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

Day case laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a review of patient selection factors and identification of potential barriers to same-day discharge

BACKGROUND

Day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy (DCLC) is a useful tool for minimizing hospital admissions and prolonged presurgical wait times in suitable patient cohorts. There have been many international studies to support this finding and an increasing interest has grown in implementation in Australia. This review aims to provide clarity how to best implement this tool in gallbladder disease patient demographic.

OBSERVATIONS

This literature review evaluates studies on day-case cholecystectomy procedures, focusing on patient factors, procedural aspects, surgical morbidity, and systemic implications. It explores inclusion and exclusion criteria for day-case suitability, factors influencing same-day discharge, reasons for hospital admission, pain management, patient quality of life, patient satisfaction, and cost implications.

CONCLUSIONS

DCLC, when selected judiciously, is a safe alternative to overnight stay procedures for cholecystectomy with comparable surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction, affirming its viability. Strict patient selection criteria can aid in optimizing the successful implementation procedure, reducing unexpected admissions and readmissions and we have demonstrated useful criteria for guidance in establishing day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy protocol at a hospital.

Day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the management of gallbladder disease: a literature review

BACKGROUND

Day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy (DCLC) has gained traction globally due to its benefits, including shorter hospital stays, reduced costs, and enhanced patient experience. While concerns about patient safety, particularly related to bleeding and bile duct injury persist, the literature supports the efficacy and advantages of DCLC highlighting the need for its wider adoption in healthcare settings to optimise resources and improve patient outcomes.

METHODS

This was a literature review that aims to assess the feasibility and safety of day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstone patients, focusing on incidence and aetiology of unexpected admissions and readmissions, as well as conversion-to-open rates. PubMed was searched for all studies focusing on DCLC between 2014 and 2024. The timeframe was specifically selected to identify recent trends and practices in this evolving field. By focusing on this specific period, the review aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of current practices, emerging trends, and the evolving standard of care in this area.

RESULTS

This review highlights that the main causes of unexpected admission post DCLC were postoperative nausea, vomiting, and pain, while the implementation of anaesthetic pathways notably increased day-case rates. Studies addressing complication rates postoperatively consistently found no significant difference between day-case and in-patient procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

DCLC for symptomatic gallstone patients is supported by research as safe and effective, with high success rates and patient satisfaction. Studies show minimal complications and acceptable readmission rates, suggesting that DCLC can be the standard approach for selective patients, improving outcomes and healthcare efficiency.

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.