Dataset Information

Transvaginal cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallbladder disease: A meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: To compare the results of transvaginal cholecystectomy (TVC) and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) for gallbladder disease.We performed a literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, MetaRegister of Controlled Trials, Chinese Medical Journal database and Wanfang Data for trials comparing outcomes between TVC and CLC. Data were extracted by two authors. Mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD), odds ratios and risk rate with 95%CIs were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated with the ?(2) test. The fixed-effects model was used in the absence of statistically significant heterogeneity. The random-effects model was chosen when heterogeneity was found.There were 730 patients in nine controlled clinical trials. No significant difference was found regarding demographic characteristics (P > 0.5), including anesthetic risk score, age, body mass index, and abdominal surgical history between the TVC and CLC groups. Both groups had similar mortality, morbidity, and return to work after surgery. Patients in the TVC group had a lower pain score on postoperative day 1 (SMD: -0.957, 95%CI: -1.488 to -0.426, P < 0.001), needed less postoperative analgesic medication (SMD: -0.574, 95%CI: -0.807 to -0.341, P < 0.001) and stayed for a shorter time in hospital (MD: -1.004 d, 95%CI: -1.779 to 0.228, P = 0.011), but had longer operative time (MD: 17.307 min, 95%CI: 6.789 to 27.826, P = 0.001). TVC had no significant influence on postoperative sexual function and quality of life. Better cosmetic results and satisfaction were achieved in the TVC group.TVC is safe and effective for gallbladder disease. However, vaginal injury might occur, and further trials are needed to compare TVC with CLC.

SUBMITTER: Xu B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4419081 | biostudies-other | 2015 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Transvaginal cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallbladder disease: A meta-analysis.

Xu Bin B Xu Bo B Zheng Wen-Yan WY Ge Hai-Yan HY Wang Li-Wei LW Song Zhen-Sun ZS He Bin B

World journal of gastroenterology 20150501 17

<h4>Aim</h4>To compare the results of transvaginal cholecystectomy (TVC) and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) for gallbladder disease.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, MetaRegister of Controlled Trials, Chinese Medical Journal database and Wanfang Data for trials comparing outcomes between TVC and CLC. Data were extracted by two authors. Mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD ...[more]

PMID: 25954114

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceRobotic-assisted cholecystectomy is rapidly being adopted into practice, partly based on the belief that it offers specific technical and safety advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery. Whether robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is safer than laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains unclear.ObjectiveTo determine the uptake of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy and to analyze its comparative safety vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used Medicare administrative claims data for nonfederal acute care hospitals from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019. Participants included 1 026 088 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries 66 to 99 years of age who underwent cholecystectomy with continuous Medicare coverage for 3 months before and 12 months after surgery. Data were analyzed August 17, 2022, to June 1, 2023.ExposureSurgical technique used to perform cholecystectomy: robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic approaches.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was rate of bile duct injury requiring definitive surgical reconstruction within 1 year after cholecystectomy. Secondary outcomes were composite outcome of bile duct injury requiring less-invasive postoperative surgical or endoscopic biliary interventions, and overall incidence of 30-day complications. Multivariable logistic analysis was performed adjusting for patient factors and clustered within hospital referral regions. An instrumental variable analysis was performed, leveraging regional variation in the adoption of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy within hospital referral regions over time, to account for potential confounding from unmeasured differences between treatment groups.ResultsA total of 1 026 088 patients (mean [SD] age, 72 [12.0] years; 53.3% women) were included in the study. The use of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy increased 37-fold from 211 of 147 341 patients (0.1%) in 2010 to 6507 of 125 211 patients (5.2%) in 2019. Compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy, robotic-assisted cholecystectomy was associated with a higher rate of bile duct injury necessitating a definitive operative repair within 1 year (0.7% vs 0.2%; relative risk [RR], 3.16 [95% CI, 2.57-3.75]). Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy was also associated with a higher rate of postoperative biliary interventions, such as endoscopic stenting (7.4% vs 6.0%; RR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.16-1.33]). There was no significant difference in overall 30-day complication rates between the 2 procedures. The instrumental variable analysis, which was designed to account for potential unmeasured differences in treatment groups, also showed that robotic-assisted cholecystectomy was associated with a higher rate of bile duct injury (0.4% vs 0.2%; RR, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.14-2.63]).Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study's finding of significantly higher rates of bile duct injury with robotic-assisted cholecystectomy compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy suggests that the utility of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy should be reconsidered, given the existence of an already minimally invasive, predictably safe laparoscopic approach.

Project description:BackgroundIntraoperative laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) or intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) can be used for visualisation of the biliary tract during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The aim of this systematic review was to compare use of LUS with IOC.MethodsPubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched (last update: April 2024). PICO: P = patients undergoing intraoperative imaging of the biliary tree during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallstone disease; I = intervention: LUS; C = comparison: IOC; O = outcomes: mortality, bile duct injury, retained gallstone, conversion to open cholecystectomy, procedural failure, operation time including imaging time. Included articles were critically appraised using checklists. Conclusions were based on studies without major risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects models. Certainty of evidence was assessed according to GRADE.ResultsSixteen non-randomised studies met the PICO. Two before/after studies (594 versus 807 patients) contributed to conclusions regarding mortality (no events; very low certainty evidence), bile duct injury (1 versus 0 events; very low certainty evidence), retained gallstone (2 versus 2 events; very low certainty evidence), and conversion to open cholecystectomy (6 versus 21 events; risk ratio: 0.38 (95% confidence interval: 0.15-0.95); I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). Seven additional studies, using intra-individual comparisons, contributed to conclusions regarding procedural failure; risk ratio: 1.12 (95% confidence interval: 0.70-1.78; I2 = 83%; very low certainty evidence). No studies reported operation time. Mean imaging time for LUS and IOC, reported in 12 studies, was 4.8‒10.2 versus 10.9‒17.9 min (mean difference: - 7.8 min (95% confidence interval: - 9.3 to - 6.3); I2 = 95%; moderate certainty evidence).ConclusionIt is uncertain whether there is any difference in mortality/bile duct injury/retained gallstone using LUS compared with IOC, but LUS may be associated with fewer conversions to open cholecystectomy and is probably associated with shorter imaging time.

Project description:BackgroundSevere adhesions and fibrosis between the posterior wall of the gallbladder and liver bed often render total cholecystectomy after percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) difficult, leading to high open conversion rates. Since the publication of Tokyo Guidelines 2018 (TG18), our policy has shifted from open conversion to subtotal cholecystectomy (SC) when total laparoscopic cholecystectomy for difficult cases of cholecystitis is not feasible. Recently, SC has been frequently applied as bailout surgery for complicated cholecystitis. Nonetheless, the efficacy and validity of laparoscopic SC after PTGBD remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic SC after PTGBD for grade II or III acute cholecystitis (AC) by comparing two periods of altered surgical strategies.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted between January 2013 and December 2020. A total of 44 eligible patients with grade II or III AC were divided according to the time of cholecystitis onset into the pre-TG18 group (2013-2017, n = 17) and post-TG18 group (2018-2020, n = 27). Patients' background demographics, surgical method, surgical results, and postoperative complications were compared.ResultsThe interval between PTGBD and surgery was significantly longer in the post-TG18 group than in the pre-TG18 group (15 [interquartile range: 9-42] days vs. 8 [4-11] days; P = 0.010). The frequency of laparoscopic cholecystectomy significantly increased from 52.9% in the pre-TG18 group to 88.9% in the post-TG18 group (P = 0.007), whereas the frequency of SC was 23.5% and 40.7%, respectively, which showed no statistically significant difference (P = 0.241). However, the rate of laparoscopic SC significantly increased from 0 to 90.9% among 15 SC cases, whereas the rate of open SC significantly plummeted from 100 to 9.1% (P = 0.001). Significant differences in the operative time, amount of intraoperative bleeding, and incidence of postoperative complications (wound infection and subhepatic abscess) were not observed. Mortality, bile leakage, and bile duct injury did not occur in either group.ConclusionsFor grade II or III AC after PTGBD, aggressive adoption of SC increased the completion rate of laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic SC is a safe and feasible treatment option.

Dataset Information

Transvaginal cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallbladder disease: A meta-analysis.

Publications

Transvaginal cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallbladder disease: A meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets