing one-stage (CBD exploration or intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography [ERCP] with simultaneous cholecystectomy) and two-stage (precholecystectomy or postcholecystectomy ERCP) procedures, was undertaken with the main outcomes of interest being postprocedural complications and hospital length of stay (LOS).
METHODS
PubMed, SCOPUS, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were methodically queried for articles from 2010 to 2021. The search terms were a combination of medical subject headings terms and the subsequent terms: gallstone; common bile duct (stone); choledocholithiasis; cholecystitis; endoscopic retrograde cholangiography/ERCP; common bile duct exploration; intraoperative, preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography; stone extraction; and one-stage and two-stage procedure. Studies that compared two procedures or more were included, whereas studies not recording complications (bile leak, hemorrhage, pancreatitis, perforation, intra-abdominal infections, and other infections) or LOS were excluded. A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the four different approaches for managing CBD stones.
RESULTS
A total of 16 studies (8,644 participants) addressing the LOS and 41 studies (19,756 participants) addressing postprocedural complications were included in the analysis. The one-stage approaches were associated with a decrease in LOS compared with the two-stage approaches. Common bile duct exploration demonstrated a lower overall risk of complications compared with preoperative ERCP, but there were no differences in the overall risk of complications in the remaining comparisons. However, differences in specific postprocedural complications were detected between the four different approaches managing CBD stones.
CONCLUSION
This network meta-analysis suggests that both laparoscopic CBD exploration and intraoperative ERCP have equally good outcomes and provide a preferable single-anesthesia patient pathway with a shorter overall length of hospital stay compared with the two-stage approaches.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Systematic Review/Meta Analysis; Level III.
Topics: Humans; Gallstones; Sphincterotomy, Endoscopic; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Network Meta-Analysis; Choledocholithiasis; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Common Bile Duct
PubMed: 35939370
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003755 -
Revista de Gastroenterologia Del Peru :... 2022This article summarizes the clinical practice guide (CPG) for the diagnosis and management of cholelithiasis, acute cholecystitis and choledocholithiasis in the Peruvian...
INTRODUCTION
This article summarizes the clinical practice guide (CPG) for the diagnosis and management of cholelithiasis, acute cholecystitis and choledocholithiasis in the Peruvian Social Security (EsSalud).
OBJECTIVE
To provide clinical recommendations based on evidence for the management of patients with cholelithiasis, acute cholecystitis and choledocholithiasis in EsSalud.
METHODS
a guideline task force (GTF) was formed with internists, general surgeons, gastroenterologists, and methodologists. The group proposed 10 clinical questions to be answered in this Clinical practice guideline (CPG). Systematic searches of preview reviews were performed and when it was necessary, primary studies from PubMed and CENTRAL during 2017 were reviewed. The evidence was selected aiming to answer each proposed question. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. In periodical work sessions, the group used GRADE methodology for reviewing the evidence and formulating recommendations, good clinical practice items and three flowcharts for diagnosis and treatment. Finally, the CPG was approved by Resolution Nº 046-IETSI-ESSALUD-2017.
RESULTS
This CPG approached 10 clinical questions divided into two topics: diagnosis and management. Based on these questions; one strong recommendation, five weak recommendations, and 17 good clinical practice items and three flowcharts were formulated.
CONCLUSION
This paper abstracts the methodology and evidence-based conclusions of the CPG for diagnosis and management of cholelithiasis, acute cholecystitis and choledocholithiasis in EsSalud.
Topics: Cholecystitis; Cholecystitis, Acute; Choledocholithiasis; Humans; Peru; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Social Security
PubMed: 35896076
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Robotic Surgery Apr 2023Robotically assisted operations are the state of the art in laparoscopic general surgery. They are established predominantly for elective operations. Since laparoscopy... (Review)
Review
Robotically assisted operations are the state of the art in laparoscopic general surgery. They are established predominantly for elective operations. Since laparoscopy is widely used in urgent general surgery, the significance of robotic assistance in urgent operations is of interest. Currently, there are few data on robotic-assisted operations in urgent surgery. The aim of this study was to collect and classify the existing studies. A two-stage, PRISMA-compliant literature search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library was conducted. We analyzed all articles on robotic surgery associated with urgent general surgery resp. acute surgical diseases of the abdomen. Gynecological and urological diseases so as vascular surgery, except mesenterial ischemia, were excluded. Studies and case reports/series published between 1980 and 2021 were eligible for inclusion. In addition to a descriptive synopsis, various outcome parameters were systematically recorded. Fifty-two studies of operations for acute appendicitis and cholecystitis, hernias and acute conditions of the gastrointestinal tract were included. The level of evidence is low. Surgical robots in the narrow sense and robotic camera mounts were used. All narrow-sense robots are nonautonomous systems; in 82%, the Da Vinci system was used. The most frequently published emergency operations were urgent cholecystectomies (30 studies, 703 patients) followed by incarcerated hernias (9 studies, 199 patients). Feasibility of robotic operations was demonstrated for all indications. Neither robotic-specific problems nor extensive complication rates were reported. Various urgent operations in general surgery can be performed robotically without increased risk. The available data do not allow a final evidence-based assessment.
Topics: Humans; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Robotics; Laparoscopy; Cholecystectomy; Hernia
PubMed: 35727485
DOI: 10.1007/s11701-022-01425-6 -
Surgical Endoscopy Nov 2022Transmural EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) has been increasingly used in the treatment of gallbladder diseases. Aims of the study were to provide a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Transmural EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) has been increasingly used in the treatment of gallbladder diseases. Aims of the study were to provide a comprehensive meta-analysis and meta-regression of features and outcomes of this procedure.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of science, and Cochrane databases were searched for literature pertinent to transmural EUS-GBD up to May 2021. Random-effect meta-analysis of proportions and meta-regression of potential modifiers of outcome measures considered were applied. Outcome measures were technical success rate, overall clinical success, and procedure-related adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS
Twenty-seven articles were identified including 1004 patients enrolled between February 2009 and February 2020. Acute cholecystitis was present in 98.7% of cases. Pooled technical success was 98.0% (95% CI 96.3, 99.3; heterogeneity: 23.6%), the overall clinical success was 95.4% (95% CI 92.8, 97.5; heterogeneity: 35.3%), and procedure-related AEs occurred in 14.8% (95% CI 8.8, 21.8; heterogeneity: 82.4%), being stent malfunction/dislodgement the most frequent (3.5%). Procedural-related mortality was 1‰. Meta-regression showed that center experience proxied to > 10 cases/year increased the technical success rate (odds ratio [OR]: 2.84; 95% CI 1.06, 7.59) and the overall clinical success (OR: 3.52; 95% CI 1.33, 9.33). The use of anti-migrating devices also increased the overall clinical success (OR: 2.16; 95% CI 1.07, 4.36) while reducing procedure-related AEs (OR: 0.36; 95% CI 0.14, 0.98).
CONCLUSION
Physicians' experience and anti-migrating devices are the main determinants of main clinical outcomes after EUS-GBD, suggesting that treatment in expert centers would optimize results.
Topics: Humans; Gallbladder; Endosonography; Drainage; Cholecystitis, Acute; Stents; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35652964
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09339-y -
The Surgeon : Journal of the Royal... Apr 2023Gallstone disease in high-risk patients presents a management dilemma as cholecystectomy is often not performed due to their co-morbidities. Alternatively, such patients... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
Gallstone disease in high-risk patients presents a management dilemma as cholecystectomy is often not performed due to their co-morbidities. Alternatively, such patients can be managed by percutaneous removal of gallstones. To date, there is paucity of high-quality evidence addressing the safety and efficacy of percutaneous cholecystolithotomy in high-risk patients. We aimed to conduct a systematic review on the feasibility of percutaneous gallstone removal in high-risk patients.
METHODS
A literature review was conducted using the Cochrane review and preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines without setting the time limits to assess the outcomes of percutaneous gallstone removal in high-risk patients.
RESULTS
Twelve studies were identified. A total of 435 patients underwent percutaneous gallstone removal. Success rate was 91%. Overall complications (including minor and major) were 28%. The mean length of stay was 7 days (range, 1-80). Procedure related mortality was 0.7%. The recurrence rate was 7%.
CONCLUSION
Percutaneous cholecystolithotomy is a safe and effective technique. Although, it cannot substitute the current standard treatment for gallstones i.e., laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, it may be considered for the patients who cannot undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy due to their comorbid conditions.
Topics: Humans; Gallstones; Cholecystectomy; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Comorbidity; Time Factors
PubMed: 35606261
DOI: 10.1016/j.surge.2022.04.007