Randomised Controlled Trial of Day-Case Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy vs Routine Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis of predictors of failure

BACKGROUND

Outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy has proven to be a safe and cost-effective technique; however, it is not yet a universally widespread procedure. The aim of the study was to determine the predictive factors of outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy failure.

METHOD

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis methodology. MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Ovid, and ISRCTN Registry were searched. The main variables were demographic (age, sex), clinical (weight, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, previous complicated biliary pathology, history of abdominal surgery in supramesocolic compartment, gallbladder wall thickness), and surgical factors (operative time, afternoon surgery). The secondary variables were the prevalence rates of outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy failure due to pain or postoperative nausea and vomiting.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies (4,194 patients) were included, with a mean outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy failure rate of 23.4%. The predictors of outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy failure were: age ≥65 years (odds ratio: 2.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-3.86; P = .0009), body mass index ≥30 (odds ratio: 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-2.45; P = .03), American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≥III (odds ratio: 2.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.72-4.87; P < .0001), previous complicated biliary pathology (odds ratio: 2.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-4.06; P = .001), gallbladder wall thickening (odds ratio: 2.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-4.04; P = .003), surgical time exceeding 60 minutes (mean difference: -16.03; 95% confidence interval,-21.25 to -10.81; P < .00001), and the beginning of surgery after 1:00 pm (odds ratio: 4.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.97-11.96; P = .007). Sex (odds ratio: 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.57, P = .73) and history of abdominal surgery in the supramesocolic compartment (odds ratio: 2.32; 95 confidence interval, 0.92-5.82, P = .07) were not associated with outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy failure.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis allowed us to identify the predictors of outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy failure. The knowledge of these factors could help surgeons in their decision-making process for the selection of patients who are suitable for outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

The Safety of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in the Day Surgery Unit Comparing with That in the Inpatient Unit: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed in the day surgery unit versus those performed in the inpatient unit. Several databases including Ovid Embase, Medline Ovid, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched from inception through February 2019. Our results revealed that laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be conducted safely and effectively in day surgery units, helping bed shortage.

Measurement of patient-reported outcomes after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (PROMs) are increasingly used as endpoints in surgical trials. PROs need to be consistently measured and reported to accurately evaluate surgical care. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is a commonly performed procedure which may be evaluated by PROs. We aimed to evaluate the frequency and consistency of PRO measurement and reporting after LC.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for prospective studies reporting PROs of LC, between 2013 and 2016. Data on the measurement and reporting of PROs were extracted.

RESULTS

A total of 281 studies were evaluated. Forty-five unique multi-item questionnaires were identified, most of which were used in single studies (n = 35). One hundred and ten unique rating scales were used to assess 358 PROs. The visual analogue scale was used to assess 24 different PROs, 17 of which were only reported in single studies. Details about the type of rating scale used were not given for 72 scales. Three hundred and twenty-three PROs were reported in 162 studies without details given about the scale or questionnaire used to evaluate them.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable variation was identified in the choice of PROs reported after LC, and in how they were measured. PRO measurement for LC is focused on short-term outcomes, such as post-operative pain, rather than longer-term outcomes. Consideration should be given towards the development of a core outcome set for LC which incorporates PROs.