Management of symptomatic cholelithiasis: a systematic review

Socially vulnerable patients are more likely to fail outpatient management of symptomatic cholelithiasis

BACKGROUND

Symptomatic cholelithiasis is a common surgical problem, with many patients requiring multiple gallstone-related emergency department (ED) visits before cholecystectomy. The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) identifies vulnerable patient populations. This study aimed to assess the association between social vulnerability and outpatient management of symptomatic cholelithiasis.

METHODS

Patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis-related ED visits were identified within our health system from 2016 to 2022. Clinical outcomes data were merged with SVI census track data, which consist of 4 SVI subthemes (socioeconomic status, household characteristics, racial and ethnic minority status, and housing type and transportation). Multivariate analysis was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 47,292 patients presented to the ED with symptomatic cholelithiasis, of which 6103 patients (13.3 %) resided in vulnerable census tract regions. Of these patients, 13,795 (29.2 %) underwent immediate cholecystectomy with a mean time to surgery of 35.1 h, 8250 (17.4 %) underwent elective cholecystectomy at a mean of 40.6 days from the initial ED visit, and 2924 (6.2 %) failed outpatient management and returned 1.26 times (range, 1-11) to the ED with recurrent biliary-related pain. Multivariate analysis found social vulnerability subthemes of socioeconomic status (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95 % CI, 1.09-1.52) and racial and ethnic minority status (OR, 2.41; 95 % CI, 2.05-2.83) to be associated with failure of outpatient management of symptomatic cholelithiasis.

CONCLUSION

Socially vulnerable patients are more likely to return to the ED with symptomatic cholelithiasis. Policies to support this vulnerable population in the outpatient setting with timely follow-up and elective cholecystectomy can help reduce delays in care and overutilization of ED resources.

ROBOtic Care Outcomes Project for acute gallbladder pathology

BACKGROUND

Robotic cholecystectomy is being increasingly used for patients with acute gallbladder disease who present to the emergency department, but clinical evidence is limited. We aimed to compare the outcomes of emergent laparoscopic and robotic cholecystectomies in a large real-world database.

METHODS

Patients who received emergent laparoscopic or robotic cholecystectomies from 2020 to 2022 were identified from the Intuitive Custom Hospital Analytics database, based on deidentified extraction of electronic health record data from US hospitals. Conversion to open or subtotal cholecystectomy and complications were defined using ICD10 and/or CPT codes. Multivariate logistic regression with inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed to compare clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic approach after balancing covariates. Cost analysis was performed with activity-based costing and adjustment for inflation.

RESULTS

Of 26,786 laparoscopic and 3,151 robotic emergent cholecystectomy patients being included, 64% were female, 60% were ≥45 years, and 24% were obese. Approximately 5.5% patients presented with pancreatitis, and 4% each presenting with sepsis and biliary obstruction. After IPTW, distributions of all baseline covariates were balanced. Robotic cholecystectomy decreased odds of conversion to open (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.93; p = 0.035), but increased odds of subtotal cholecystectomy (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.60; p = 0.037). Surgical site infection, readmission, length of stay, hospital acquired conditions, bile duct injury or leak, and hospital mortality were similar in both groups. There was no significant difference in hospital cost.

CONCLUSION

Robotic cholecystectomy has reduced odds of conversion to open and comparable complications, but increased odds of subtotal cholecystectomy compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute gallbladder diseases. Further work is required to assess the long-term implications of these differences.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.