Overview of therapeutic modalities for the treatment of gallstone diseases

Intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation versus no intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Pain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Use of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic for laparoscopic cholecystectomy may be a way of reducing pain. A previous version of this Cochrane Review found very low-certainty evidence on the benefits and harms of the intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of intraperitoneal instillation of local anaesthetic agents in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases to 19 January 2021 together with reference checking of studies retrieved. We also searched five online clinical trials registries to identify unpublished or ongoing trials to 10 September 2021. We contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We only considered randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, publication status, or relevance of outcome measure) comparing local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation versus placebo, no intervention, or inactive control during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, for the review. We excluded non-randomised studies, and studies where the method of allocating participants to a treatment was not strictly random (e.g. date of birth, hospital record number, or alternation).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected the data independently. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, pain, return to activity and work, and non-serious adverse events. The analysis included both fixed-effect and random-effects models using RevManWeb. We performed subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of bias using predefined domains, graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE, and presented outcome results in a summary of findings table.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-five completed trials were included, of which 76 trials contributed data to one or more of the outcomes. This included a total of 4957 participants randomised to intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation (2803 participants) and control (2154 participants). Most trials only included participants undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy and those who were at low anaesthetic risk (ASA I and II). The most commonly used local anaesthetic agent was bupivacaine. Methods of instilling the local anaesthetic varied considerably between trials; this included location and timing of application. The control groups received 0.9% normal saline (69 trials), no intervention (six trials), or sterile water (two trials). One trial did not specify the control agent used. None of the trials provided information on follow-up beyond point of discharge from hospital. Only two trials were at low risk of bias. Seven trials received external funding, of these three were assessed to be at risk of conflicts of interest, a further 17 trials declared no funding. We are very uncertain about the effect intraperitoneal local anaesthetic versus control on mortality; zero mortalities in either group (8 trials; 446 participants; very low-certainty evidence); serious adverse events (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.34); 13 trials; 988 participants; discharge on same day of surgery (RR 1.43; 95% CI 0.64 to 3.20; 3 trials; 242 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found that intraperitoneal local anaesthetic probably results in a small reduction in length of hospital stay (MD -0.10 days; 95% CI -0.18 to -0.01; 12 trials; 936 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No trials reported data on health-related quality of life, return to normal activity or return to work. Pain scores, as measured by visual analogue scale (VAS), were lower in the intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation group compared to the control group at both four to eight hours (MD -0.99 cm VAS; 95% CI -1.19 to -0.79; 57 trials; 4046 participants; low-certainty of evidence) and nine to 24 hours (MD -0.68 cm VAS; 95% CI -0.88 to -0.49; 52 trials; 3588 participants; low-certainty of evidence). In addition, we found two trials that were still ongoing, and one trial that was completed but with no published results. All three trials are registered on the WHO trial register.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are very uncertain about the effect estimate of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic for laparoscopic cholecystectomy on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and proportion of patients discharged on the same day of surgery because the certainty of evidence was very low. Due to inadequate reporting, we cannot exclude an increase in adverse events. We found that intraperitoneal local anaesthetic probably results in a small reduction in length of stay in hospital after surgery. We found that intraperitoneal local anaesthetic may reduce pain at up to 24 hours for low-risk patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Future randomised clinical trials should be at low risk of systematic and random errors, should fully report mortality and side effects, and should focus on clinical outcomes such as quality of life.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis 2016

Cholelithiasis is one of the commonest diseases in gastroenterology. Remarkable improvements in therapeutic modalities for cholelithiasis and its complications are evident. The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology has revised the evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis. Forty-three clinical questions, for four categories-epidemiology and pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatments, and prognosis and complications-were selected, and a literature search was performed for the clinical questions with use of the MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases for the period between 1983 and June 2012. The guidelines were developed with use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. This article preferentially describes the clinical management of cholelithiasis and its complications. Following description of the diagnosis performed stepwise through imaging modalities, treatments of cholecystolithiasis, choledocholithiasis, and hepatolithiasis are introduced along with a flowchart. Since there have been remarkable improvements in endoscopic treatments and surgical techniques, the guidelines ensure flexibility in choices according to the actual clinical environment. The revised clinical practice guidelines are appropriate for use by clinicians in their daily practice.

A Clinical Experimental Model to Evaluate Analgesic Effect of Remote Ischemic Preconditioning in Acute Postoperative Pain

This study aims to evaluate the viability of a clinical model of remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) and its analgesic effects. It is a prospective study with twenty (20) patients randomly divided into two groups: control group and RIPC group. The opioid analgesics consumption in the postoperative period, the presence of secondary mechanical hyperalgesia, the scores of postoperative pain by visual analog scale, and the plasma levels interleukins (IL-6) were evaluated. The tourniquet applying after spinal anesthetic block was safe, producing no pain for all patients in the tourniquet group. The total dose of morphine consumption in 24 hours was significantly lower in RIPC group than in the control group (p = 0.0156). The intensity analysis of rest pain, pain during coughing and pain in deep breathing, showed that visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were significantly lower in RIPC group compared to the control group: p = 0.0087, 0.0119, and 0.0015, respectively. There were no differences between groups in the analysis of presence or absence of mechanical hyperalgesia (p = 0.0704) and in the serum levels of IL-6 dosage over time (p < 0.0001). This clinical model of remote ischemic preconditioning promoted satisfactory analgesia in patients undergoing conventional cholecystectomy, without changing serum levels of IL-6.

Acute Cholecystitis-Optimal Timing for Early Cholecystectomy: a French Nationwide Study

BACKGROUND

The recommended treatment for acute calculous cholecystitis combines antibiotics and cholecystectomy. To reduce morbidity and mortality, guidelines recommend early cholecystectomy. However, the optimal timing for surgery on first admission remains controversial. This study aims to determine the best timing for cholecystectomy in patients presenting with acute calculous cholecystitis.

STUDY DESIGN

The French national health-care database was analyzed to identify all patients undergoing cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis during the same hospital stay between January 2010 and December 2013. Data regarding patients, procedures, and hospitals characteristics were collected. The relationship between surgery's timing and clinical outcome was evaluated by multiple logistic regressions.

RESULTS

Overall, 42,452 patients from 507 hospitals were included in the study. Postoperative complications requiring invasive treatment occurred in 961 patients (2.3 %), and the mortality rate was 1.1 %. Adverse postoperative outcomes-intensive care admission, reoperation, and postoperative sepsis-were significantly lower when surgery was performed between days 1 and 3 (3-3.3, 0.5-0.6, and 3.8-4.1 %, respectively) when compared to surgery performed on the day of admission (5.6, 1.2, and 5.2 %, p < 0.001) or from day 5 onward (4.5, 1, and 6.5 %, respectively; p < 0.001). Mortality was also significantly lower in patients undergoing cholecystectomy between days 1 and 3 after admission (0.8-1 %) when compared to patients operated on the day of admission or after day 3 (1.4 % on day 0, 1.2 % on day 4, and 1.9 % from day 5: all p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

For patients with acute calculous cholecystitis, all efforts should be made to perform cholecystectomy within 3 days after hospital admission in order to decrease morbidity and mortality.

Black bile of melancholy or gallstones of biliary colics: historical perspectives on cholelithiasis

Barely 130 years after its first description, cholecystectomies are among the most commonly performed surgeries in the USA. The success of this operation with subsequent technical improvements, such as laparoscopic approaches, caused a paradigm shift in the management of gallstone disease. However, symptoms persist in 10-40 % of successfully operated patients. Reviewing monographs, textbooks, and articles published during the last 300 years, several important factors emerge as likely contributors to limited or poor treatment responses. Early on, clinicians recognized that cholelithiasis is quite common and thus often an incidental finding, especially if patients present with vague or atypical symptoms. Consistent with these observations, patients with such atypical symptoms are less likely to benefit from cholecystectomy. Similarly, lasting improvements are more reliably seen in patients with symptoms of presumed biliary origin and documented gallstones compared to individuals without stones, an important point in view of increasing rates of surgery for biliary dyskinesia. While cholelithiasis can cause serious complications, the overall incidence of clinically relevant problems is so low that prophylactic cholecystectomy cannot be justified. This conclusion corresponds to epidemiologic data showing that the rise in elective cholecystectomies decreased hospitalizations due to gallstone disease, but was associated with a higher volume of postoperative complications, ultimately resulting in stable combined mortality due to gallstone disease and its treatment. These trends highlight the tremendous gains in managing gallstone disease, while at the same time reminding us that the tightening rather than expanding indications for cholecystectomy may improve outcomes.

Pharmacological interventions for prevention or treatment of postoperative pain in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

While laparoscopic cholecystectomy is generally considered less painful than open surgery, pain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge after day-surgery and overnight stay following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety and effectiveness of different pharmacological interventions such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and anticonvulsant analgesics in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of different analgesics in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal (WHO ICTRP) to March 2013 to identify randomised clinical trials of relevance to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing different pharmacological interventions with no intervention or inactive controls for outcomes related to benefit in this review. We considered comparative non-randomised studies with regards to treatment-related harms. We also considered trials that compared one class of drug with another class of drug for this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects models using Review Manager 5 analysis. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 trials with 2505 participants randomised to the different pharmacological agents and inactive controls. All the trials were at unclear risk of bias. Most trials included only low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Participants were allowed to take additional analgesics as required in 24 of the trials. The pharmacological interventions in all the included trials were aimed at preventing pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. There were considerable differences in the pharmacological agents used and the methods of administration. The estimated effects of the intervention on the proportion of participants who were discharged as day-surgery, the length of hospital stay, or the time taken to return to work were imprecise in all the comparisons in which these outcomes were reported (very low quality evidence). There was no mortality in any of the groups in the two trials that reported mortality (183 participants, very low quality evidence). Differences in serious morbidity outcomes between the groups were imprecise across all the comparisons (very low quality evidence). None of the trials reported patient quality of life or time taken to return to normal activity. The pain at 4 to 8 hours was generally reduced by about 1 to 2 cm on the visual analogue scale of 1 to 10 cm in the comparisons involving the different pharmacological agents and inactive controls (low or very low quality evidence). The pain at 9 to 24 hours was generally reduced by about 0.5 cm (a modest reduction) on the visual analogue scale of 1 to 10 cm in the comparisons involving the different pharmacological agents and inactive controls (low or very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence of very low quality that different pharmacological agents including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioid analgesics, and anticonvulsant analgesics reduce pain scores in people at low anaesthetic risk undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, the decision to use these drugs has to weigh the clinically small reduction in pain against uncertain evidence of serious adverse events associated with many of these agents. Further randomised clinical trials of low risk of systematic and random errors are necessary. Such trials should include important clinical outcomes such as quality of life and time to return to work in their assessment.

Methods of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation may decrease pain in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, the optimal method to administer the local anaesthetic is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the optimal local anaesthetic agent, the optimal timing, and the optimal delivery method of the local anaesthetic agent used for intraperitoneal instillation in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal (WHO ICTRP) to March 2013 to identify randomised clinical trials for assessment of benefit and comparative non-randomised studies for the assessment of treatment-related harms.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing different methods of local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects models using Review Manager 5 analysis. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 trials with 798 participants undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy randomised to different methods of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Most trials included only people with low anaesthetic risk. The comparisons included in the trials that met the eligibility criteria were the following; comparison of one local anaesthetic agent with another local anaesthetic agent (three trials); comparison of timing of delivery (six trials); comparison of different methods of delivery of the anaesthetic agent (two trials); comparison of location of the instillation of the anaesthetic agent (one trial); three trials reported mortality and morbidity.There were no mortalities or serious adverse events in either group in the following comparisons: bupivacaine (0/100 (0%)) versus lignocaine (0/106 (0%)) (one trial; 206 participants); just after creation of pneumoperitoneum (0/55 (0%)) versus end of surgery (0/55 (0%)) (two trials; 110 participants); just after creation of pneumoperitoneum (0/15 (0%)) versus after the end of surgery (0/15 (0%)) (one trial; 30 participants); end of surgery (0/15 (0%)) versus after the end of surgery (0/15 (0%)) (one trial; 30 participants).None of the trials reported quality of life, the time taken to return to normal activity, or the time taken to return to work. The differences in the proportion of people who were discharged as day-surgery and the length of hospital stay were imprecise in all the comparisons included that reported these outcomes (very low quality evidence). There were some differences in the pain scores on the visual analogue scale (1 to 10 cm) but these were neither consistent nor robust to fixed-effect versus random-effects meta-analysis or sensitivity analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The currently available evidence is inadequate to determine the effects of one method of local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation compared with any other method of local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation in low anaesthetic risk individuals undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Further randomised clinical trials of low risk of systematic and random errors are necessary. Such trials should include important clinical outcomes such as quality of life and time to return to work in their assessment.

Low pressure versus standard pressure pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

A pneumoperitoneum of 12 to 16 mm Hg is used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Lower pressures are claimed to be safe and effective in decreasing cardiopulmonary complications and pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of low pressure pneumoperitoneum compared with standard pressure pneumoperitoneum in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2013 to identify randomised trials,using search strategies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only randomised clinical trials, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status for inclusion in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models with RevMan 5 based on available case analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 1092 participants randomly assigned to the low pressure group (509 participants) and the standard pressure group (583 participants) in 21 trials provided information for this review on one or more outcomes. Three additional trials comparing low pressure pneumoperitoneum with standard pressure pneumoperitoneum (including 179 participants) provided no information for this review. Most of the trials included low anaesthetic risk participants undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. One trial including 140 participants was at low risk of bias. The remaining 20 trials were at high risk of bias. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low. No mortality was reported in either the low pressure group (0/199; 0%) or the standard pressure group (0/235; 0%) in eight trials that reported mortality. One participant experienced the outcome of serious adverse events (low pressure group 1/179, 0.6%; standard pressure group 0/215, 0%; seven trials; 394 participants; RR 3.00; 95% CI 0.14 to 65.90; very low quality evidence). Quality of life, return to normal activity, and return to work were not reported in any of the trials. The difference between groups in the conversion to open cholecystectomy was imprecise (low pressure group 2/269, adjusted proportion 0.8%; standard pressure group 2/287, 0.7%; 10 trials; 556 participants; RR 1.18; 95% CI 0.29 to 4.72; very low quality evidence) and was compatible with an increase, a decrease, or no difference in the proportion of conversion to open cholecystectomy due to low pressure pneumoperitoneum. No difference in the length of hospital stay was reported between the groups (five trials; 415 participants; MD -0.30 days; 95% CI -0.63 to 0.02; low quality evidence). Operating time was about two minutes longer in the low pressure group than in the standard pressure group (19 trials; 990 participants; MD 1.51 minutes; 95% CI 0.07 to 2.94; very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be completed successfully using low pressure in approximately 90% of people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, no evidence is currently available to support the use of low pressure pneumoperitoneum in low anaesthetic risk patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety of low pressure pneumoperitoneum has to be established. Further well-designed trials are necessary, particularly in people with cardiopulmonary disorders who undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation versus no intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

While laparoscopic cholecystectomy is generally considered less painful than open surgery, pain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge after day surgery and overnight stay laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety and effectiveness of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of intraperitoneal instillation of local anaesthetic agents in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to March 2013 to identify randomised clinical trials of relevance to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation versus placebo, no intervention, or inactive control during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the review with regards to benefits while we considered quasi-randomised studies and non-randomised studies for treatment-related harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects models using Review Manager 5 analysis. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 58 trials, of which 48 trials with 2849 participants randomised to intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation (1558 participants) versus control (1291 participants) contributed data to one or more of the outcomes. All the trials except one trial with 30 participants were at high risk of bias. Most trials included only low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Various intraperitoneal local anaesthetic agents were used but bupivacaine in the liquid form was the most common local anaesthetic used. There were considerable differences in the methods of local anaesthetic instillation including the location (subdiaphragmatic, gallbladder bed, or both locations) and timing (before or after the removal of gallbladder) between the trials. There was no mortality in either group in the eight trials that reported mortality (0/236 (0%) in local anaesthetic instillation versus 0/210 (0%) in control group; very low quality evidence). One participant experienced the outcome of serious morbidity (eight trials; 446 participants; 1/236 (0.4%) in local anaesthetic instillation group versus 0/210 (0%) in the control group; RR 3.00; 95% CI 0.13 to 67.06; very low quality evidence). Although the remaining trials did not report the overall morbidity, three trials (190 participants) reported that there were no intra-operative complications. Twenty trials reported that there were no serious adverse events in any of the 715 participants who received local anaesthetic instillation. None of the trials reported participant quality of life, return to normal activity, or return to work.The effect of local anaesthetic instillation on the proportion of participants discharged as day surgery between the two groups was imprecise and compatible with benefit and no difference of intervention (three trials; 242 participants; 89/160 (adjusted proportion 61.0%) in local anaesthetic instillation group versus 40/82 (48.8%) in control group; RR 1.25; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.58; very low quality evidence). The MD in length of hospital stay was 0.04 days (95% CI -0.23 to 0.32; five trials; 335 participants; low quality evidence). The pain scores as measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS) were significantly lower in the local anaesthetic instillation group than the control group at four to eight hours (32 trials; 2020 participants; MD -0.99 cm; 95% CI -1.10 to -0.88 on a VAS scale of 0 to 10 cm; very low quality evidence) and at nine to 24 hours (29 trials; 1787 participants; MD -0.53 cm; 95% CI -0.62 to -0.44; very low quality evidence). Various subgroup analyses and meta-regressions to investigate the influence of the different local anaesthetic agents, different methods of local anaesthetic instillation, and different controls on the effectiveness of local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation were inconsistent.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Serious adverse events were rare in studies evaluating local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation (very low quality evidence). There is very low quality evidence that it reduces pain in low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, the clinical importance of this reduction in pain is unknown and likely to be small. Further randomised clinical trials of low risk of systematic and random errors are necessary. Such trials should include important clinical outcomes such as quality of life and time to return to work in their assessment.

Wound infiltration with local anaesthetic agents for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

While laparoscopic cholecystectomy is generally considered to be less painful than open surgery, pain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge after day surgery resulting in overnight stay following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety and effectiveness of local anaesthetic wound infiltration in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy is not known.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of local anaesthetic wound infiltration in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and to identify the best method of local anaesthetic wound infiltration with regards to the type of local anaesthetic, dosage, and time of administration of the local anaesthetic.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2013 to identify studies of relevance to this review. We included randomised clinical trials for benefit and quasi-randomised and comparative non-randomised studies for treatment-related harms.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing local anaesthetic wound infiltration versus placebo, no intervention, or inactive control during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, trials comparing different local anaesthetic agents for local anaesthetic wound infiltration, and trials comparing the different times of local anaesthetic wound infiltration were considered for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analysis models using RevMan. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-six trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the review. All the 26 trials except one trial of 30 participants were at high risk of bias. Nineteen of the trials with 1263 randomised participants provided data for this review. Ten of the 19 trials compared local anaesthetic wound infiltration versus inactive control. One of the 19 trials compared local anaesthetic wound infiltration with two inactive controls, normal saline and no intervention. Two of the 19 trials had four arms comparing local anaesthetic wound infiltration with inactive controls in the presence and absence of co-interventions to decrease pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Four of the 19 trials had three or more arms that could be included for the comparison of local anaesthetic wound infiltration versus inactive control and different methods of local anaesthetic wound infiltration. The remaining two trials compared different methods of local anaesthetic wound infiltration.Most trials included only low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Seventeen trials randomised a total of 1095 participants to local anaesthetic wound infiltration (587 participants) versus no local anaesthetic wound infiltration (508 participants). Various anaesthetic agents were used but bupivacaine was the commonest local anaesthetic used. There was no mortality in either group in the seven trials that reported mortality (0/280 (0%) in local anaesthetic infiltration group versus 0/259 (0%) in control group). The effect of local anaesthetic on the proportion of people who developed serious adverse events was imprecise and compatible with increase or no difference in serious adverse events (seven trials; 539 participants; 2/280 (0.8%) in local anaesthetic group versus 1/259 (0.4%) in control; RR 2.00; 95% CI 0.19 to 21.59; very low quality evidence). None of the serious adverse events were related to local anaesthetic wound infiltration. None of the trials reported patient quality of life. The proportion of participants who were discharged as day surgery patients was higher in the local anaesthetic infiltration group than in the no local anaesthetic infiltration group (one trial; 97 participants; 33/50 (66.0%) in the local anaesthetic group versus 20/47 (42.6%) in the control group; RR 1.55; 95% CI 1.05 to 2.28; very low quality evidence). The effect of local anaesthetic on the length of hospital stay was compatible with a decrease, increase, or no difference in the length of hospital stay between the two groups (four trials; 327 participants; MD -0.26 days; 95% CI -0.67 to 0.16; very low quality evidence). The pain scores as measured by the visual analogue scale (0 to 10 cm) were lower in the local anaesthetic infiltration group than the control group at 4 to 8 hours (13 trials; 806 participants; MD -1.33 cm on the VAS; 95% CI -1.54 to -1.12; very low quality evidence) and 9 to 24 hours (12 trials; 756 participants; MD -0.36 cm on the VAS; 95% CI -0.53 to -0.20; very low quality evidence). The effect of local anaesthetic on the time taken to return to normal activity between the two groups was imprecise and compatible with a decrease, increase, or no difference in the time taken to return to normal activity (two trials; 195 participants; MD 0.14 days; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.87; very low quality evidence). None of the trials reported on return to work.Four trials randomised a total of 149 participants to local anaesthetic wound infiltration prior to skin incision (74 participants) versus local anaesthetic wound infiltration at the end of surgery (75 participants). Two trials randomised a total of 176 participants to four different local anaesthetics (bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, ropivacaine, neosaxitoxin). Although there were differences between the groups in some outcomes the changes were not consistent. There was no evidence to support the preference of one local anaesthetic over another or to prefer administration of local anaesthetic at a specific time compared with another.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Serious adverse events were rare in studies evaluating local anaesthetic wound infiltration (very low quality evidence). There is very low quality evidence that infiltration reduces pain in low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, the clinical importance of this reduction in pain is likely to be small. Further randomised clinical trials at low risk of systematic and random errors are necessary. Such trials should include important clinical outcomes such as quality of life and time to return to work in their assessment.

Formal education of patients about to undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Generally, before being operated on, patients will be given informal information by the healthcare providers involved in the care of the patients (doctors, nurses, ward clerks, or healthcare assistants). This information can also be provided formally in different formats including written information, formal lectures, or audio-visual recorded information.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of formal preoperative patient education for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 2, 2013), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to March 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials irrespective of language and publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data. We planned to calculate the risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes based on intention-to-treat analyses when data were available.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 431 participants undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised to formal patient education (215 participants) versus standard care (216 participants) in four trials. The patient education included verbal education, multimedia DVD programme, computer-based multimedia programme, and Power Point presentation in the four trials. All the trials were of high risk of bias. One trial including 212 patients reported mortality. There was no mortality in either group in this trial. None of the trials reported surgery-related morbidity, quality of life, proportion of patients discharged as day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the length of hospital stay, return to work, or the number of unplanned visits to the doctor. There were insufficient details to calculate the mean difference and 95% CI for the difference in pain scores at 9 to 24 hours (1 trial; 93 patients); and we did not identify clear evidence of an effect on patient knowledge (3 trials; 338 participants; SMD 0.19; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.41; very low quality evidence), patient satisfaction (2 trials; 305 patients; SMD 0.48; 95% CI -0.42 to 1.37; very low quality evidence), or patient anxiety (1 trial; 76 participants; SMD -0.37; 95% CI -0.82 to 0.09; very low quality evidence) between the two groups.A total of 173 participants undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised to electronic consent with repeat-back (patients repeating back the information provided) (92 participants) versus electronic consent without repeat-back (81 participants) in one trial of high risk of bias. The only outcome reported in this trial was patient knowledge. The effect on patient knowledge between the patient education with repeat-back versus patient education without repeat-back groups was imprecise and based on 1 trial of 173 participants; SMD 0.07; 95% CI -0.22 to 0.37; very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the very low quality of the current evidence, the effects of formal patient education provided in addition to the standard information provided by doctors to patients compared with standard care remain uncertain. Further well-designed randomised clinical trials of low risk of bias are necessary.

Routine abdominal drainage versus no abdominal drainage for uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the main method of treatment of symptomatic gallstones. Drains are used after laparoscopic cholecystectomy to prevent abdominal collections. However, drain use may increase infective complications and delay discharge.

OBJECTIVES

The aim is to assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage in uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing drainage versus no drainage after uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy irrespective of language and publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures defined by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 1831 participants were randomised to drain (915 participants) versus 'no drain' (916 participants) in 12 trials included in this review. Only two trials including 199 participants were of low risk of bias. Nine trials included patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy exclusively. One trial included patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis exclusively. One trial included patients undergoing elective and emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and one trial did not provide this information. The average age of participants in the trials ranged between 48 years and 63 years in the 10 trials that provided this information. The proportion of females ranged between 55.0% and 79.0% in the 11 trials that provided this information. There was no significant difference between the drain group (1/840) (adjusted proportion: 0.1%) and the 'no drain' group (2/841) (0.2%) (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.04 to 4.37) in short-term mortality in the ten trials with 1681 participants reporting on this outcome. There was no significant difference between the drain group (7/567) (adjusted proportion: 1.1%) and the 'no drain' group (3/576) (0.5%) in the proportion of patients who developed serious adverse events in the seven trials with 1143 participants reporting on this outcome (RR 2.12; 95% CI 0.67 to 7.40) or in the number of serious adverse events in each group reported by eight trials with 1286 participants; drain group (12/646) (adjusted rate: 1.5 events per 100 participants) versus 'no drain' group (6/640) (0.9 events per 100 participants); rate ratio 1.60; 95% CI 0.66 to 3.87). There was no significant difference in the quality of life between the two groups (one trial; 93 participants; SMD 0.22; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.63). The proportion of patients who were discharged as day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy seemed significantly lower in the drain group than the 'no drain' group (one trial; 68 participants; drain group (0/33) (adjusted proportion: 0.2%) versus 'no drain' group (11/35) (31.4%); RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.75). There was no significant difference in the length of hospital stay between the two groups (five trials; 449 participants; MD 0.22 days; 95% CI -0.06 days to 0.51 days). The operating time was significantly longer in the drain group than the 'no drain' group (seven trials; 775 participants; MD 5.00 minutes; 95% CI 2.69 minutes to 7.30 minutes). There was no significant difference in the return to normal activity and return to work between the groups in one trial involving 100 participants. This trial did not provide any information from which the standard deviation could be imputed and so the confidence intervals could not be calculated for these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence to support the routine use of drain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Further well designed randomised clinical trials are necessary.

The comprehensive complication index: a novel continuous scale to measure surgical morbidity

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a comprehensive complication index (CCI) that integrates all events with their respective severity.

BACKGROUND

Reporting of surgical complications is inconsistent and often incomplete. Most studies fail to provide information about the severity of complications, or inform only on the most severe event, ignoring events of lesser severity.

METHODS

We used an established classification of complications, adopting methods from operation risk index analysis in marketing research to develop a formula that considers all complications that may occur in a patient. The weights of each grade of complication, defined as median reference values, were obtained from 472 participants, who rated 30 different complications. Validation to assess sensitivity to treatment effects and validity of the CCI was performed by 4 different approaches, based on 1299 patients.

RESULTS

The CCI is calculated as the sum of all complications that are weighted for their severity (multiplication of the median reference values from patients and physicians). The final formula yields a continuous scale to rank the severity of any combination of complications from 0 to 100 in a single patient. The CCI was highly sensitive in detecting treatment effect differences in the context of a randomized trial (effect size detected by CCI vs conventional standardized morbidity outcomes). It also showed a negative correlation with postoperative health status (r = -0.24, P = 0.002), and high correlation with the results of patient-rated single and multiple complications on conjoint analysis (r = 0.94, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The CCI summarizes all postoperative complications and is more sensitive than existing morbidity endpoints. It may serve as a standardized and widely applicable primary endpoint in surgical trials and other interventional fields of medicine. The CCI can be readily computed on the basis of tabulated complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification (available at www.assessurgery.com).

Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for uncomplicated biliary colic

BACKGROUND

Uncomplicated biliary colic is one of the commonest indications for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy involves several months of waiting if performed electively. However, people can develop life-threatening complications during this waiting period.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for people with uncomplicated biliary colic due to gallstones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until March 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials, irrespective of language and publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted the data. We sought to include data on short-term mortality (30-day mortality or in-hospital mortality), bile duct injury, other serious adverse events, quality of life, conversion to open cholecystectomy, length of hospital stay, operating time, and return to work. We planned to calculate the risk ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes using RevMan and based on intention-to-treat analysis when data were available. Since only one trial contributed data to this review, Fisher's exact test was used for binary outcomes. A P value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one trial including 75 participants (average age: 43 years; females: 65% of participants), randomised to early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (less than 24 hours after diagnosis) (n = 35) or delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (mean waiting period of 4.2 months) (n = 40), contributed information to this review. The trial had a high risk of bias. Information on the outcome mortality was available for the 75 participants. Information on serious adverse events was available for 68 participants (28 people in the early group and 40 people in the delayed group). The other outcomes were available for 28 participants in the early laparoscopic cholecystectomy group and 35 participants in the delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy group. There were no deaths in the early group (0/35) (0%) versus 1/40 (2.5%) in the delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy group (P > 0.9999). There was no bile duct injury in either group. There were no serious adverse events related to the surgery in either group. During the waiting period, complications developed in the delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy group. The complications that the participants suffered included pancreatitis (n = 1), empyema of the gallbladder (n = 1), gallbladder perforation (n = 1), acute cholecystitis (n = 2), cholangitis (n = 2), obstructive jaundice (n = 2), and recurrent biliary colic (requiring hospital visits) (n = 5). In total, 14 participants required hospital admissions for the above symptoms. All of these admissions occurred in the delayed group as all the participants were operated on within 24 hours in the early group. The proportion of people who developed serious adverse events was 0/28 (0%) in the early group, which was significantly lower than in the delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy group 9/40 (22.5%) (P = 0.0082). This trial did not report quality of life or return to work. There was no significant difference in the proportion of people who required conversion to open cholecystectomy in the early group 0/28 (0%) compared with the delayed group (6/35 or 17.1%) (P = 0.0743). There was a statistically significant shorter hospital stay in the early group than in the delayed group (MD -1.25 days, 95% CI -2.05 to -0.45). There was a statistically significant shorter operating time in the early group than the delayed group (MD -14.80 minutes, 95% CI -18.02 to -11.58).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on evidence from only one high-bias risk trial, it appears that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (less than 24 hours after diagnosis of biliary colic) decreases the morbidity during the waiting period for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy (mean waiting time 4.2 months), the hospital stay, and operating time. Further randomised clinical trials are necessary to confirm or refute these findings, and to determine if early laparoscopic cholecystectomy is better than the delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy if the waiting time is shortened further.

Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for people with acute cholecystitis

BACKGROUND

Gallstones are present in about 10% to 15% of the adult western population. Between 1% and 4% of these adults become symptomatic in a year (the majority due to biliary colic but a significant proportion due to acute cholecystitis). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis is mainly performed after the acute cholecystitis episode settles because of the fear of higher morbidity and of need for conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. However, delaying surgery exposes the people to gallstone-related complications.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to compare early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (less than seven days of clinical presentation with acute cholecystitis) versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (more than six weeks after index admission with acute cholecystitis) with regards to benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform until July 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy in participants with acute cholecystitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven trials that met the inclusion criteria. Out of these, six trials provided data for the meta-analyses. A total of 488 participants with acute cholecystitis and fit to undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised to early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC) (244 people) and delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (DLC) (244 people) in the six trials. Blinding was not performed in any of the trials and so all the trials were at high risk of bias. Other than blinding, three of the six trials were at low risk of bias in the other domains such as sequence generation, allocation concealment, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting. The proportion of females ranged between 43.3% and 80% in the trials that provided this information. The average age of participants ranged between 40 years and 60 years. There was no mortality in any of the participants in five trials that reported mortality. There was no significant difference in the proportion of people who developed bile duct injury in the two groups (ELC 1/219 (adjusted proportion 0.4%) versus DLC 2/219 (0.9%); Peto OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.05 to 4.72 (5 trials)). There was no significant difference between the two groups (ELC 14/219 (adjusted proportion 6.5%) versus DLC 11/219 (5.0%); RR 1.29; 95% CI 0.61 to 2.72 (5 trials)) in terms of other serious complications. None of the trials reported quality of life from the time of randomisation. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the proportion of people who required conversion to open cholecystectomy (ELC 49/244 (adjusted proportion 19.7%) versus DLC 54/244 (22.1%); RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.25 (6 trials)). The total hospital stay was shorter in the early group than the delayed group by four days (MD -4.12 days; 95% CI -5.22 to -3.03 (4 trials; 373 people)). There was no significant difference in the operating time between the two groups (MD -1.22 minutes; 95% CI -3.07 to 0.64 (6 trials; 488 people)). Only one trial reported return to work. The people belonging to the ELC group returned to work earlier than the DLC group (MD -11.00 days; 95% CI -19.61 to -2.39 (1 trial; 36 people)). Four trials did not report any gallstone-related morbidity during the waiting period. One trial reported five gallstone-related morbidities (cholangitis: two; biliary colic not requiring urgent operation: one; acute cholecystitis not requiring urgent operation: two). There were no reports of pancreatitis during the waiting time. Gallstone-related morbidity was not reported in the remaining trials. Forty (18.3%) of the people belonging to the delayed group had either non-resolution of symptoms or recurrence of symptoms before their planned operation and had to undergo emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy in five trials. The proportion with conversion to open cholecystectomy was 45% (18/40) in this group of people.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no significant difference between early and late laparoscopic cholecystectomy on our primary outcomes. However, trials with high risk of bias indicate that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy during acute cholecystitis seems safe and may shorten the total hospital stay. The majority of the important outcomes occurred rarely, and hence the confidence intervals are wide. It is unlikely that future randomised clinical trials will be powered to measure differences in bile duct injury and other serious complications since this might involve performing a trial of more than 50,000 people, but several smaller randomised trials may answer the questions through meta-analyses.

T-tube drainage versus primary closure after open common bile duct exploration

BACKGROUND

Between 5% and 11% of people undergoing cholecystectomy have common bile duct stones. Stones may be removed at the time of cholecystectomy by opening and clearing the common bile duct. The optimal technique is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The aim is to assess the benefits and harms of T-tube drainage versus primary closure without biliary stent after open common bile duct exploration for common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until April 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing T-tube drainage versus primary closure after open common bile duct exploration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two of four authors independently identified the studies for inclusion and extracted data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects model using Review Manager (RevMan) analyses. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR), rate ratio (RaR), or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six trials randomising 359 participants, 178 to T-tube drainage and 181 to primary closure. All trials were at high risk of bias. There was no significant difference in mortality between the two groups (4/178 (weighted percentage 1.2%) in the T-tube group versus 1/181 (0.6%) in the primary closure group; RR 2.25; 95% CI 0.55 to 9.25; six trials). There was no significant difference in the serious morbidity rate between the two groups (24/136 (weighted serious morbidity rate, 145 events per 1000 patients) in the T-tube group versus 9/136 (weighted serious morbidity rate, 66 events per 1000 patients) in the primary closure group; RaR 2.19; 95% CI 0.98 to 4.91; four trials). Quality of life and return to work were not reported in any of the trials. The operating time was significantly longer in the T-tube drainage group compared with the primary closure group (MD 28.90 minutes; 95% CI 17.18 to 40.62 minutes; one trial). The hospital stay was significantly longer in the T-tube drainage group compared with the primary closure group (MD 4.72 days; 95% CI 0.83 days to 8.60 days; five trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

T-tube drainage appeared to result in significantly longer operating time and hospital stay compared with primary closure without any apparent evidence of benefit on clinically important outcomes after open common bile duct exploration. Based on the currently available evidence, there is no justification for the routine use of T-tube drainage after open common bile duct exploration in patients with common bile duct stones. T-tube drainage should not be used outside well designed randomised clinical trials. More randomised trials comparing the effects of T-tube drainage versus primary closure after open common bile duct exploration may be needed. Such trials should be conducted with low risk of bias and assessing the long-term beneficial and harmful effects of T-tube drainage, including long-term complications such as bile stricture and recurrence of common bile duct stones.

T-tube drainage versus primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

BACKGROUND

T-tube drainage may prevent bile leak from the biliary tract following bile duct exploration and it offers post-operative access to the bile ducts for visualisation and exploration. Use of T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of T-tube drainage versus primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until April 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing T-tube drainage versus primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two of four authors independently identified the studies for inclusion and extracted data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects model meta-analyses using Review Manager (RevMan) Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR), rate ratio (RaR), or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials randomising 295 participants: 147 to T-tube drainage versus 148 to primary closure. All trials had a high risk of bias. No one died during the follow-up period. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with serious morbidity (17/147 (weighted percentage 11.3%) in the T-tube drainage versus 9/148 (6.1%) in the primary closure group; RR 1.86; 95% CI 0.87 to 3.96; three trials), and no significant difference was found in the serious morbidity rates (weighted serious morbidity rate = 97 events per 1000 patients) in participants randomised to T-tube drainage versus serious morbidity rate = 61 events per 1000 patients in the primary closure group; RR 1.59; 95% CI 0.66 to 3.83; three trials). Quality of life was not reported in any of the trials. The operating time was significantly longer in the T-tube drainage group compared with the primary closure group (MD 21.22 minutes; 95% CI 12.44 minutes to 30.00 minutes; three trials). The hospital stay was significantly longer in the T-tube drainage group compared with the primary closure group (MD 3.26 days; 95% CI 2.49 days to 4.04 days; three trials). According to one trial, the participants randomised to T-tube drainage returned to work approximately eight days later than the participants randomised to the primary closure group (P < 0.005).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

T-tube drainage appears to result in significantly longer operating time and hospital stay as compared with primary closure without any evidence of benefit after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Based on currently available evidence, there is no justification for the routine use of T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in patients with common bile duct stones. More randomised trials comparing the effects of T-tube drainage versus primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration may be needed. Such trials should be conducted with low risk of bias, assessing the long-term beneficial and harmful effects including long-term complications such as bile stricture and recurrence of common bile duct stones.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of intraoperative versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with gallbladder and suspected common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Most patients with gallbladder and common bile duct stones are treated by preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (POES) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Recently, intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (IOES) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been suggested as an alternative treatment.

METHODS

Data from randomized clinical trials related to safety and effectiveness of IOES versus POES were extracted by two independent reviewers. Risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences were calculated with 95 per cent confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.

RESULTS

Four trials with 532 patients comparing IOES with POES were included. There were no deaths. There was no significant difference in rates of ampullary cannulation (RR 1·01, 0·97 to 1·04; P = 0·70) or stone clearance by ES (RR 0·99, 0·96 to 1·02; P = 0·58) between the groups. The proportion of patients with at least one post-ES complication, including pancreatitis, bleeding, perforation, cholangitis, cholecystitis or gastric ulcer, was significantly lower in the IOES group (RR 0·37, 0·18 to 0·78; P = 0·009). There was no significant difference in morbidity after laparoscopic cholecystectomy or requirement for open operation between the groups. Mean hospital stay was 3 days shorter in the IOES group: mean difference - 2·83 (-3·66 to - 2·00) days (P < 0·001).

CONCLUSION

In patients with gallbladder and common bile duct stones, IOES is as effective and safe as POES and results in a significantly shorter hospital stay.

Surgical treatment of gallstones

Currently there is no evidence for prophylactic cholecystectomy to prevent gallstone formation (grade B). Cholecystectomy cannot be recommended for any group of patients having asymptomatic gallstones except in those undergoing major upper abdominal surgery for other pathologies (grade B). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the preferred treatment for all patient groups with symptomatic gallstones (grade B). Patients with gallstones along with common bile duct stones treated by endoscopic sphincterotomy should undergo cholecystectomy (grade A). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration or with intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy is the preferred treatment for obstructive jaundice caused by common bile duct stones, when the expertise and infrastructure are available (grade B).

Acute cholecystitis - early laparoskopic surgery versus antibiotic therapy and delayed elective cholecystectomy: ACDC-study

BACKGROUND

Acute 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.

DESIGN

A 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.

DURATION

October 2006 - November 2008.

ORGANISATION/RESPONSIBILITY

The 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 REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00447304.

Is it worth offering a routine laparoscopic cholecystectomy in developing countries? A Thailand case study

OBJECTIVE

The study aims to investigate whether laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is a cost-effective strategy for managing gallbladder-stone disease compared to the conventional open cholecystectomy (OC) in a Thai setting.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Using a societal perspective a cost-utility analysis was employed to measure programme cost and effectiveness of each management strategy. The costs borne by the hospital and patients were collected from Chiang Rai regional hospital while the clinical outcomes were summarised from a published systematic review of international and national literature. Incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) derived from a decision tree model.

RESULTS

The results reveal that at base-case scenario the incremental cost per QALY of moving from OC to LC is 134,000 Baht under government perspective and 89,000 Baht under a societal perspective. However, the probabilities that LC outweighed OC are not greater than 95% until the ceiling ratio reaches 190,000 and 270,000 Baht per QALY using societal and government perspective respectively.

CONCLUSION

The economic evaluation results of management options for gallstone disease in Thailand differ from comparable previous studies conducted in developed countries which indicated that LC was a cost-saving strategy. Differences were due mainly to hospital costs of post operative inpatient care and value of lost working time. The LC option would be considered a cost-effective option for Thailand at a threshold of three times per capita gross domestic product recommended by the committee on the Millennium Development Goals.

Health-related quality of life and appropriateness of cholecystectomy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relationship among appropriateness of the use of cholecystectomy and outcomes.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The use of cholecystectomy varies widely across regions and countries. Explicit appropriateness criteria may help identify suitable candidates for this commonly performed procedure. This study evaluates the relationship among appropriateness of the use of cholecystectomy and outcomes.

METHODS

Prospective observational study in 6 public hospitals in Spain of all consecutive patients on waiting lists to undergo cholecystectomy for nonmalignant disease. Explicit appropriateness criteria for the use of cholecystectomy were developed by a panel of experts using the RAND appropriateness methodology and applied to recruited patients. Patients were asked to complete 2 questionnaires that measure health-related quality of life-the Short Form 36 (SF-36) and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI)-before the intervention and 3 months after it.

RESULTS

Patients judged as being appropriate candidates for cholecystectomy, using the panel's explicit appropriateness criteria, had greater improvements in the bodily pain, vitality, and social function domains of the SF-36 than those judged to be inappropriate candidates. They also demonstrated improvements in the GIQLI's physical impairment domain. Interventions judged as inappropriate were performed primarily among patients without symptoms of cholelithiasis. Those asymptomatic had a lower improvement in the bodily pain, social functioning, and physical summary scale of the SF-36 and in the symptomatology, physical impairment, and total score domains of the GIQLI.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest a direct relationship between the application of explicit appropriateness criteria and better outcomes, as measured by health-related quality of life. They also indicate that patients without symptoms are not good candidates for cholecystectomy.

Predictors of improvement in health-related quality of life in patients undergoing cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Few studies have assessed health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among patients undergoing cholecystectomy. This study aimed to determine clinical variables that predict changes in HRQoL following cholecystectomy.

METHODS

This was a prospective study of consecutive patients undergoing elective cholecystectomy for gallstones in six hospitals. Patients were asked to complete two questionnaires-the Short Form 36 (SF-36) and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI)-before and 3 months after cholecystectomy. Multivariate linear regression models were used to examine factors potentially contributing to changes in HRQoL.

RESULTS

Patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis and low surgical risk experienced the highest HRQoL gains in several SF-36 and GIQLI domains, with significant improvements in physical function detected by both instruments, compared with asymptomatic individuals at high surgical risk. Patients with asymptomatic cholelithiasis or high surgical risk experienced least improvement.

CONCLUSION

These data indicate that cholecystectomy is appropriate for patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis and low surgical risk. In terms of HRQoL, the risk to benefit ratio seems poor for patients with asymptomatic gallstones.

Cusum analysis of trends in operative selection and conversion rates for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) requires a high degree of technical ability, spatial resolution and dexterity. Assessing trainees and competent operators is an important aspect of quality assurance in patient care. Most institutions quote mean conversion rate as a method of comparing operators' performance. The purpose of the present study was to use the technique of cumulative sum (cusum) analysis to determine whether a learning curve phenomenon exists in operators performing LC.

METHODS

Data were obtained retrospectively by reviewing the operative records of all patients undergoing elective and acute cholecystectomy for a 30-month period coinciding with the commencement of LC at North Shore Hospital. Patients' age and gender, date and type of operative procedure, duration of operation, and name of operator were recorded. Mean and cusum-transformed data were derived for all operations as well as for four individual operators' performances.

RESULTS

Over the study period a total of 614 cholecystectomies was performed, with 85% attempted laparoscopically. A total of 9.8% required conversion to the open technique. Time trend analysis with the cusum technique for all surgeons revealed an inverse relationship between selection rate and conversion rate. Analysis of four individual surgeons revealed three different time trend profiles.

CONCLUSION

There was a direct inverse relationship between conversion rate and selection rate, in that careful selection is associated with a low conversion rate. Comparison of individual surgeons' performance showed wide variation, with only one surgeon exhibiting the phenomenon of a learning curve. Contrary to other reports, we found that performance on LC was not always related to operative experience. This highlights the need for a more objective method to analyse operator competence than operator experience alone.

Biliary Tract Dysmotility

Biliary pain resulting from motility disorders is common and may be overlooked due to the difficulty of diagnosing the presence of these disorders. A sound, logical approach to the evaluation and treatment of these specific groups of disorders is essential. In patients who have a gallbladder, we initially exclude the presence of gallstones by use of transcutaneous ultrasonography. If a patient's symptoms are atypical, we initiate therapy (eg, antispasmodics) for irritable bowel syndrome. Subsequently, we perform a quantitative cholescintigraphy with a low-dose infusion of cholecystokinin in patients with typical symptoms and in those with persistent atypical symptoms. Those patients who have abnormally low gallbladder ejection fractions are subsequently referred for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In postcholecystectomy patients, a standard approach should include obtaining serum liver associated laboratory chemistries, amylase and lipase levels, and a transcutaneous ultrasound to measure bile duct size. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is done to measure bile duct size, assess biliary duct emptying, and exclude other etiologies for pain. In patients with more than two abnormal findings on these tests (type I sphincter of Oddi dyskinesia), we recommend performing an empiric endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. In patients with no objective abnormalities (type III sphincter of Oddi dyskinesia), it is appropriate to begin medical therapy with antispasmodics and calcium-channel antagonists. In individuals who have one or two abnormalities (type II sphincter of Oddi dyskinesia) we prefer endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy; however, these individuals are offered the opportunity to have endoscopic biliary manometry performed in order to establish a clear diagnosis. If patients refuse this procedure, after careful explanation of risks, alternatives, and possible benefits of the procedure, empiric endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy is performed.

Tratamento cirúrgico da litíase biliar em idosos experiência em hospital de ensino

O receio de graves complicações pós-operatórias tem inibido muitas das indicações cirúrgicas da litíase biliar no paciente idoso sintomático. A finalidade principal deste trabalho foi averiguar a extensão real desse problema no Serviço de Gastroenterologia Cirúrgica do HSPE-FMO. Foram estudados 185 idosos portadores de litíase biliar com idade média de 73,0 ± 6,2 anos, no período de seis anos (1990-1995). Os pacientes foram divididos em dois grupos de acordo com a idade: I - com 118 (63,8%) pacientes de 60 a 74 anos e o II - com 67 (36,2%) pacientes entre 75 e 90 anos. O número de doentes do sexo masculino foi proporcionalmente maior no grupo II (p<0,02). Os sintomas foram similares nos dois grupos de enfermos. A maioria dos doentes foi submetida à operação eletiva-163 (88,1 %) sendo 22 (11,9%) operados de urgência por colecistite aguda. Maior número de cirurgias de urgência incidiu no grupo 11 (19,4% contra 7,6%). A colecistectomia foi realizada em todos os doentes. Cirurgia complementar indicada pela presença de coledocolitíase (15,1 %) e estenose papilar (2,7%) foi necessária em 38 (20,5%) deles, sendo maior no grupo II. A coledocolitotomia foi realizada em 28 (15,1%) doentes, a anastomose biliodigestiva em sete (3,8%) e a papilotomia em cinco (2,7%) doentes, não diferindo entre os dois grupos. Complicações pós-operatórias ocorreram em 37 (20%) doentes e foram as mesmas nos dois grupos. Não houve óbitos. Nossos resultados demonstram que a colecistectomia eletiva pode ser realizada com baixa morbidade e sem mortalidade em idosos, quando se impede a demora da indicação operatória em pacientes sintomáticos.

Trocar site seeding of inapparent gallbladder carcinoma during laparoscopic cholecystectomy

There are increasing reports of seeding of tumor at the trocar sites following laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with unexpected or inapparent gallbladder carcinoma. A patient is reported here whose primary tumor appeared controlled by surgery and radiation, but who died of the disease after developing implant metastases at three untreated trocar sites. The second case report illustrates the difficulty in identifying gallbladder cancer during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and the importance of a diligent preoperative effort to establish the diagnosis. Current literature suggests that tumor implantation occurring during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for inapparent carcinoma adversely affects prognosis, and, until the effect of laparoscopy on the spread of this tumor is better understood and controlled, open operation should be performed when carcinoma of the gallbladder is suspected. When laparoscopic cholecystectomy is done for inapparent gallbladder cancer, surgical and adjuvant radiotherapy to the trocar sites appears to improve outcome in association with extended treatment to the gallbladder bed and adjacent areas. Recent reports suggest that progress in diagnostic, surgical, and adjuvant techniques could substantially improve survival in carcinoma of the gallbladder.

Effect of a pneumoperitoneum on the extent and severity of peritonitis induced by gastric ulcer perforation in the rat

Laparoscopic surgical repair of perforated gastroduodenal ulcer is technically feasible. To study the effect of a pneumoperitoneum on the extent and severity of peritonitis this animal study was devised. In rats gastric ulceration was induced by instillation of ethanol (50%, 2 ml) and followed by gastrotomy to simulate perforation. Animals were randomly allocated to pneumoperitoneum (PP) and control groups. In PP groups CO2 was insufflated intraperitoneally 6, 9, 12, and 24 h after gastrotomy. In controls the abdomen was only punctured. Animals were sacrificed 5 h after the end of PP or abdominal puncture. Blood cultures and intraabdominal swabs were assessed. A peritonitis severity score (PSS) based on histologies from peritoneum, liver, left kidney, spleen, and first jejunal loop was estimated. Six and 9 h after gastrotomy no significant differences between the PP and control groups were observed; 12 h after gastrotomy cultures of blood samples and abdominal swabs were positive in 67% and 75% in the PP group compared to 42% (P < 0.05), and 42% (P < 0.05) in controls. The mean PSS was 20.8 (standard deviation [SD] 2.2) in the PP group compared to 11.3 (1.5) (P < 0.01) in controls; 24 h after gastrotomy cultures of blood samples and abdominal swabs were positive in 83% and 100% in the PP group compared to 42% (P < 0.05) and 50% (P < 0.01) in controls. The mean PSS was 22.1 (1.5) in the PP group compared to 11.8 (2.4) (P < 0.01) in the controls.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

The treatment of gall stones

Images

The E.A.E.S. Consensus Development Conferences on laparoscopic cholecystectomy, appendectomy, and hernia repair. Consensus statements--September 1994. The Educational Committee of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery

Under the mandate of the Educational Committee of the European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (E.A.E.S.), three consensus development conferences (CDCs) were performed in order to assess the current status of the endoscopic surgical approaches for the treatment of cholelithiasis, appendicitis, and inguinal hernia. Consensus panels for the different disease states (10-13 members each) selected by the education committee on the basis of members' clinical expertise, academic activity, community influence, and geographical location weighed the evidence on the basis of published results according to the criteria for technology assessment: feasibility, efficacy, effectiveness, economy. Draft statements were prepared, discussed by the panels, and presented at plenary sessions of the 2nd European Congress of the E.A.E.S. in Madrid September 15-17, 1994. Following discussions final consensus statements were formulated to provide specific answers for each topic to a minimum of the following questions: 1. What stage of technological development is the endoscopic surgical procedure at (in September 1994)? 2. Is endoscopic surgery safe and feasible? 3. Is it beneficial to the patients? 4. Who should undergo endoscopic surgery? 5. What are the training recommendations? Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the procedure of choice for symptomatic cholelithiasis. Laparoscopic appendectomy is presently at the efficacy stage of development, because most of the data on feasibility and safety originate from centers with special interest in endoscopic surgery: it is not yet the gold standard for acute appendicitis. Endoscopic hernia repair is presently a feasible alternative for conventional hernia repair if performed by experienced endoscopic surgeons. It appears to be efficacious in the short-term. The full text of the consensus panel's statements is given in this publication.

Case study: assessing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The GVHS experience

This article describes the experience at the Greater Victoria Hospital Society of assessing the appropriateness of introducing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (lap chole) within the framework of an established technology assessment process. Lap chole promised to deliver cost savings; however, these could only be realized by capitalizing on the reduced length of stay by removing the surgical beds from service. A cautionary note is raised as to whether the increased use of lap chole in the population is appropriate.