Comparison of clinical safety and outcomes of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zhou MW
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4123505 | biostudies-other | 2014
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAlthough 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).ObjectivesWe 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.MethodsThe 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.Results21 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, p < 0.0001) and incidence of postoperative complications (OR: 0.7548; 95%CI: 0.6197-0.9192; z = -2.80, p = 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, p < 0.0001).ConclusionELC 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 registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=389238, identifier (CRD42023389238).
| S-EPMC10750350 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is an important approach of treating acute cholecystitis and the timing of performing this given treatment is associated with clinical outcomes. Although several meta-analyses have been done to investigate the optimal timing of implementing this treatment, the conflicting findings from these meta-analyses still confuse decision-making. And thus, we performed this systematic review to assess discordant meta-analyses and generate conclusive findings to facilitate informed decision-making in clinical context eventually. We electronically searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE to include meta-analysis comparing early (within 7 days of the onset of symptoms) with delayed LC (at least 1 week after initial conservative treatment) for acute cholecystitis through August 2015. Two independent investigators completed all tasks including scanning and appraising eligibility, abstracting essential information using prespecified extraction form, assessing methodological quality using Oxford Levels of Evidence and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool, and assessing the reporting quality using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), as well as implementing Jadad algorithm in each step for the whole process. A heterogeneity degree of ≤50% is accepted. Seven eligible meta-analyses were included eventually. Only one was Level I of evidence and remaining studies were Level II of evidence. The AMSTAR scores varied from 8 to 11 with a median of 9. The PRISMA scores varied from 19 to 26. The most heterogeneity level fell into the desired criteria. After implementing Jadad algorithm, 2 meta-analyses with more eligible RCTs were selected based on search strategies and implication of selection. The best available evidence indicated a nonsignificant difference in mortality, bile duct injury, bile leakage, overall complications, and conversion to open surgery, but a significant reduction in wound infection, hospitalization, and operation duration and improvement of the quality of life when compared early LC with delayed LC. However, number of work days lost, hospital costs, and patient satisfaction are warranted to be assessed further. With the best available evidence, we recommend early LC to be as the standard treatment option in treating acute cholecystitis.
| S-EPMC4907666 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is an endoscopic technique whereby surgical interventions can be performed with a flexible endoscope passed through a natural orifice (mouth, vulva, urethra, anus) then through a transluminal opening of the stomach, vagina, bladder, or colon. Although in the early stage of research and development, NOTES has been clinically applied across the globe, above all the transvaginal cholecystectomy is among the most frequently performed procedures. In the existing 2 types of transvaginal routes, the hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy (NC) is more likely to be accepted. However, there has been controversy regarding the safety outcomes of hybrid NC in comparison with classical laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The primary objective of this meta-analysis is to compare the characteristics between NC and classical LC.A meta-analysis of eligible studies comparing NC with classical LC was performed to evaluate the safety outcomes including wound complications, other postoperative complications and intraoperative conversion between the 2 groups.Pooling 3 randomized controlled trials (n=157) and 7 nonrandomized trial (n=593) demonstrated that the rates of wound complications and other postoperative complications in NC group did not significantly differ from those of classical LC group [wound complications: ratio difference (RD)=-0.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04to 0.01, P=0.23; other postoperative complication: RD=-0.01; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.02; P=0.6]. The intraoperative conversion rate in NC groups was higher than that of LC groups (RD=0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.06; P=0.02).There is no significate difference between the safety of NC and laparoscope cholecystectomy. NC is associated with a higher rate of intraoperative conversion when compared with LC. It is worthy of further promotion and validation in clinical settings.
| S-EPMC5054957 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundAcute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) is a common disease across the world and is associated with significant socioeconomic costs. Although contemporary guidelines support the role of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC), there is significant variation among units adopting it as standard practice. There are many resource implications of providing a service whereby cholecystectomies for acute cholecystitis can be performed safely.MethodsStudies that incorporated an economic analysis comparing early with delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (DLC) for acute cholecystitis were identified by means of a systematic review. A meta-analysis was performed on those cost evaluations. The quality of economic valuations contained therein was evaluated using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) analysis score.ResultsSix studies containing cost analyses were included in the meta-analysis with 1128 patients. The median healthcare cost of ELC versus DLC was €4400 and €6004 respectively. Five studies had adequate data for pooled analysis. The standardized mean difference between ELC and DLC was -2·18 (95 per cent c.i. -3·86 to -0·51; P = 0·011; I 2 = 98·7 per cent) in favour of ELC. The median QHES score for the included studies was 52·17 (range 41-72), indicating overall poor-to-fair quality.ConclusionEconomic evaluations within clinical trials favour ELC for ACC. The limited number and poor quality of economic evaluations are noteworthy.
| S-EPMC6433303 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The objective of this study was to review the available prospective, randomized, controlled trials to determine whether an early (ELC) or a delayed (DLC) approach to a laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with an increase in length of hospitalization after acute cholecystitis.Medline, the Cochrane Trials Register and EMBASE were searched for prospective, randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ELC versus DLC, published up to May 2014. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.0.Nine RCTs were included in a total of 617 who underwent ELC and 603 patients who underwent DLC after acute cholecystitis. The mean hospital stay was 5.4 days in the ELC group and 9.1 days in the DLC group. The meta-analysis showed a mean hospital stay significantly lower in the ELC group [medical doctor (MD) = 3.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.95-4.54, P < 0.001]. The major biliary duct injury rate in the ELC group was 0.8% (2/247) and 0.9% (2/223) in the DLC group. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the ELC and DLC groups [relative risk (RR) =0.96, 95%CI = 0.25-3.73, P = 0.950].DLC is associated with a longer total hospital stay but equivalent morbidity as compared to ELC for patients presenting with acute cholecystitis. ELC would appear to be the treatment of choice for patients presenting with ELC.
| S-EPMC4571752 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundAcute cholecystitis occurs frequently in the elderly and in patients with gall stones. Most cases of severe or recurrent cholecystitis eventually require surgery, usually laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the Western World. It is unclear whether an initial, conservative approach with antibiotic and symptomatic therapy followed by delayed elective surgery would result in better morbidity and outcome than immediate surgery. At present, treatment is generally determined by whether the patient first sees a surgeon or a gastroenterologist. We wish to investigate whether both approaches are equivalent. The primary endpoint is the morbidity until day 75 after inclusion into the study.DesignA multicenter, prospective, randomized non-blinded study to compare treatment outcome, complications and 75-day morbidity in patients with acute cholecystitis randomized to laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 24 hours of symptom onset or antibiotic treatment with moxifloxacin and subsequent elective cholecystectomy. For consistency in both arms moxifloxacin, a fluorquinolone with broad spectrum of activity and high bile concentration is used as antibiotic.DurationOctober 2006 - November 2008.Organisation/responsibilityThe trial was planned and is being conducted and analysed by the Departments of Gastroenterology and General Surgery at the University Hospital of Heidelberg according to the ethical, regulatory and scientific principles governing clinical research as set out in the Declaration of Helsinki (1989) and the Good Clinical Practice guideline (GCP).Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00447304.
| S-EPMC2098782 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrevious meta-analyses that compared the outcome of SILC and CLC have not presented consistent conclusions. This meta-analysis was performed after adding many recent RCTs, to clarify this issue.MethodsRelevant articles published in English were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register from January 1997 to February 2013. Reference lists of the retrieved articles were reviewed to identify additional articles. Primary outcomes (postoperative pain scores, cosmetic score, and length of incision) and secondary outcomes (operating time, blood loss, conversion rates, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, time to initial oral intake, and time to resume work) were pooled. Quantitative variables were calculated using the weighted mean difference (WMD), and qualitative variables were pooled using odds ratios (OR).Results25 appropriate RCTs were identified from 2128 published articles. 1841 patients were treated, 944 with SILC and 897 with CLC. SILC was superior to CLC in cosmetic score (WMD = 1.155, P<0.001), shorter length of incision (WMD = -3.285, P = 0.029), and postoperative pain within 12 h (VAS in 3-4 h, WMD = -0.704, P = 0.026; VAS in 6-8 h, WMD = -0.613, P = 0.010). CLC was superior to SILC in operating time (OT) (WMD = 13.613, P<0.001) and need of additional instruments (OR = 7.448, P<0.001). Other secondary outcomes were similar.ConclusionsSILC offered a better cosmetic result and less postoperative pain for patients with uncomplicated cholelithiasis or polypoid lesions of the gallbladder. However, SILC was associated with a longer OT and required additional instruments.
| S-EPMC3788730 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether laparoscopic cholecystectomy is superior to percutaneous catheter drainage in high risk patients with acute calculous cholecystitis.DesignMulticentre, randomised controlled, superiority trial.Setting11 hospitals in the Netherlands, February 2011 to January 2016.Participants142 high risk patients with acute calculous cholecystitis were randomly allocated to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n=66) or to percutaneous catheter drainage (n=68). High risk was defined as an acute physiological assessment and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) score of 7 or more.Main outcome measuresThe primary endpoints were death within one year and the occurrence of major complications, defined as infectious and cardiopulmonary complications within one month, need for reintervention (surgical, radiological, or endoscopic that had to be related to acute cholecystitis) within one year, or recurrent biliary disease within one year.ResultsThe trial was concluded early after a planned interim analysis. The rate of death did not differ between the laparoscopic cholecystectomy and percutaneous catheter drainage group (3% v 9%, P=0.27), but major complications occurred in eight of 66 patients (12%) assigned to cholecystectomy and in 44 of 68 patients (65%) assigned to percutaneous drainage (risk ratio 0.19, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 0.37; P<0.001). In the drainage group 45 patients (66%) required a reintervention compared with eight patients (12%) in the cholecystectomy group (P<0.001). Recurrent biliary disease occurred more often in the percutaneous drainage group (53% v 5%, P<0.001), and the median length of hospital stay was longer (9 days v 5 days, P<0.001).ConclusionLaparoscopic cholecystectomy compared with percutaneous catheter drainage reduced the rate of major complications in high risk patients with acute cholecystitis.Trial registrationDutch Trial Register NTR2666.
| S-EPMC6174331 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Routine drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy is still controversial. This meta-analysis was performed to assess the role of drains in reducing complications in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS:An electronic search of Medline, Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library database from January 1990 to June 2013 was performed to identify randomized clinical trials that compare prophylactic drainage with no drainage in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The odds ratio for qualitative variables and standardized mean difference for continuous variables were calculated. RESULTS:Twelve randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis, involving 1939 patients randomized to a drain (960) versus no drain (979). The morbidity rate was lower in the no drain group (odds ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.26 to 3.10; P = .003). The wound infection rate was lower in the no drain group (odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.22 to 4.51; P = .01). Abdominal pain 24 hours after surgery was less severe in the no drain group (standardized mean difference, 2.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.27 to 3.34; P < .0001). No significant difference was present with respect to the presence and quantity of subhepatic fluid collection, shoulder tip pain, parenteral ketorolac consumption, nausea, vomiting, and hospital stay. CONCLUSION:This study was unable to prove that drains were useful in reducing complications in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
| S-EPMC4266231 | biostudies-other
Project description:Emergency general surgery (EGS) accounts for 50% of the surgical workload, and yet outcomes are variable and poorly recorded. The management of acute cholecystitis (AC) at a dedicated emergency surgical unit (ESU) was assessed as a performance target for EGS.The outcomes for AC admissions were compared one year before and after inception of the ESU. The impact on cost and compliance with national guidance recommending early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC) within seven days of diagnosis was assessed.The overall ELC rate increased from 26% for the 126 patients admitted in the pre-ESU period to 45% for the 152 patients admitted in the post-ESU period (p=0.001). With those unsuitable for ELC excluded, the ELC rate increased from 34% to 82% (p<0.001). The proportion of patients precluded from ELC for avoidable reasons, particularly owing to 'surgeon preference/skill', was reduced from 69% to 18% (p<0.001). The mean total length of stay (LOS) and postoperative LOS fell by 1.7 days (from 8.3 to 6.6 days, p=0.040) and 2 days (from 5.6 to 3.6 days, p=0.020) respectively. The higher ELC rate and the reduction in LOS produced additional tariff income (£111,930) and estimated savings in bed day (£90,440) and readmission (£27,252) costs.A dedicated ESU incorporating national recommendations for EGS improves alignment of best practice with best evidence and can also result in financial rewards for a busy district general hospital.
| S-EPMC5210487 | biostudies-other