Single-stage management of choledocholithiasis: intraoperative ERCP versus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

Single stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for cholecysto-choledocholithiasis. Lesson learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction

Choledocholithiasis, a common complication of gallstone disease, poses significant risks including cholangitis and pancreatitis. Various treatment approaches exist, including single-stage and two-stage techniques, with recent literature suggesting advantages of the single-stage approach in terms of outcomes and cost-effectiveness. This study evaluates the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of single-stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (LC + iERCP) compared to the previously adopted two-stage approach.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients undergoing single-stage LC + iERCP for cholecysto-choledocholithiasis during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2022). Data on demographics, preoperative assessments, intraoperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were collected and compared with an historical control group undergoing the two-stage approach (LC + preopERCP). Hospitalization costs were also compared between the two groups.

Results

A total of 190 patients were included, with 105 undergoing single-stage LC + iERCP. The single-stage approach demonstrated successful completion without cystic duct cannulation, with no conversions to open surgery. Operative time was comparable to the two-stage approach, while hospital stay, and costs were significantly lower in the single-stage group. Complication rates were similar between the groups.

Conclusions

Single-stage LC + iERCP appears to be a feasible, effective, and safe approach for treating cholecysto-choledocholithiasis, offering potential benefits in terms of reduced hospital stay, OR occupation time, and costs compared to the two-stage approach. Integration of this approach into clinical practice warrants consideration, unless there are logistical challenges that cannot be overcome or lack of endoscopic expertise also for treating challenging urgent cases.

Recurrence of common bile duct stones after choledocholithotomy in elderly patients: risk factor analysis and clinical prediction model development

Background

The reasons for the recurrence of common bile duct stones (CBDS) in elderly patients after choledocholithotomy are still unclear. This study aims to establish a prediction model for CBDS recurrence by identifying risk factors.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 1804 elderly patients aged 65 years and above who were diagnosed to have CBDS and were admitted to Nanjing First Hospital between January 1, 2010, and January 1, 2021. According to inclusion and exclusion criteria, 706 patients were selected for the final analysis. The patients were assigned to two groups according to the presence or absence of CBDS recurrence, and their clinical data were then statistically analyzed. Subsequently, a prediction model and nomogram were developed, evaluating effectiveness using the concordance index (C-index).

Results

Of the 706 elderly patients, 62 patients experienced CBDS recurrence after surgery, resulting in a recurrence rate of 8.8%. The multivariate Cox analysis showed that prior history of cholecystectomy (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.931, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.051-3.547, p = 0.034), white blood cell (WBC) count ≥11.0 × 109/L (HR = 2.923, 95% CI: 1.723-4.957, p < 0.001), preoperative total bilirubin (TBIL) level ≥ 36.5 mmol/L (HR = 2.172, 95% CI: 1.296-3.639, p = 0.003), number of stones ≥2 (HR = 2.093, 95% CI: 1.592-5.294, p = 0.001), maximum stone diameter ≥ 0.85 cm (HR = 1.940, 95% CI: 1.090-3.452, p = 0.024), and T-tube drainage (HR = 2.718, 95% CI: 1.230-6.010, p = 0.013) were independent risk factors of CBDS recurrence in elderly patients after choledocholithotomy. A postoperative CBDS recurrence prediction model was constructed with a C-index value of 0.758 (95% CI: 0.698-0.818) and internal validation value of 0.758 (95% CI: 0.641-0.875).

Conclusion

A history of cholecystectomy, WBC count ≥11.0 × 109/L, preoperative TBIL level ≥ 36.5 mmol/L, number of stones ≥2, maximum stone diameter ≥ 0.85 cm, and T-tube drainage are the independent risk factors of CBDS recurrence after choledocholithotomy in elderly patients. Our developed prediction model for CBDS recurrence has good predictive ability and can help predict the prognosis of patients with CBDS.

Efficacy analysis of hybrid operating room-based laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the treatment of cholelithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis - A case-control study

Objective

The objective is to compare the therapeutic effects of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in hybrid operating room and ERCP + LC under traditional conditions in the treatment of cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis.

Materials and Methods

Data of 82 patients with cholelithiasis complicated with choledocholithiasis treated by our centre from November 2018 to March 2021 were retrospectively analysed. Amongst them, 40 patients treated with LC combined with intraoperative ERCP in a hybrid operating room were placed into Group A, and 42 patients treated with ERCP first followed by LC under traditional conditions were placed into Group B. The differences in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, surgical success rate, stone clearance rate, pain score, exhaust time, ambulation time, post-operative complications, length of hospital stay, hospitalisation cost and other indicators between the two groups were compared.

Results

There were no significant differences in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, surgical success rate and stone clearance rate between the two groups (P > 0.05), while there were significant differences in post-operative pain score, exhaust time, ambulation time, length of hospital stay, hospitalisation cost and complications (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

LC combined with intraoperative ERCP in hybrid operating room for the treatment of cholelithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis has a better therapeutic effect than traditional ERCP followed by LC, which is worthy of further popularization. Notably, the reasonable selection should be made based on patients' own conditions and hospital facilities.

Comparison of one-stage treatment versus two-stage treatment for the management of patients with common bile duct stones: A meta-analysis

Background

Cholelithiasis is a frequently occurring disease in clinic. Due to changes in people's living environments, dietary habits and the aging population, cholelithiasis incidence is increasing. Currently, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the preferred treatment for gallbladder stones, but the surgical method for patients with choledocholithiasis is controversial. An endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (pERCP) is performed preoperatively, followed by LC as the general treatment method. However, pERCP still has some disadvantages, such as prolonged hospital stay, increased incidence of postoperative pancreatitis, and increased duration of anesthesia. Therefore, intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (iERCP) is proposed.

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of one-stage treatment and two-stage treatment for the management of patients with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis.

Search strategy

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched through October 2022. The search terms include cholangiolithiasis/bile duct stones/calculi, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/ERCP, endoscopic sphincterotomy/EST, laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV), and laparoscopic cholecystectomy/LC.

Selection criteria

For the treatment of patients with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis in adults, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LC with iERCP vs. pERCP followed by LC were conducted.

Data collection and analysis

Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two reviewers. We used Revman version 5.3 to analyze the collected data. The trials were grouped according to the evaluation results such as the overall mortality rate, overall morbidity rate, clearance rate of choledocholithiasis, incidence of pancreatitis, the length of hospitalization, and the length of operation.

Results

9 RCTs (950 participants) were included in this meta-analyses. The overall morbidity rate in LC + iERCP group is lower than that in LC + pERCP group (RR: 0.57, 95% CI = 0.41-0.79, p = 0.0008). The clearance rate of choledocholithiasis in LC + iERCP group was almost the same as that in LC + pERCP group (RR: 1.03, 95% CI = 0.98-1.08, p = 0.28). The incidence of pancreatitis in LC + iERCP group is lower than that in LC + pERCP group (RR: 0.29, 95% CI = 0.13-0.67, p = 0.004). The length of operation of the LC + iERCP group seems to be similar to that of the LC + pERCP group (MD: 16.63 95% CI = -5.98-39.24, p = 0.15). LC + iERCP group has a shorter length of hospitalization than that in LC + pERCP group (MD: -2.68 95% CI = -3.39--1.96, p < 0.00001). LC + iERCP group has lower postoperative second ERCP rate than that in LC + pERCP group (RR: 0.13, 95% CI = 0.03-0.57, p = 0.006).

Conclusion

Our study suggest that LC + iERCP may be a better option than LC + pERCP in the management of patients with both cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis. This procedure can reduce the overall incidence of postoperative complications, especially the occurrence of postoperative pancreatitis. It could shorten the length of hospital stay, reduce postoperative second ERCP rate.

Outcomes following common bile duct exploration versus endoscopic stone extraction before, during and after laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients with common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are two methods of retrieving common bile duct (CBD) stones. The best method for CBD stone removal is debatable. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes following LCBDE and/or ERCP, including laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

Data were collected retrospectively for patients undergoing LCBDE and/or ERCP at a single centre from 2008 to 2018. Patients were grouped by intention-to-treat (single-stage LCBDE, pre-operative-, intra-operative-, or post-operative ERCP) and eventual plan (surgical or endoscopic). Outcomes included complication rates (minor Clavien-Dindo 1/2, major Clavien-Dindo 3/4, non-biliary complications) and mortality.

RESULTS

Of 671 patients, 578 patients received LCBDE and 93 patients received ERCP as primary care. Endoscopic clearance had significantly higher complications and mortality compared to surgical clearance. On an intention-to-treat basis LCBDE had the lowest minor-, major- and non-biliary complications, and mortality (5.2%, 6.1%, 2.9% and 0.5%, respectively), whilst pre-operative ERCP the worst (39.6%, 27.1%, 29.2% and 8.3%, respectively) (p=<0.001). LCBDE and postERCP had similar major complications and mortality.

CONCLUSION

Surgical clearance of CBD stones was potentially safer than endoscopic clearance. Pre-operative ERCP had the worst outcomes. LCBDE and postERCP are likely to have similar short-term patient outcomes.

Common bile duct stones management: A network 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.

Clinical observation of laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or common bile duct lithotripsy

BACKGROUND

The incidence of common bile duct (CBD) stones accounts for approximately 10%–15% of all CBD diseases. Approximately 8%–20% of these patients also have gallstones with heterogenous signs and symptoms.

AIM

To investigate the clinical effects of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and LC with CBD excision and stone extraction in one-stage suture (LBEPS) for the treatment of gallbladder and CBD stones.

METHODS

Ninety-four patients with gallbladder and CBD stones were selected from our hospital from January 2018 to June 2021. They were randomly divided into study and control groups with 47 patients each. The study group underwent LC with ERCP, and the control group underwent LC with LBEPS. Surgery, recovery time of gastrointestinal function, complication rates, liver function indexes, and stress response indexes were measured pre- and postoperatively in both the groups.

RESULTS

The durations of treatment and hospital stay were shorter in the study group than in the control group. There was no significant difference between the one-time stone removal rate between the study and control groups. The time to anal evacuation, resumption of oral feeding, time to bowel sound recovery, and time to defecation were shorter in the study group than in the control group. The preoperative serum direct bilirubin (DBIL), total bilirubin (TBIL), and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels were insignificantly higher in the study group than that in the control group. A day after surgery, the postoperative serum DBIL, TBIL, and ALT levels were lower than their preoperative levels in both groups, and of the two groups, the levels were lower in the study group. Although the preoperative serum adrenocorticotrophic (ACTH), cortisol (COR), epinephrine (A), and norepinephrine (NE) levels were higher in the study group than that in the control group, these differences were not significant (P > 0.05). The serum ACTH, COR, A, and NE levels in both groups decreased one day after surgery compared to the preoperative levels, but the inter-group difference was statistically insignificant. Similarly, (91.79 ± 10.44) ng/mL, A, and NE levels were lower in the study group than in the control group. The incidence of complications was lower in the study group than in the control group.

CONCLUSION

LC combined with ERCP induces only a mild stress response; this procedure can decrease the risk of complications, improve liver function, and achieve and promote a faster recovery of gastrointestinal functions.

Comparison of Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration with Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography for Common Bile Duct Stones After Cholecystectomy

Background: Few studies have focused on the treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones after cholecystectomy, for which optimal treatment options remain unclear. Aims: To compare the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for CBD stone treatment after cholecystectomy. Materials and Methods: A total of 201 patients were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study, of whom 134 with ≤3 stones and a maximum stone diameter of <15 mm were classified as subgroup 1, and 67 with >3 stones or a maximum stone diameter of ≥15 mm were classified as subgroup 2. Perioperative characteristics were also analyzed. Results: ERCP subgroup 1 exhibited a shorter operative time (P < .001), postoperative hospital stay (P < .001), and lower incidence of bile leakage (P = .034) than LCBDE subgroup 1. ERCP subgroup 2 exhibited a shorter operative time (P < .001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (P < .001) than LCBDE subgroup 2. However, LCBDE subgroup 2 exhibited a greater rate of complete stone removal (P = .044) and a lower incidence of acute pancreatitis (P = .037) than ERCP subgroup 2. Conclusions: For treatment of CBD stones after cholecystectomy, ERCP was superior in cases involving ≤3 stones and a maximum stone diameter of <15 mm. Among those with >3 stones or maximum stone diameter of ≥15 mm, LCBDE demonstrated certain advantages.

Destiny for Rendezvous: Is Cholecysto/Choledocholithiasis Better Treated with Dual- or Single-Step Procedures?

Biliary lithiasis is common worldwide, affecting almost 20% of the general population, though few experience symptoms. The frequency of choledocholithiasis in patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis is estimated to be 10-33%, depending on patients' age. Unlike gallbladder lithiasis, the medical and surgical treatment of common bile duct stones is uncertain, having changed over the last few years. The prior gold standard treatment for cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis was open cholecystectomy with bile duct clearance, choledochotomy, and/or surgical sphincterotomy. In the last 10-15 years, new treatment approaches to the complex pathology of choledocholithiasis have emerged with the advent of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), laparoscopic surgery, and advanced diagnostic procedures. Although ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the preferred mode of management, a single-step strategy (laparo-endoscopic rendezvous) has gained acceptance due to lesser morbidity and a lower risk of iatrogenic damage. Given the above, a tailored approach relying on careful evaluation of the disease is necessary in order to minimize complication risks and overall costs. Yet, the debate remains open, with no consensus on the superiority of laparo-endoscopic rendezvous to more conventional approaches.

Comparison of intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy for treating gallstones and common bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (LC-IntraERCP) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC-LCBDE) to determine which one-stage therapeutic strategy provides better outcomes for patients with gallstones and common bile duct stones.

METHODS

Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify eligible articles from the database inception to September 2020. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tools for randomized trials (RoB-2) and non-randomized interventions (ROBINS-I) was used to assess the quality of the included studies. The overall quality of evidence was assessed through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. The primary outcomes consisted of surgical success, retained stones, and overall postoperative complications, while secondary outcomes included postoperative bleeding, postoperative pancreatitis, postoperative bile leakage, conversion to laparotomy, and operative time.

RESULTS

Eight studies (four RCTs and four Non-RCTs with high quality) with 2948 patients were included. No significant difference was seen between the two groups regarding surgical success, overall postoperative complications, conversion to laparotomy, and operative time. The meta-analysis demonstrated that in the LC-IntraERCP group, the rate of retained stones (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.28-0.91) and postoperative bile leakage were lower (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09-0.69), while in the LC-LCBDE group, postoperative bleeding (OR 5.24, 95% CI 1.65-16.65) and postoperative pancreatitis (OR 4.80, 95% CI 2.35-9.78) decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

LC-IntraERCP and LC-LCBDE exhibited similar efficacies when surgical success rate, overall postoperative complications, conversion to laparotomy, and operative time were compared. However, LC-IntraERCP is probably to be more effective in terms of lowering the rate of retained stones.

Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for the patients with difficult biliary stones: 8 years of experiences at a single institution and literature review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has gained wide popularity for the treatment of choledocholithiasis. However, it remains unclear whether LCBDE is a better alternative option for the patients with difficult biliary stones. Thus, the aim of the present study was to explore the safety and efficacy of LCBDE for these patients by retrospectively analyzing our data and combing with literature review.

METHODS

Between September 2011 and February 2019, 1064 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE at Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital were reviewed. The clinical data of patients with difficult biliary stones were selected and retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Of these patients, 334 cases were confirmed with difficult biliary stones, and the overall complete stone clearance rate was 98.8% (330/334). 34 cases (10.2%) were performed with laser lithotripsy. A total of 296 patients (88.6%) underwent primary closure of common bile duct, and T-tube drainage was indwelled in 38 patients (11.4%). No bile duct injury, bleeding, perforation and surgery-related deaths were observed. The overall morbidity rate was 6.6%. 16 cases (4.8%) occurred in bile leakage with primary closure procedure, and all of them were managed successfully with conservative therapy. The median follow-up period was 9 months with stone recurrence occurring in 9 patients (2.7%). There was no evidence of bile duct stricture in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study suggests that LCBED is a considerable safe and effective option for the patients with difficult biliary stones. A randomized clinical trial is needed to further evaluate the benefit of LCBDE in this subgroup.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration versus intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with gallbladder and common bile duct stones: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCBDE + LC) with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (IO-ERCP + LC) for the treatment of gallbladder and common bile duct (CBD) stones.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane Library from their inception dates to April 2020, for studies that compared the efficacy and safety of LCBDE + LC with those of IO-ERCP + LC in patients with gallbladder and CBD stones. The technical success, morbidity, major morbidity, biliary leak, postoperative pancreatitis, conversion, retained stones, operative time, and postoperative hospital stay were compared between these two approaches.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials involving 860 patients were evaluated. Overall, no significant difference was found between LCBDE + LC and IO-ERCP + LC regarding technical success, morbidity, major morbidity, and the conversion rate. Biliary leak and retained stones were significantly more prevalent in the LCBDE + LC group, while postoperative pancreatitis was significantly more prevalent in the IO-ERCP + LC group.

CONCLUSIONS

LCBDE + LC and IO-ERCP + LC have similar efficacy and safety in terms of technical success, morbidity, major morbidity, and conversion rate. However, LCBDE + LC is associated with a higher biliary leak rate, lower postoperative pancreatitis rate, and higher rate of retained stones.

Laparoendoscopic rendezvous versus ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis: a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The ideal management for patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis is still controversial. Laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV), combined with laparoscopy and endoscopy, is a novel and attractive technique. The aim of this research was to compare LERV with traditional two-stage management, preoperative ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP + LC), for treating patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis.

METHOD

Four databases, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Medline, all updated to through September 2019, were searched to identify comparative studies on LERV versus ERCP + LC for treating cholecystocholedocholithiasis. Total operative time, successful common bile duct (CBD) stone clearance, postoperative morbidity, conversion to other procedures, and length of hospital stay were evaluated. Pooled data were measured by odds ratios (ORs) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Eight studies with a total of 1061 patients were included in this meta-analysis, including 542 patients who received LERV and 519 patients who received ERCP + LC. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding successful CBD stone clearance (OR 2.20, P = 0.10), postoperative bleeding (OR 0.67, P = 0.37), postoperative cholangitis (OR 0.66, P = 0.53), postoperative bile leak (OR 0.87, P = 0.81), or conversion to other procedures (OR 0.75, P = 0.62). The total operative time was longer in the LERV group (MD = 44.93, P < 0.00001), while LERV was associated with less postoperative pancreatitis than the two-stage management group (OR 0.26, P = 0.0003). The incidence of overall morbidity was lower in the LERV group than in the two-stage management group (OR 0.41, P < 0.0001), and the LERV group had a shorter hospital stay (MD = - 3.52, P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

LERV is equivalent to traditional two-stage procedures in terms of CBD stone clearance and conversion, with less pancreatitis, lower overall morbidity, and shorter hospital stay but longer operation time. More clinical trials are needed to determine the best treatment for patients in different conditions.

Evidence-Based Management of Calculous Biliary Disease for the Acute Care Surgeon

Background: Gallstones and cholecystitis are common clinical problems. There is a wide spectrum of disease severity, from rare symptoms of biliary colic to severe cholecystitis with marked gallbladder infection and inflammation that can cause life-threatening sepsis. The care of such patients is similarly varied and multi-disciplinary. Despite the prevalence of cholecystitis, there remain questions about how to manage patients appropriately. Methods: A multi-disciplinary team created institutional cholecystitis guidelines, and supporting evidence was compiled for review. Results: Even in "routine" cholecystitis, patient triage and work-up can be variable, resulting in unnecessary tests and delay to cholecystectomy. Beyond this, there are new treatment options available that may serve special populations particularly well, although the appropriate pattern of emerging endoscopic and percutaneous treatment modalities is not well defined. Conclusions: This review outlines evidence-based management of cholecystitis from diagnosis to treatment with a focused discussion of special populations and emerging therapies.