-
World Journal of Gastroenterology Jan 2014To assess the rate of bile duct injuries (BDI) and overall biliary complications during single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) compared to conventional... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To assess the rate of bile duct injuries (BDI) and overall biliary complications during single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) compared to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC).
METHODS
SPLC has recently been proposed as an innovative surgical approach for gallbladder surgery. So far, its safety with respect to bile duct injuries has not been specifically evaluated. A systematic review of the literature published between January 1990 and November 2012 was performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing SPLC versus CLC reporting BDI rate and overall biliary complications were included. The quality of RCT was assessed using the Jadad score. Analysis was made by performing a meta-analysis, using Review Manager 5.2. This study was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A retrospective study including all retrospective reports on SPLC was also performed alongside.
RESULTS
From 496 publications, 11 RCT including 898 patients were selected for meta-analysis. No studies were rated as high quality (Jadad score ≥ 4). Operative indications included benign gallbladder disease operated in an elective setting in all studies, excluding all emergency cases and acute cholecystitis. The median follow-up was 1 mo (range 0.03-18 mo). The incidence of BDI was 0.4% for SPLC and 0% for CLC; the difference was not statistically different (P = 0.36). The incidence of overall biliary complication was 1.6% for SPLC and 0.5% for CLC, the difference did not reached statistically significance (P = 0.21, 95%CI: 0.66-15). Sixty non-randomized trials including 3599 patients were also analysed. The incidence of BDI reported then was 0.7%.
CONCLUSION
The safety of SPLC cannot be assumed, based on the current evidence. Hence, this new technology cannot be recommended as standard technique for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Topics: Bile Ducts; Biliary Tract Diseases; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Humans; Patient Safety; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24574757
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i3.843 -
Deutsches Arzteblatt International Aug 2016Besides cholecystectomy (CC), percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) has been recommended for the management of critically ill patients with acute cholecystitis. However,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Besides cholecystectomy (CC), percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) has been recommended for the management of critically ill patients with acute cholecystitis. However, solid evidence on the benefit of PC in this subgroup of patients is lacking.
METHODS
In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews, we systematically searched the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus for relevant studies published between 2000 and 2014. Two investigators independently screened the studies included.
RESULTS
Six studies with a total of 337 500 patients (PC 10 045, CC 327 455) were included for meta-analysis. Significant differences in favor of CC were recorded with regard to the rate of mortality (OR 4.28, [1.72 to 10.62], p = 0.0017), length of hospital stay (OR 1.41, [1.02 to 1.95], p = 0.04), and the rate of readmission for biliary complaints (OR 2.16, [1.72 to 2.73], p<0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference between both intervention arms with regard to complications (OR 0.74, [0.36 to 1.53], p = 0.42) and re-interventions (OR 7.69, [0.68 to 87.33], p = 0.10).
CONCLUSION
The benefit of percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) over cholecystectomy (CC) in the management of critically ill patients with acute cholecystitis could not be proven in this systematic review.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Cholecystectomy; Cholecystitis, Acute; Cholecystostomy; Critical Illness; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Incidence; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Readmission; Postoperative Complications; Risk Factors; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27598871
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2016.0545 -
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 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... May 2009Percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) is an established low-mortality treatment option for elderly and critically ill patients with acute cholecystitis. The primary aim of...
OBJECTIVES
Percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) is an established low-mortality treatment option for elderly and critically ill patients with acute cholecystitis. The primary aim of this review is to find out if there is any evidence in the literature to recommend PC rather than cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis in the elderly population.
METHODS
In April 2007, a systematic electronic database search was performed on the subject of PC and cholecystectomy in the elderly population. After exclusions, 53 studies remained, comprising 1918 patients. Three papers described randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but none compared the outcomes of PC and cholecystectomy. A total of 19 papers on mortality after cholecystectomy in patients aged >65 years were identified.
RESULTS
Successful intervention was seen in 85.6% of patients with acute cholecystitis. A total of 40% of patients treated with PC were later cholecystectomized, with a mortality rate of 1.96%. Procedure mortality was 0.36%, but 30-day mortality rates were 15.4 % in patients treated with PC and 4.5% in those treated with acute cholecystectomy (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
There are no controlled studies evaluating the outcome of PC vs. cholecystectomy and the papers reviewed are of evidence grade C. It is not possible to make definitive recommendations regarding treatment by PC or cholecystectomy in elderly or critically ill patients with acute cholecystitis. Low mortality rates after cholecystectomy in elderly patients with acute cholecystitis have been reported in recent years and therefore we believe it is time to launch an RCT to address this issue.
PubMed: 19590646
DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2009.00052.x -
Clinical Endoscopy Mar 2020The bleeding complication risk of surgery or percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) may increase in patients with acute cholecystitis receiving... (Review)
Review
The bleeding complication risk of surgery or percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) may increase in patients with acute cholecystitis receiving antithrombotic therapy (ATT). Endoscopic gallbladder drainage (EGBD) may be recommended for such patients. English articles published between 1991 and 2018 in peer-reviewed journals that discuss cholecystectomy, PTGBD, and EGBD in patients with ATT or coagulopathy were reviewed to assess the safety of the procedures, especially in terms of the bleeding complication. There were 8 studies on cholecystectomy, 3 on PTGBD, and 1 on endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) in patients receiving ATT. With respect to EGBD, 28 studies on ETGBD (including 1 study already mentioned above) and 26 studies on endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) were also analyzed. The overall bleeding complication rate in patients with ATT who underwent cholecystectomy was significantly higher than that in patients without ATT (6.5% [23/354] vs. 1.2% [26/2,224], p<0.001). However, the bleeding risk of cholecystectomy and PTGBD in patients receiving ATT was controversial. The overall technical success, clinical success, and bleeding complication rates of ETGBD vs. EUS-GBD were 84% vs. 96% (p<0.001), 92% vs. 97% (p<0.001), and 0.65% vs. 2.1% (p=0.005), respectively. One patient treated with ETGBD experienced bleeding complication among 191 patients with bleeding tendency. ETGBD may be an ideal drainage procedure for patients receiving ATT from the viewpoint of bleeding, although EUS-GBD is also efficacious.
PubMed: 31914723
DOI: 10.5946/ce.2019.177 -
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 -
Outcomes of percutaneous cholecystostomy in elderly patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Przeglad Gastroenterologiczny 2021Percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) represents a management option to control sepsis in patients with acute cholecystitis, who are unable to tolerate surgery. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) represents a management option to control sepsis in patients with acute cholecystitis, who are unable to tolerate surgery.
AIM
This review aimed to evaluate the outcomes of elderly patients treated with PC and compare it with emergent cholecystectomy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic search of the Embase, Medline Web of Science, and Cochrane databases was performed. Percutaneous cholecystostomy was used as the reference group, and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated for the effect of PC on continuous variables, and pooled odds ratios (POR) were calculated for discrete variables.
RESULTS
There were 20 trials included in this review. Utilisation of PC was associated with significantly increased mortality (POR = 4.85; 95% CI: 1.02-7.30; = 0.0001) and increased re-admission rates (POR = 2.95; 95% CI: 2.21-3.87; < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
This pooled analysis established that patients treated with PC appear to have increased mortality and readmission rates relative to those managed with cholecystectomy.
PubMed: 34584579
DOI: 10.5114/pg.2020.100658 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2016Cholelithiasis refers to the presence of gallstones, which are concretions that form in the biliary tract, usually in the gallbladder. Cholelithiasis is one of the most... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cholelithiasis refers to the presence of gallstones, which are concretions that form in the biliary tract, usually in the gallbladder. Cholelithiasis is one of the most common surgical problems worldwide and is particularly prevalent in most Western countries.Biliary colic is the term used for gallbladder pain experienced by a person with gallstones and without overt infection around the gallbladder. It is the most common manifestation of cholelithiasis, observed in over one-third of people with gallstones over the course of 10 or more years. Non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been widely used to relieve biliary colic pain, but their role needs further elucidation. They may decrease the frequency of short-term complications, such as mild form of acute cholecystitis, jaundice, cholangitis, and acute pancreatitis, but they may also increase the occurrence of more severe and possibly life-threatening adverse events such as gastrointestinal bleeding, renal function impairment, cardiovascular events, or milder events such as abdominal pain, drowsiness, headache, dizziness, or cutaneous manifestations.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of NSAIDs in people with biliary colic.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), and ClinicalTrials.gov until July 2016. We applied no language limitation.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials recruiting participants presenting with biliary colic and comparing NSAIDs versus no intervention, placebo, or other drugs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (MF and AC) independently identified trials for inclusion. We used risk ratios (RR) to express intervention effect estimates, and we analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects model meta-analyses, depending on the amount of heterogeneity. We controlled random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis. We assessed the methodological quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
Twelve randomised clinical trials (RCTs) met our predefined review protocol criteria for analysis. We found only one trial to be at low risk of bias, considering the remaining trials to be at high risk of bias. The risk of selection bias in nine studies was unclear due to poor reporting, leading to uncertainty in the pooled effect estimates. Five trials compared NSAIDs versus placebo, four trials compared NSAID versus opioids, and four trials compared NSAID versus spasmolytic drugs (one of the 12 trials was a three-arm study comparing NSAIDs versus both opioids and spasmolytic drugs). There were 828 randomised participants (minimum 30 and maximum 324 per trial), of whom 416 received NSAIDs and 412 received placebo, spasmolytic drugs, or opioids. Twenty-four per cent of the participants were males. The age of the participants in the trials ranged from 18 to 86 years. All people were admitted to emergency departments for acute biliary pain. There was no mortality. When compared with placebo, NSAIDs obtained a significantly lower proportion of participants without complete pain relief (RR 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.40; I = 0%; 5 trials; moderate-quality evidence), which was confirmed by Trial Sequential Analysis, but not regarding participants with complications (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15; I = 26%; 3 trials; very low-quality evidence). NSAIDs showed more pain control than spasmolytic drugs (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.71; I = 0%; 4 trials; low-quality evidence), which was not confirmed by Trial Sequential Analysis, and a significantly lower proportion of participants with complications (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57; I = 0%; 2 trials; low-quality evidence), which was also not confirmed by Trial Sequential Analysis. We found no difference in the proportions of participants without complete pain relief when comparing NSAIDs versus opioids (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.07; I = 52%), suggesting moderate heterogeneity among trials (4 trials; very low-quality evidence). Only one trial comparing NSAIDs versus opioids reported results on complications, finding no significant difference between treatments. None of the included trials reported severe adverse events. Seven out of the 12 trials assessed non-severe adverse events: in two out of the seven trials, adverse events were not observed, and minor events were reported in the remaining five trials.In addition, we found one ongoing RCT assessing the analgesic efficacy of intravenous ibuprofen in biliary colic.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
NSAIDs have been assessed in relatively few trials including a limited number of participants for biliary colic, considering its common occurrence. We found only one trial to be at low risk of bias. There was no mortality. None of the included trials reported quality of life. The generalisability of the review is low as most of the RCTs included neither elderly people nor participants with comorbidities, who are more prone to complications as compared to others with biliary colic.The beneficial effect of NSAIDs compared with placebo on pain relief was confirmed when we applied Trial Sequential Analysis.The quality of evidence according to GRADE criteria was moderate for the comparison of NSAIDs versus placebo regarding the outcome lack of pain relief and low or very low for the other outcomes and comparisons.We found only one trial at low risk of bias, following the predefined 'Risk of bias' domains. We found the risk of selection bias to be unclear in nine studies due to poor reporting, leading to uncertainty in the pooled effect estimates.
PubMed: 27610712
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006390.pub2 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Nov 2021The optimal management of localized gallbladder perforation (Neimeier type II) has yet to be defined. The aim of this systematic review was to identify factors... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The optimal management of localized gallbladder perforation (Neimeier type II) has yet to be defined. The aim of this systematic review was to identify factors associated with improved patient outcomes.
METHODS
Systematic review of studies that described the management of Neimeier type II perforation, reported complications of the first intervention, necessity of added interventions, resolution of the pathology, and days of hospital stay were included. The search strategy was conducted in EMBASE, Mayo Journals, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science (December 2020) RESULTS: A total of 122 patients (53% male) from case reports, series, and cohorts were included for analysis. In total 56 (46%) and 44 (36%)patients were treated with open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy respectively. Overall risk of bias was moderate. The need for another intervention was higher in the laparoscopic group (5 vs 17, p=<0.001) as well as prevalence of complications (4 vs 16, p=<0.001), but lower for days of hospital stay (median days 5. vs 15, p = 0.008) against open cholecystectomy. Preoperative percutaneous catheter drainage did not influence outcome.
CONCLUSION
Open cholecystectomy has a lower need for further surgical procedures and postoperative complications, but a longer hospital stay. These outcomes did not vary with preoperative percutaneous drainage. The effect of timing of cholecystectomy did not influence the outcomes.
Topics: Cholecystectomy; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Cholecystitis, Acute; Drainage; Female; Gallbladder; Gallbladder Diseases; Humans; Male; Prognosis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34246546
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2021.06.003 -
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