-
Health Technology Assessment... Sep 2009To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery for obesity. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery for obesity.
DATA SOURCES
Seventeen electronic databases were searched [MEDLINE; EMBASE; PreMedline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; The Cochrane Library including the Cochrane Systematic Reviews Database, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, DARE, NHS EED and HTA databases; Web of Knowledge Science Citation Index (SCI); Web of Knowledge ISI Proceedings; PsycInfo; CRD databases; BIOSIS; and databases listing ongoing clinical trials] from inception to August 2008. Bibliographies of related papers were assessed and experts were contacted to identify additional published and unpublished references.
REVIEW METHODS
Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to the full text using a standard form. Interventions investigated were open and laparoscopic bariatric surgical procedures in widespread current use compared with one another and with non-surgical interventions. Population comprised adult patients with body mass index (BMI) > or = 30 and young obese people. Main outcomes were at least one of the following after at least 12 months follow-up: measures of weight change; quality of life (QoL); perioperative and postoperative mortality and morbidity; change in obesity-related comorbidities; cost-effectiveness. Studies eligible for inclusion in the systematic review for comparisons of Surgery versus Surgery were RCTs. For comparisons of Surgery versus Non-surgical procedures eligible studies were RCTs, controlled clinical trials and prospective cohort studies (with a control cohort). Studies eligible for inclusion in the systematic review of cost-effectiveness were full cost-effectiveness analyses, cost-utility analyses, cost-benefit analyses and cost-consequence analyses. One reviewer performed data extraction, which was checked by two reviewers independently. Two reviewers independently applied quality assessment criteria and differences in opinion were resolved at each stage. Studies were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of the results of all included studies. In the economic model the analysis was developed for three patient populations, those with BMI > or = 40; BMI > or = 30 and < 40 with Type 2 diabetes at baseline; and BMI > or = 30 and < 35. Models were applied with assumptions on costs and comorbidity.
RESULTS
A total of 5386 references were identified of which 26 were included in the clinical effectiveness review: three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and three cohort studies compared surgery with non-surgical interventions and 20 RCTs compared different surgical procedures. Bariatric surgery was a more effective intervention for weight loss than non-surgical options. In one large cohort study weight loss was still apparent 10 years after surgery, whereas patients receiving conventional treatment had gained weight. Some measures of QoL improved after surgery, but not others. After surgery statistically fewer people had metabolic syndrome and there was higher remission of Type 2 diabetes than in non-surgical groups. In one large cohort study the incidence of three out of six comorbidities assessed 10 years after surgery was significantly reduced compared with conventional therapy. Gastric bypass (GBP) was more effective for weight loss than vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) and adjustable gastric banding (AGB). Laparoscopic isolated sleeve gastrectomy (LISG) was more effective than AGB in one study. GBP and banded GBP led to similar weight loss and results for GBP versus LISG and VBG versus AGB were equivocal. All comparisons of open versus laparoscopic surgeries found similar weight losses in each group. Comorbidities after surgery improved in all groups, but with no significant differences between different surgical interventions. Adverse event reporting varied; mortality ranged from none to 10%. Adverse events from conventional therapy included intolerance to medication, acute cholecystitis and gastrointestinal problems. Major adverse events following surgery, some necessitating reoperation, included anastomosis leakage, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, band slippage and band erosion. Bariatric surgery was cost-effective in comparison to non-surgical treatment in the reviewed published estimates of cost-effectiveness. However, these estimates are likely to be unreliable and not generalisable because of methodological shortcomings and the modelling assumptions made. Therefore a new economic model was developed. Surgical management was more costly than non-surgical management in each of the three patient populations analysed, but gave improved outcomes. For morbid obesity, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (base case) ranged between 2000 pounds and 4000 pounds per QALY gained. They remained within the range regarded as cost-effective from an NHS decision-making perspective when assumptions for deterministic sensitivity analysis were changed. For BMI > or = 30 and 40, ICERs were 18,930 pounds at two years and 1397 pounds at 20 years, and for BMI > or = 30 and < 35, ICERs were 60,754 pounds at two years and 12,763 pounds at 20 years. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses produced ICERs which were generally within the range considered cost-effective, particularly at the long twenty year time horizons, although for the BMI 30-35 group some ICERs were above the acceptable range.
CONCLUSIONS
Bariatric surgery appears to be a clinically effective and cost-effective intervention for moderately to severely obese people compared with non-surgical interventions. Uncertainties remain and further research is required to provide detailed data on patient QoL; impact of surgeon experience on outcome; late complications leading to reoperation; duration of comorbidity remission; resource use. Good-quality RCTs will provide evidence on bariatric surgery for young people and for adults with class I or class II obesity. New research must report on the resolution and/or development of comorbidities such as Type 2 diabetes and hypertension so that the potential benefits of early intervention can be assessed.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Bariatric Surgery; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Obesity; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Young Adult
PubMed: 19726018
DOI: 10.3310/hta13410 -
Biochemia Medica 2016Platelet indices (PI) -- plateletcrit, mean platelet volume (MPV) and platelet distribution width (PDW) -- are a group of derived platelet parameters obtained as a part... (Review)
Review
Platelet indices (PI) -- plateletcrit, mean platelet volume (MPV) and platelet distribution width (PDW) -- are a group of derived platelet parameters obtained as a part of the automatic complete blood count. Emerging evidence suggests that PIs may have diagnostic and prognostic value in certain diseases. This study aimed to summarize the current scientific knowledge on the potential role of PIs as a diagnostic and prognostic marker in patients having emergency, non-traumatic abdominal surgery. In December 2015, we searched Medline/PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar to identify all articles on PIs. Overall, considerable evidence suggests that PIs are altered with acute appendicitis. Although the role of PI in the differential diagnosis of acute abdomen remains uncertain, low MPV might be useful in acute appendicitis and acute mesenteric ischemia, with high MPV predicting poor prognosis in acute mesenteric ischemia. The current lack of consistency and technical standards in studies involving PIs should be regarded as a serious limitation to comparing these studies. Further large, multicentre prospective studies concurrently collecting data from different ethnicities and genders are needed before they can be used in routine clinical practice.
Topics: Appendicitis; Blood Cell Count; Blood Platelets; Cholecystitis, Acute; Diagnosis, Differential; Humans; Mean Platelet Volume; Mesenteric Ischemia
PubMed: 27346963
DOI: 10.11613/BM.2016.020 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2007Cholecystectomy is the removal of gallbladder and is performed mainly for symptomatic gallstones. Although laparoscopic cholecystectomy is currently preferred over open... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cholecystectomy is the removal of gallbladder and is performed mainly for symptomatic gallstones. Although laparoscopic cholecystectomy is currently preferred over open cholecystectomy for elective cholecystectomy, reports of randomised clinical trials comparing the choice of cholecystectomy (open or laparoscopic) in acute cholecystitis are still being conducted. Drainage in open cholecystectomy is a matter of considerable debate. Surgeons use drains primarily to prevent subhepatic abscess or bile peritonitis from an undrained bile leak. Critics of drain condemn drain use as it increases wound and chest infection.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage in uncomplicated open cholecystectomy.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until April 2006.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised clinical trials comparing 'no drain' versus 'drain' in patients who had undergone uncomplicated open cholecystectomy (irrespective of language, publication status, and the type of drain). Randomised clinical trials comparing one drain with another were also included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We collected the data on the characteristics and methodological quality of each trial, number of abdominal collections requiring different treatments, bile peritonitis, wound infection, chest complications, and hospital stay from each trial. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty eight trials involving 3659 patients were included. There were 20 comparisons of 'no drain' versus 'drain' and 12 comparisons of one drain with another. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality, bile peritonitis, total abdominal collections, abdominal collections requiring different treatments, or infected abdominal collections. 'No drain' group had statistically significant lower wound infection (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.87) and statistically significant lower chest infection (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.84) than drain group. We found no significant differences between different types of drains.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Drains increase the harms to the patient without providing any additional benefit for patients undergoing open cholecystectomy and should be avoided in open cholecystectomy.
Topics: Cholecystectomy; Cholecystolithiasis; Drainage; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Suction
PubMed: 17443609
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006003.pub2 -
International Journal of Environmental... Dec 2022Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a standard treatment for patients with gallstones in the gallbladder. However, multiple risk factors affect the probability of conversion... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a standard treatment for patients with gallstones in the gallbladder. However, multiple risk factors affect the probability of conversion from laparoscopic cholecystectomy to open surgery. A greater understanding of the preoperative factors related to conversion is crucial to improve patient safety. In the present systematic review, we summarized the current knowledge about the main factors associated with conversion. Next, we carried out several meta-analyses to evaluate the impact of independent clinical risk factors on conversion rate. Male gender (OR = 1.907; 95%CI = 1.254−2.901), age > 60 years (OR = 4.324; 95%CI = 3.396−5.506), acute cholecystitis (OR = 5.475; 95%CI = 2.959−10.130), diabetes (OR = 2.576; 95%CI = 1.687−3.934), hypertension (OR = 1.931; 95%CI = 1.018−3.662), heart diseases (OR = 2.947; 95%CI = 1.047−8.296), obesity (OR = 2.228; 95%CI = 1.162−4.271), and previous upper abdominal surgery (OR = 3.301; 95%CI = 1.965−5.543) increased the probability of conversion. Our analysis of clinical factors suggested the presence of different preoperative conditions, which are non-modifiable but could be useful for planning the surgical scenario and improving the post-operatory phase.
Topics: Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Cholecystectomy; Risk Factors; Gallstones; Laparoscopy; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36612732
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20010408 -
Journal of Visceral Surgery Feb 2014Ambulatory management is a modality of care defined in France by a hospitalization of less than 12h without an overnight stay. Currently, few data are available on its... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Ambulatory management is a modality of care defined in France by a hospitalization of less than 12h without an overnight stay. Currently, few data are available on its role in the management of gastrointestinal emergencies, such as appendectomy for acute appendicitis, cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis or emergency proctologic surgery. The aim of this systematic review was to study the published data regarding the feasibility of ambulatory management of emergency visceral surgery and to enquire about the possibilities of further development of this form of management.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A literature search was conducted from the PubMed(®) databank taking into account all published data up to July 2013.
RESULTS
For acute appendicitis, the success rate of short-stay hospitalization was 72% with unplanned read-mission rates ranging from 0 to 53%, a rate of unscheduled consultations ranging from 0 to 11%, and unplanned inpatient hospitalization rates ranging from 0% to 5%. For acute cholecystitis and proctology, there are few published data.
CONCLUSION
Ambulatory management has been sparingly studied in the setting of gastrointestinal surgical emergencies. However, there is probably a place for development of this form of management.
Topics: Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Cholecystectomy; Cholecystitis, Acute; Emergencies; Humans; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24360353
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2013.10.007 -
World Journal of Emergency Surgery :... Sep 2021Aim of this study was to clarify the best laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy (LSTC) technique for finalizing a difficult cholecystectomy.
BACKGROUND
Aim of this study was to clarify the best laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy (LSTC) technique for finalizing a difficult cholecystectomy.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
A review was performed (1987-2021) searching "difficulty cholecystectomy" AND/OR "subtotal cholecystectomy". The LSTC techniques considered were as follows: type A, leaving posterior wall attached to the liver and the remainder of the gallbladder stump open; type B, like type A but with the stump closed; type C, resection of both the anterior and posterior gallbladder walls and the stump closed; type D, like type C but with the stump open. Morbidity (including mortality) was analysed with Dindo-Clavien classification.
RESULTS
Nineteen articles were included. Of the 13,340 patients screened, 678 (8.2%) had cholecystectomy finalized by LSTC: 346 patients (51.0%) had type A LSTC, 134 patients (19.8%) had type B LSTC, 198 patients (29.2%) had type C LSTC, and 198 patients (0%) had type D LSTC. Bile leakage was found in 83 patients (12.2%), and recorded in 58 patients (69.9%) treated by type A. Twenty-three patients (3.4%) developed a subhepatic collection, 19 of whom (82.6%) were treated by type A. Other complications were reported in 72 patients (10.6%). The Dindo-Clavien classification was four for grade I, 27 for grade II, 126 for grade IIIa, 18 for grade IIIb, zero for grade IV and three for grade V.
CONCLUSION
In the case of LSTC, closure of the gallbladder stump represents the best method to avoid complications. Careful exploration of the gallbladder stump is mandatory, washing the abdominal cavity and leaving drainage.
Topics: Cholecystectomy; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Cholecystitis, Acute; Humans
PubMed: 34496916
DOI: 10.1186/s13017-021-00392-x -
Clinical Endoscopy Sep 2018Surgery remains the standard treatment for acute cholecystitis except in high-risk candidates where percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD), endoscopic...
Surgery remains the standard treatment for acute cholecystitis except in high-risk candidates where percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD), endoscopic transpapillary cystic duct stenting (ET-CDS), and endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) are potential choices. PT-GBD is contraindicated in patients with coagulopathy or ascites and is not preferred by patients owing to aesthetic reasons. ET-CDS is successful only if the cystic duct can be visualized and cannulated. For 189 patients who underwent EUS-GBD via insertion of a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS), the composite technical success rate was 95.2%, which increased to 96.8% when LAMS was combined with co-axial self-expandable metal stent (SEMS). The composite clinical success rate was 96.7%. We observed a small risk of recurrent cholecystitis (5.1%), gastrointestinal bleeding (2.6%) and stent migration (1.1%). Cautery enhanced LAMS significantly decreases the stent deployment time compared to non-cautery enhanced LAMS. Prophylactic placement of a pigtail stent or SEMS through the LAMS avoids re-interventions, particularly in patients, where it is intended to remain in situ indefinitely. Limited evidence suggests that the efficacy of EUS-GBD via LAMS is comparable to that of PT-GBD with the former showing better results in postoperative pain, length of hospitalization, and need for antibiotics. EUS-GBD via LAMS is a safe and efficacious option when performed by experts.
PubMed: 29852730
DOI: 10.5946/ce.2018.024 -
Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology &... 2018Patients with acute cholecystitis are treated with early cholecystectomy. A subset of patients are unfit for surgery due to comorbidities and late presentation. Prompt... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patients with acute cholecystitis are treated with early cholecystectomy. A subset of patients are unfit for surgery due to comorbidities and late presentation. Prompt gall bladder drainage (GBD) with percutaneous or endoscopic approach remains a viable therapeutic option for nonoperative candidates. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided transluminal gall bladder drainage (EUS-GBD) continues to evolve as an alternative approach to percutaneous drainage. With continued refinement in stent technology, lumen apposing self-expandable metal stent (LAMS) offers several advantages. We performed a pooled analysis on the efficacy and safety of EUS-GBD with LAMS in nonoperative candidates with acute cholecystitis.
METHODS
Extensive English language literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar using keywords "endoscopic ultrasound", "stent", "gallbladder", "acute cholecystitis", and "cholecystostomy" from Jan 2000 to Dec 2016. Fixed and random effects models were used to calculate the pooled proportions.
RESULTS
Data was extracted from 13 studies that met the inclusion criteria ( = 233). Pooled proportion of technical success was 93.86% (95% CI = 90.56 to 96.49) and clinical success was 92.48% (95% CI = 88.9 to 95.42). Overall complication rate was 18.31% (95% CI = 13.49 to 23.68) and stent related complication rate was 8.16% (95% CI = 4.03 to 14.96) in the pooled percentage of patients. Pooled proportion for perforation was 6.71% (95% CI 3.65 to 10.6) and recurrent cholangitis/cholecystitis was noted in 4.05% (95% CI = 1.64 to 7.48). Publication bias calculated using Harbord-Egger bias indicator gave a value of -0.61 (95% CI = -1.39 to 0.16, = 0.11). The Begg-Mazumdar indicator for bias gave Kendall's tau value of -0.42 ( ≥ 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
EUS-GBD with LAMS is a safe and alternative treatment modality for patients needing gallbladder drainage, with acceptable intraprocedural and postprocedural complications. However, due to the limited data and lack of direct comparison with other methods, further controlled trials are necessary to estimate the overall efficacy and safety and the role of EUS-GBD with LAMS in management of nonoperative patients with acute cholecystitis.
Topics: Cholecystitis; Cholecystostomy; Drainage; Endosonography; Humans; Self Expandable Metallic Stents; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonography, Interventional
PubMed: 29850458
DOI: 10.1155/2018/7070961 -
Internal Medicine (Tokyo, Japan) Mar 2019We present an extremely rare case of amyloid A (AA) deposition in the gallbladder and review the literature on similar cases. The patient was a 76-year-old man who had...
We present an extremely rare case of amyloid A (AA) deposition in the gallbladder and review the literature on similar cases. The patient was a 76-year-old man who had been diagnosed with mild bronchiectasis three years previously, who was admitted to the hospital with right upper quadrant pain and fever. Computed tomography revealed swelling and wall thickening of the gallbladder with a small gallstone. The patient was diagnosed with acute cholecystitis and cholelithiasis and underwent open cholecystectomy. A postoperative histological examination revealed extensive AA deposition in the gallbladder wall. Thus, the definitive diagnosis was acute cholecystitis with AA amyloidosis.
Topics: Aged; Amyloidosis; Cholecystitis, Acute; Gallbladder Diseases; Gallstones; Humans; Male
PubMed: 30449804
DOI: 10.2169/internalmedicine.1805-18