A prospective analysis of 1518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies

BACKGROUND AND METHODS

The Southern Surgeons Club conducted a prospective study of 1518 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy for treatment of gallbladder disease in order to evaluate the safety of this procedure.

RESULTS

Seven hundred fifty-eight operations (49.9 percent) were performed at academic hospitals, and 760 (50.1 percent) at private hospitals. In 72 patients (4.7 percent) the operation was converted to conventional open cholecystectomy; the most common reason for the change was the inability to identify the anatomy of the gallbladder as a result of inflammation in the region of this organ. A total of 82 complications occurred in 78 (5.1 percent) of the patients; this is comparable with the rates of 6 to 21 percent that have been reported for conventional cholecystectomy. Overall, the most common complication was superficial infection of the site of insertion of the umbilical trocar. A total of seven injuries to the common bile duct or the hepatic duct occurred during the operation, for a rate of 0.5 percent. Four of the seven injuries were simple lacerations, which were repaired after conversion to conventional cholecystectomy. The incidence of bile-duct injury in the first 13 patients operated on by each surgical group was 2.2 percent, as compared with 0.1 percent for subsequent patients. No complications were attributed directly to either cautery or laser-surgical technique, and similar numbers of complications occurred in academic and private hospitals. The mean hospital stay for the entire group was 1.2 days (range, 6 hours to 30 days).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of laparoscopic cholecystectomy compare favorably with those of conventional cholecystectomy with respect to mortality, complications, and length of hospital stay. A slightly higher incidence of biliary injury with the laparoscopic procedure is probably offset by the low incidence of other complications.

Laparoscopic laser cholecystectomy. A comparison with mini-lap cholecystectomy

The standard treatment of cholelithiasis in the United States is surgical removal of the gallbladder, but this treatment often has a major economic impact on the patient: major surgery, lengthy hospitalization, and several weeks' absence from work. Because of this economic factor, there has been a movement toward non-invasive methods, but they, too, have their drawbacks: long-term medical therapy; a high risk of stone recurrence because the diseased gallbladder is still in place. We therefore developed a means of performing a cholecystectomy through a laparoscope using laser technology, the results of which are compared here with the results in a series of "mini-lap" cholecystectomies that we also performed during the same time period.

The European experience with laparoscopic cholecystectomy

A retrospective survey of 7 European centers involving 20 surgeons who undertook 1,236 laparoscopic cholecystectomies was performed. The procedure was completed in 1,191 patients. Conversion to open cholecystectomy was necessary in 45 patients (3.6%) either because of technical difficulty (n = 33), the onset of complications (n = 11), or instrument failure (n = 1). There were no deaths reported, and the total postoperative complication rate was 20 of 1,203 (1.6%), with 9 being serious complications requiring laparotomy. The total incidence of bile duct damage was 4 of 1,203. The median hospital stay was 3 days (range: 1 to 27 days) and the median time to return to full activity after discharge was 11 days (range: 7 to 42 days).

Coelioscopic cholecystectomy. Preliminary report of 36 cases

Intra-abdominal endoscopy, routinely used for gynecologic operations can be extended safely for cholecystectomy in uncomplicated cholelithiasis. Thirty-six patients underwent coelioscopic cholecystectomy with few and only benign complications. The main advantages are cosmetic preservation, reduction of postoperative pain, shortening of hospital stay, and early recovery of a normal activity.

Tokyo Guidelines 2018: flowchart for the management of acute cholecystitis

We propose a new flowchart for the treatment of acute cholecystitis (AC) in the Tokyo Guidelines 2018 (TG18). Grade III AC was not indicated for straightforward laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Lap-C). Following analysis of subsequent clinical investigations and drawing on Big Data in particular, TG18 proposes that some Grade III AC can be treated by Lap-C when performed at advanced centers with specialized surgeons experienced in this procedure and for patients that satisfy certain strict criteria. For Grade I, TG18 recommends early Lap-C if the patients meet the criteria of Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) ≤5 and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification (ASA-PS) ≤2. For Grade II AC, if patients meet the criteria of CCI ≤5 and ASA-PS ≤2, TG18 recommends early Lap-C performed by experienced surgeons; and if not, after medical treatment and/or gallbladder drainage, Lap-C would be indicated. TG18 proposes that Lap-C is indicated in Grade III patients with strict criteria. These are that the patients have favorable organ system failure, and negative predictive factors, who meet the criteria of CCI ≤3 and ASA-PS ≤2 and who are being treated at an advanced center (where experienced surgeons practice). If the patient is not considered suitable for early surgery, TG18 recommends early/urgent biliary drainage followed by delayed Lap-C once the patient's overall condition has improved. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47. Related clinical questions and references are also included.

Carcinoma of the gallbladder

Carcinoma of the gallbladder is the most common malignant tumour of the biliary tract and a particularly high incidence is observed in Chile, Japan, and northern India. The aetiology of this tumour is complex, but there is a strong association with gallstones. Owing to its non-specific symptoms, gallbladder carcinoma is generally diagnosed late in the disease course, but if a patient with gallstones experiences a sudden change of symptoms, then a cancer diagnosis should be considered. Treatment with radical or extended cholecystectomy is potentially curative, although these procedures are only possible in 10-30% of patients. There is no role for cytoreductive surgery in this disease. If a gallbladder carcinoma is discovered via pathological examination of tissue samples, then the patient should be examined further and should have radical surgery if the tumour is found to be T1b or beyond. Additional port-site excision is necessary if the patient has already had their gallbladder removed during laparoscopy; however, patients with an intact gallbladder who are suspected to have gallbladder carcinoma should not undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients with advanced inoperable disease should receive palliative treatment; however, the role of chemotherapy and radiation in these patients needs further evaluation.

Mechanisms of major biliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has become the procedure of choice for surgical removal of the gallbladder. The most significant complication of this new technique is injury to the bile duct. Twelve cases of bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy were reviewed. Eight injuries were of a classic type: misidentification of the common duct for the cystic duct, resection of part of the common and hepatic ducts, and associated right hepatic arterial injury. Another injury was similar: clip ligation of the distal common duct with proximal ligation and division of the cystic duct, resulting in biliary obstruction and leakage. Three complications arose from excessive use of cautery or laser in the region of the common duct, resulting in biliary strictures. Evaluation of persistent diffuse abdominal pain led to the recognition of ductal injury in most patients. Ultimately, 10 patients required a Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy to provide adequate biliary drainage. One patient had a successful direct common duct repair, and the remaining patient underwent endoscopic dilatation.

Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline

ESGE recommends offering stone extraction to all patients with common bile duct stones, symptomatic or not, who are fit enough to tolerate the intervention.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends liver function tests and abdominal ultrasonography as the initial diagnostic steps for suspected common bile duct stones. Combining these tests defines the probability of having common bile duct stones.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography to diagnose common bile duct stones in patients with persistent clinical suspicion but insufficient evidence of stones on abdominal ultrasonography.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the following timing for biliary drainage, preferably endoscopic, in patients with acute cholangitis, classified according to the 2018 revision of the Tokyo Guidelines:- severe, as soon as possible and within 12 hours for patients with septic shock- moderate, within 48 - 72 hours- mild, elective.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends endoscopic placement of a temporary biliary plastic stent in patients with irretrievable biliary stones that warrant biliary drainage.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.ESGE recommends limited sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation as the first-line approach to remove difficult common bile duct stones. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of cholangioscopy-assisted intraluminal lithotripsy (electrohydraulic or laser) as an effective and safe treatment of difficult bile duct stones.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 2 weeks from ERCP for patients treated for choledocholithiasis to reduce the conversion rate and the risk of recurrent biliary events. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A prospective analysis of 100 initial patients

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy quickly emerged as an alternative to open cholecystectomy. However its safety, efficacy, and morbidity have yet to be fully evaluated. During the first 6 months of 1990, we performed 100 consecutive laparoscopic cholecystectomies with no deaths and a morbidity rate of 8% (8 of 100 patients; 4 major, 4 minor). There were 81 women and 19 men, with a mean age of 46.1 years (range, 17 to 84 years). All patients had a preoperative history consistent with symptomatic biliary tract disease, and most had proved gallstones by sonography. This included four patients with acute cholecystitis. Mean operating time improved significantly from month 1 to month 6 (122 +/- 45.4 minutes versus 78.5 +/- 30 minutes, respectively), indicating a rapid learning curve. Mean hospital stay was 27.6 hours, reflecting a policy of overnight stay. Postoperative narcotic requirements were limited to oral or no medications in more than 70% of patients. A regular diet was tolerated by 83% of the patients by the morning following the procedure. Median time of return to full activity was 12.8 +/- 6.8 days after operation. In addition analysis of the hospital costs of these 100 cases demonstrates a modest cost advantage over standard open cholecystectomy (n = 58) (mean, $3620.25 +/- $1005.00 versus $4251.76 +/- $988.00). There was one minor bile duct injury requiring laparotomy and t-tube insertion, two postoperative bile collections, and one clinical diagnosis of a retained stone that passed spontaneously. Four patients required conversion to open cholecystectomy because of technical difficulties with the dissection. Although there is a significant learning curve, laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a safe and effective procedure that can be performed with minimal risk. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be performed by surgeons who are trained in biliary surgery and knowledgeable in biliary anatomy, and, as with all operations, it should be performed with meticulous attention to technique.

Experimental studies of transgastric gallbladder surgery: cholecystectomy and cholecystogastric anastomosis (videos)

BACKGROUND

Transgastric flexible endoscopic surgery might offer advantages over open and laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to develop methods for performing transgastric biliary endosurgery.

METHODS

Cholecystectomies and biliary anastomoses were performed in 8 anesthetized pigs (27-30 kg) in nonsurvival studies. Two endoscopes passed perorally were inserted through the stomach wall after needle-knife incision. Endoscope-induced pneumoperitoneum allowed viewing and manipulation of the gallbladder with both endoscopes independently. The cystic duct was dissected, clipped, and transected. Cholecystectomy was performed with one of two methods: either by using two endoscopes, or a single endoscope and a 5-mm-diameter grasping instrument inserted transabdominally. Clips and sutures were used to attach the gallbladder to the stomach wall, and an incision was made to form a cholecystogastrostomy. In survival experiments in 8 pigs, transgastric incisions were closed with endoscopic sutures.

RESULTS

The gallbladder was successfully removed in 8 pigs (nonsurvival experiments). The time for the procedure ranged from 2.5 hours to 40 minutes and decreased with experience. At postmortem examination, clips placed on the cystic duct and the artery were secure. An anastomosis was successfully formed between gallbladder and stomach in 3 pigs. In 8 pigs, full-thickness incisions in the stomach wall were closed with two to 4 stitches. All 8 pigs survived (median follow-up, 22 days; range 14-28 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Transgastric gallbladder surgery, including cholecystectomy and biliary anastomosis, is feasible. Full-thickness gastric incisions were safely closed in survival studies. The efficacy and the safety of transgastric surgery merits further study.

Intraoperative cholangiography and risk of common bile duct injury during cholecystectomy

CONTEXT

Intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) may decrease the risk of common bile duct (CBD) injury during cholecystectomy by helping to avoid misidentification of the CBD.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the relationship of IOC use and CBD injury while controlling for patient and surgeon characteristics.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS

Retrospective nationwide cohort analysis of Medicare patients undergoing cholecystectomy from January 1, 1992, to December 31, 1999. Patients were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes from the Medicare Part B depository. Common bile duct injury was defined by a second surgical procedure to repair the CBD injury within 1 year of cholecystectomy. Surgeon demographic features were obtained from matching the Medicare Part B data to the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile database.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Frequency of CBD injury in patients who did and did not have IOC performed during cholecystectomy, controlling for patient-level (age, sex, race, and case complexity) and surgeon-level (surgeon's age, sex, race, year of surgical procedure, case order, percentage of IOC use in prior surgical procedures, years in medical practice, board certification, and specialization) factors.

RESULTS

The database search identified 1 570 361 cholecystectomies and 7911 CBD injuries (0.5%). Common bile duct injury was found in 2380 (0.39%) of 613 706 patients undergoing cholecystectomy with IOC and in 5531 (0.58%) of 956 655 patients undergoing cholecystectomy without IOC (unadjusted relative risk, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-1.57). After controlling for patient-level factors and surgeon-level factors, the risk of injury was increased when IOC was not used (adjusted relative risk, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.38-2.28). While surgeons performing IOCs routinely had a lower rate of CBD injuries than those who did not, this difference disappeared when IOC was not used.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of Medicare patients undergoing cholecystectomy in the 1990s, the risk of CBD injury was significantly higher when IOC was not used. Although IOCs may not prevent all CBD injuries, this study suggests that the routine use of IOC may decrease the rate of CBD injury.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The new 'gold standard'?

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has rapidly been adopted by surgeons, but concerns remain about its safety, the management of common bile duct stones, and the means of appropriate training. Of 647 patients referred for cholecystectomy, preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography was performed in 49 (7.6%), with 27 patients (4%) undergoing sphincterotomy and stone extraction. Traditional cholecystectomy was performed in 29 patients (4.5%). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was attempted in 618 patients and completed successfully in 600 (97.1%). Surgical trainees functioned as the primary surgeon in 70% of cases. Technical complications occurred in three patients (0.5%), including one patient with a common bile duct laceration (0.2%). Major complications occurred in 10 patients (1.6%), with no perioperative mortality. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 1 day, with return to work or full activity a mean of 8 days after surgery. Two cases of retained common bile duct stones (0.3%) were identified. We now regard laparoscopic cholecystectomy as the "gold standard" therapy for management of symptomatic cholelithiasis.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Treatment of choice for symptomatic cholelithiasis

Our initial experience with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for symptomatic cholelithiasis has involved 152 patients. Patient age ranged from 17 to 83 years; most were female (78%). Their average weight was 170 pounds (range, 75 to 365 lbs.). Twenty-two per cent had a single gallstone, while 9% had two to three stones and 64% had more than three stones. Exclusion criteria initially included upper abdominal scarring, severe acute cholecystitis, choledocholithiasis, and inability to tolerate general anesthesia. The first two of these are now only relative contraindications with increased experience. Thirteen of the one hundred fifty-two procedures (8.5%) required conversion to an open operation. Average time of operation was 138 minutes. Intraoperative cholangiography was attempted in 78% of cases and was completed successfully in 66% of those attempted. There have been no deaths. The complication rate has been low: 4% major, 0% life-threatening, and 7.2% minor complications. Postoperative analgesic requirements are remarkably low: 36% of patients required no narcotics after leaving the recovery room. Eighty-seven per cent of patients successfully undergoing LC were discharged by the first postoperative day. Most patients resumed normal activities within 1 week after discharge. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy offers the majority of patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis an improved treatment option, resulting in significantly less postoperative pain, hospitalization, and recuperation time.

Randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus mini cholecystectomy. The McGill Gallstone Treatment Group

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has gained wide acceptance for treatment of cholelithiasis in preference to open cholecystectomy, though it has not been formally compared with mini cholecystectomy (MC). We have compared these two techniques in a randomised trial. 70 patients with ultrasound-proven cholelithiasis were randomly allocated LC (38) or MC (32); 37 and 25, respectively, underwent the assigned procedure. The mean hospital stay (including 1 preoperative day) was significantly shorter in the LC than the MC group (median 3 [interquartile range 2-3] vs 4 [3-5], p = 0.001) as was duration of convalescence (mean 11.9 [SD 9.1] vs 20.2 [16.5] days, p = 0.04). The rate of return to normal activities was 1.77 times greater in the LC group than in the MC group (95% confidence interval 1.01-3.11, p = 0.03). In regression analysis, the type of cholecystectomy done was the only variable significantly associated with the duration of convalescence. Although there was significant postoperative improvement in all of three quality of life scores in both groups, LC patients improved more quickly than did MC patients. This randomised trial shows the superior effectiveness of LC over MC in treating cholelithiasis.

Randomised trial of laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for acute and gangrenous cholecystitis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has become the treatment of choice for elective cholecystectomy, but controversy persists over use of this approach in the treatment of acute cholecystitis. We undertook a randomised comparison of the safety and outcome of LC and open cholecystectomy (OC) in patients with acute cholecystitis.

METHODS

63 of 68 consecutive patients who met criteria for acute cholecystitis were randomly assigned OC (31 patients) or LC (32 patients). The primary endpoints were hospital mortality and morbidity, length of hospital stay, and length of sick leave from work. Analysis was by intention to treat. Suspected bile-duct stones were investigated by preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (LC group) or intraoperative cholangiography (OC group).

FINDINGS

The two randomised groups were similar in demographic, physical, and clinical characteristics. 48% of the patients in the OC group and 59% in the LC group were older than 60 years. 13 patients in each group had gangrene or empyema, and one in each group had perforation of the gallbladder causing diffuse peritonitis. Five (16%) patients in the LC group required conversion to OC, in most because severe inflammation distorted the anatomy of Calot's triangle. There were no deaths or bile-duct lesions in either group, but the postoperative complication rate was significantly (p=0.0048) higher in the OC than in the LC group: seven (23%) patients had major and six (19%) minor complications after OC, whereas only one (3%) minor complication occurred after LC. The postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LC than the OC group (median 4 [IQR 2-5] vs 6 [5-8] days; p=0.0063). Mean length of sick leave was shorter in the LC group (13.9 vs 30.1 days; 95% CI for difference 10.9-21.7).

INTERPRETATION

Even though LC for acute and gangrenous cholecystitis is technically demanding, in experienced hands it is safe and effective. It does not increase the mortality rate, and the morbidity rate seems to be even lower than that in OC. However, a moderately high conversion rate must be accepted.

Laparoscopic versus minilaparotomy cholecystectomy: a randomised trial

Although laparoscopic cholecystectomy has rapidly become routine practice in the UK, there has been no rigorous comparison of it with open cholecystectomy. In our trial, 302 patients were randomised to laparoscopic or minilaparotomy cholecystectomy. Recovery after surgery was assessed by length of hospital stay, outpatient review at 10 days and 4 weeks, and patient questionnaires 1, 4, and 12 weeks after surgery. The mean operation time was 14 min shorter for minilaparotomy, while median post-operative hospital stay was 2 days shorter after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The hospital costs were about 400 pounds greater for the laparoscopic procedure. Laparoscopic patients returned to work in the home sooner; at 1 week, they had better physical and social functioning, were less limited by physical problems, and had less pain and depression. At 4 weeks, only physical functioning and depression scores were better in the laparoscopic group, and by 3 months there were no differences. Laparoscopic patients were more satisfied with the appearance of their scars. The incidence of complications after both procedures was 20%. Compared to minilaparotomy cholecystectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy results in shorter hospital stay, less postoperative dysfunction, and quicker return to normal activities, but is more costly.

Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis

BACKGROUND

Cholecystectomy is one of the most frequently performed operations. Open cholecystectomy has been the gold standard for over 100 years. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was introduced in the 1980s.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched TheCochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (April 2004), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (1980 to January 2004), Web of Science (1988 to January 2004), and CINAHL (1982 to January 2004) for randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished randomised trials in patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis comparing any kind of laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus any kind of open cholecystectomy. No language limitations were applied.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently performed selection of trials and data extraction. The methodological quality of the generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up was evaluated to assess bias risk. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. Authors were requested additional information in case of missing data. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed when appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-eight trials randomised 2338 patients. Most of the trials had high bias risk. There was no significant difference regarding mortality (risk difference 0,00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.01). Meta-analysis of all trials suggests less overall complications in the laparoscopic group, but the high-quality trials show no significant difference ('allocation concealment' high-quality trials risk difference, random effects -0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.02). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients have a shorter hospital stay (weighted mean difference (WMD), random effects -3 days, 95% CI -3.9 to -2.3) and convalescence (WMD, random effects -22.5 days, 95% CI -36.9 to -8.1) compared to open cholecystectomy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences were observed in mortality, complications and operative time between laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay and a quicker convalescence compared with the classical open cholecystectomy. These results confirm the existing preference for the laparoscopic cholecystectomy over open cholecystectomy.

2020 World Society of Emergency Surgery updated guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute calculus cholecystitis

BACKGROUND

Acute calculus cholecystitis (ACC) has a high incidence in the general population. The presence of several areas of uncertainty, along with the availability of new evidence, prompted the current update of the 2016 WSES (World Society of Emergency Surgery) Guidelines on ACC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The WSES president appointed four members as a scientific secretariat, four members as an organization committee and four members as a scientific committee, choosing them from the expert affiliates of WSES. Relevant key questions were constructed, and the task force produced drafts of each section based on the best scientific evidence from PubMed and EMBASE Library; recommendations were developed in order to answer these key questions. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were reviewed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria (see https://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/ ). All the statements were presented, discussed and voted upon during the Consensus Conference at the 6th World Congress of the World Society of Emergency Surgery held in Nijmegen (NL) in May 2019. A revised version of the statements was voted upon via an online questionnaire until consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The pivotal role of surgery is confirmed, including in high-risk patients. When compared with the WSES 2016 guidelines, the role of gallbladder drainage is reduced, despite the considerable technical improvements available. Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC) should be the standard of care whenever possible, even in subgroups of patients who are considered fragile, such as the elderly; those with cardiac disease, renal disease and cirrhosis; or those who are generally at high risk for surgery. Subtotal cholecystectomy is safe and represents a valuable option in cases of difficult gallbladder removal.

CONCLUSIONS, KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS

ELC has a central role in the management of patients with ACC. The value of surgical treatment for high-risk patients should lead to a distinction between high-risk patients and patients who are not suitable for surgery. Further evidence on the role of clinical judgement and the use of clinical scores as adjunctive tools to guide treatment of high-risk patients and patients who are not suitable for surgery is required. The development of local policies for safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy is recommended.

Open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis. Systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has become a popular alternative to open cholecystectomy (OC) in the treatment of acute cholecystitis (AC). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is now considered the gold standard of therapy for symptomatic cholelithiasis and chronic cholecystitis. However no definitive data on its use in AC has been published. CIAO and CIAOW studies demonstrated 48.7% of AC were still operated with the open technique. The aim of the present meta-analysis is to compare OC and LC in AC.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic-review with meta-analysis and meta-regression of trials comparing open vs. laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with AC was performed. Electronic searches were performed using Medline, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCTR), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and CINAHL.

RESULTS

Ten trials have been included with a total of 1248 patients: 677 in the LC and 697 into the OC groups. The post-operative morbidity rate was half with LC (OR = 0.46). The post-operative wound infection and pneumonia rates were reduced by LC (OR 0.54 and 0.51 respectively). The post-operative mortality rate was reduced by LC (OR = 0.2). The mean postoperative hospital stay was significantly shortened in the LC group (MD = -4.74 days). There were no significant differences in the bile leakage rate, intraoperative blood loss and operative times.

CONCLUSIONS

In acute cholecystitis, post-operative morbidity, mortality and hospital stay were reduced by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Moreover pneumonia and wound infection rate were reduced by LC. Severe hemorrhage and bile leakage rates were not influenced by the technique. Cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis should be attempted laparoscopically first.

Analysis of the hemodynamic and ventilatory effects of laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy uses carbon dioxide, a highly diffusable gas, for insufflation. With extended periods of insufflation, patient arterial carbon dioxide levels may be adversely altered. Patients were selected for laparoscopic cholecystectomy using the same criteria as for open cholecystectomy. Twenty patients (group 1) had normal preoperative cardiopulmonary status (American Society of Anesthesiologists class I), while 10 patients (group 2) had previously diagnosed cardiac or pulmonary disease (class II or III). Demographic, hemodynamic, arterial blood gas, and ventilatory data were collected before peritoneal insufflation and at intervals during surgery. Patients with preoperative cardiopulmonary disease demonstrated significant increases in arterial carbon dioxide levels and decreases in pH during carbon dioxide insufflation compared with patients without underlying disease. Results of concurrent noninvasive methods of assessing changes in partial arterial pressures of carbon dioxide (end-tidal carbon dioxide measured with mass spectrographic techniques) may be misleading and misinterpreted because changes in partial arterial pressures of carbon dioxide are typically much smaller than changes in arterial blood levels and, unlike arterial gas measurements, do not indicate the true level of arterial hypercarbia. During laparoscopic cholecystectomy, patients with chronic cardiopulmonary disease may require careful intraoperative arterial blood gas monitoring of absorbed carbon dioxide.

Randomised, prospective, single-blind comparison of laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

We report a prospective randomised comparison between laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy in 200 patients which was designed to eliminate bias for or against either technique.

METHODS

Patients were randomised in the operating theatre and anaesthetic technique and pain-control methods were standardised. Four experienced surgeons did both types of procedure. Identical wound dressings were applied in both groups so that carers could be kept blind to the type of operation.

FINDINGS

There was no significant difference between the groups for age, sex, body mass index, and American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy took significantly longer than small-incision cholecystectomy (median 65 [range 27-140] min vs 40 [18-142] min, p<0.001). The operating time included operative cholangiography which was attempted in all patients. We found no significant difference between the groups for hospital stay (postoperative nights in hospital, median 3-0 [1-17] nights for laparoscopic vs 3-0 [1-14] nights for small-incision, p=0.74), time back to work for employed persons (median 5-0 weeks vs 4.0 weeks; p=0.39), and time to full activity (median 3-0 weeks vs 3.0 weeks; p=0.15).

INTERPRETATION

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy takes longer to do than small-incision cholecystectomy and does not have any significant advantages in terms of hospital stay or postoperative recovery.

Same-admission versus interval cholecystectomy for mild gallstone pancreatitis (PONCHO): a multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis, cholecystectomy during the same hospital admission might reduce the risk of recurrent gallstone-related complications, compared with the more commonly used strategy of interval cholecystectomy. However, evidence to support same-admission cholecystectomy is poor, and concerns exist about an increased risk of cholecystectomy-related complications with this approach. In this study, we aimed to compare same-admission and interval cholecystectomy, with the hypothesis that same-admission cholecystectomy would reduce the risk of recurrent gallstone-related complications without increasing the difficulty of surgery.

METHODS

For this multicentre, parallel-group, assessor-masked, randomised controlled superiority trial, inpatients recovering from mild gallstone pancreatitis at 23 hospitals in the Netherlands (with hospital discharge foreseen within 48 h) were assessed for eligibility. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were eligible for randomisation if they had a serum C-reactive protein concentration less than 100 mg/L, no need for opioid analgesics, and could tolerate a normal oral diet. Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class III physical status who were older than 75 years of age, all ASA class IV patients, those with chronic pancreatitis, and those with ongoing alcohol misuse were excluded. A central study coordinator randomly assigned eligible patients (1:1) by computer-based randomisation, with varying block sizes of two and four patients, to cholecystectomy within 3 days of randomisation (same-admission cholecystectomy) or to discharge and cholecystectomy 25-30 days after randomisation (interval cholecystectomy). Randomisation was stratified by centre and by whether or not endoscopic sphincterotomy had been done. Neither investigators nor participants were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was a composite of readmission for recurrent gallstone-related complications (pancreatitis, cholangitis, cholecystitis, choledocholithiasis needing endoscopic intervention, or gallstone colic) or mortality within 6 months after randomisation, analysed by intention to treat. The trial was designed to reduce the incidence of the primary endpoint from 8% in the interval group to 1% in the same-admission group. Safety endpoints included bile duct leakage and other complications necessitating re-intervention. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN72764151, and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 22, 2010, and Aug 19, 2013, 266 inpatients from 23 hospitals in the Netherlands were randomly assigned to interval cholecystectomy (n=137) or same-admission cholecystectomy (n=129). One patient from each group was excluded from the final analyses, because of an incorrect diagnosis of pancreatitis in one patient (in the interval group) and discontinued follow-up in the other (in the same-admission group). The primary endpoint occurred in 23 (17%) of 136 patients in the interval group and in six (5%) of 128 patients in the same-admission group (risk ratio 0·28, 95% CI 0·12-0·66; p=0·002). Safety endpoints occurred in four patients: one case of bile duct leakage and one case of postoperative bleeding in each group. All of these were serious adverse events and were judged to be treatment related, but none led to death.

INTERPRETATION

Compared with interval cholecystectomy, same-admission cholecystectomy reduced the rate of recurrent gallstone-related complications in patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis, with a very low risk of cholecystectomy-related complications.

FUNDING

Dutch Digestive Disease Foundation.

A nationwide study of conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy

PURPOSE

To determine the national incidence and risk factors for conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND

Most series reporting the rates at which laparoscopic cholecystectomies are performed, relative to the open procedure, have come from centers specializing in laparoscopic surgery. The rates at which conversions occur from these centers may not reflect those in community practice. We sought to determine the actual, and therefore acceptable, conversion rate by examining nationally representative discharge data.

METHODS

The National Hospital Discharge database for 1998 to 2001 was acquired from the Centers for Disease Control. All gallbladder disease related admissions were extracted, and the cholecystectomies (ICD-9-CM codes 51.2X) were analyzed using the SAS package. Stepwise logistic regression was used to determine what factors were associated with the risk of conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy.

RESULTS

Approximately 25% of all cholecystectomies are performed by the open technique. Of the remaining 75%, there is an approximately 5% to 10% conversion rate. The major risk factors for conversion included male sex, obesity, and cholecystitis. Concurrent choledocholithiasis, cholelithiasis, and cholecystitis were associated with a conversion rate of 25%. Length of stay (LOS) was reduced for laparoscopic operations and although conversion added 2 to 3 days to the LOS, for most cases the LOS was still less than for primary open operations.

CONCLUSIONS

Three quarters of all cholecystectomies are performed laparoscopically, and the national conversion rate is 5% to 10%. Cholecystitis, choledocholithiasis, male sex, and obesity are major predictors for conversion. The data presented in terms of conversion rates and LOS were derived from population-adjusted hospital discharge data and represent the current U.S. experience for cholecystectomy. From these data the community experience for conversion rates, risk factors, and LOS can be derived.

Metabolic and respiratory changes after cholecystectomy performed via laparotomy or laparoscopy

We have compared metabolic and respiratory changes after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 15) with those after open cholecystectomy (n = 15). The durations of postoperative i.v. therapy, fasting and hospital stay were significantly shorter in the laparoscopy group. During the first and second days after operation, analgesic consumption but not pain scores (visual analogue scale) were significantly smaller after laparoscopy, while vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in 1 s, and PaO2 were significantly greater. The metabolic and acute phase responses (glucose, leucocytosis, C-reactive protein) were less after laparoscopy compared with laparotomy. Although plasma cortisol and catecholamine concentrations were not significantly different between the two groups, after surgery interleukin-6 concentrations were less in the laparoscopy group.

Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy: hospitalization, sick leave, analgesia and trauma responses

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has rapidly become established as the treatment of choice for cholecystolithiasis. There is very little evidence, however, to support the claimed benefit to patients. In the present study 30 consecutive patients below the age of 65 years without acute cholecystitis and with no signs of common bile duct stones were randomized to laparoscopic or conventional open cholecystectomy. Median (interquartile range) intravenous consumption of pethidine with a patient-controlled injection device between 13 and 24 h after surgery was 125 (62-175) mg in patients who underwent the laparoscopic procedure and 200 (150-250) mg in those who had open operation. Urinary adrenaline and cortisol levels as well as those of plasma glucose, C-reactive protein and interleukin 6 were increased after surgery in both groups of patients, but without any significant difference between them. The mean(s.d.) duration of postoperative hospital stay (2.8(0.8) versus 1.8(0.6) days) and sick leave (24.0(4.4) versus 11.7(4.1) days) was significantly longer with open than laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The findings demonstrate obvious advantages of laparoscopic surgery as regards postoperative pain and convalescence, although factors reflecting the magnitude of trauma did not differ.