The influence of the interval between percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage and cholecystectomy on perioperative outcomes: a retrospective study

Comparison between percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage and upfront laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with moderate-to-severe acute cholecystitis: a propensity score-matched analysis

Purpose

In the Tokyo Guidelines 2018 (TG18), emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy is recognized as a crucial early treatment option for acute cholecystitis. However, early laparoscopic intervention in patients with moderate-to-severe acute cholecystitis or those with severe comorbidities may increase the risk of complications. Therefore, in the present study, we investigated the association between early laparoscopic cholecystectomy and percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) in moderate-to-severe acute cholecystitis patients.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 835 TG18 grade II or III acute cholecystitis patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy at 4 tertiary medical centers in the Republic of Korea. Patients were classified into 2 groups according to whether PTGBD was performed before surgery, and their short-term postoperative outcomes were analyzed retrospectively.

Results

The patients were divided into 2 groups, and 1:1 propensity score matching was conducted to establish the PTGBD group (n = 201) and the early laparoscopic cholecystectomy group (n = 201). The PTGBD group experienced significantly higher rates of preoperative systemic inflammatory response syndrome (24.9% vs. 6.5%, P < 0.001), pneumonia (7.5% vs. 3.0%, P = 0.045), and cardiac disease (67.2% vs. 57.7%, P = 0.041) than the early operation group. However, there was no difference in biliary complication (hazard ratio, 1.103; 95% confidence interval, 0.519-2.343; P = 0.799) between the PTGBD group and early laparoscopic cholecystectomy group.

Conclusion

In most cases of moderate-to-severe cholecystitis, early laparoscopic cholecystectomy was relatively feasible. However, PTGBD should be considered if patients have the risk factor of underlying disease when experiencing general anesthesia.

Comparison of the safety and effectiveness of different surgical timing for acute cholecystitis after percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in the treatment of acute cholecystitis (AC) at different time points after percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from database inception to 1 May 2022. The last date of search was the May 30, 2022. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to conduct quality assessments, and RevMan (Version 5.4) was used to perform the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies and 4379 patients were analyzed. Compared with the < 2-week group, the ≥ 2-week group had shorter operation time, less intraoperative blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay, lower rate of conversion to laparotomy, and fewer complications. There was no statistical difference between the two groups regarding bile duct injury, bile leakage, and total cost.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence indicates that the ≥ 2-week group has the advantage in less intraoperative blood loss, minor tissue damage, quick recovery, and sound healing in treating AC. It can be seen that LC after 2 weeks is safe and effective for AC patients who have already undergone PTGBD and is recommended, but further confirmation is needed in a larger sample of randomized controlled studies.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of early vs late interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy following percutaneous cholecystostomy

BACKGROUND

High risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis are commonly treated with percutaneous cholecystostomy (PTC) drainage. The optimal timing of subsequent interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) remains unclear.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched to identify studies published between 01/01/2000 and 31/12/2020, reporting on interval LC outcomes in patients initially treated by PTC. Early and late interval LC were defined as <30 and ≥ 30 days respectively. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies was used for quality assessment. Meta-analysis of proportions was conducted using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 512 studies were screened, 41 met the inclusion criteria. There were 22 studies in both early and late interval LC groups, with 3 included studies reporting both early and late groups. Following quality assessment, 29 studies were included in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between early and late interval LC in terms of conversion rates (7.2% vs 8.3%, p = 0.854), 90-day morbidity (12.8% vs 15.9%, p = 0.496), and 90-day mortality (0.25% vs 0.32%, p = 0.704). Heterogeneity was significant (I²>50%) in all groups.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence of interval LC within or beyond 30 days demonstrates no significant impact on outcomes. Patient factors, clinical experience, and hospital facilities may prove more important predictors.