Urgent Versus Elective Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Following Percutaneous Transhepatic Gallbladder Drainage for Moderate Acute Cholecystitis: A Meta-Analysis.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Surgical Innovation Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-18 DOI:10.1177/15533506241300735
Musa Yaermaimaiti, Abudukeremu Miersalijiang, Xue-Jun Wang, Jian-Kang Zhu, Hong-Cheng Wang
{"title":"Urgent Versus Elective Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Following Percutaneous Transhepatic Gallbladder Drainage for Moderate Acute Cholecystitis: A Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Musa Yaermaimaiti, Abudukeremu Miersalijiang, Xue-Jun Wang, Jian-Kang Zhu, Hong-Cheng Wang","doi":"10.1177/15533506241300735","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is still controversy regarding the treatment strategy for moderate acute cholecystitis (AC). Percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) followed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has shown advantages compared to emergency LC (ELC). However, the results are controversial. Therefore, we conducted this updated meta-analysis to clarify this issue.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A comprehensive literature search for relevant studies comparing the PTGBD + LC and ELC for moderate AC was performed. The statistical analysis was conducted using Stata.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 14 studies were included. The pooled analysis revealed that PTGBD + LC group had a shorter operation time (SMD = -1.07, 95%CI = -1.19 to -0.95), lower amount of intraoperative bleeding (SMD = -0.93, 95%CI = -1.07 to -0.79), lower conversion rate (OR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.17-0.44), lower postoperative complications (OR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.23-0.88) shorter postoperative hospital stay (SMD = -1.20, 95%CI = -1.33 to -1.07), lower wound infection rate (OR = 0.41, 95%CI = 0.23-0.74) and higher hospitalization expenses (SMD = 1.13, 95%CI = 0.96 to 1.29) compared with ELC group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of bile leak, bile duct injury and total hospital stay.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This meta-analysis suggested that PTGBD + LC has significant advantages over ELC for moderate AC patients, including lower surgical difficulty, lower conversion rate, fewer postoperative complications, and shorter hospital stay.</p>","PeriodicalId":22095,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Innovation","volume":" ","pages":"25-35"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15533506241300735","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is still controversy regarding the treatment strategy for moderate acute cholecystitis (AC). Percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) followed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has shown advantages compared to emergency LC (ELC). However, the results are controversial. Therefore, we conducted this updated meta-analysis to clarify this issue.

Materials and methods: A comprehensive literature search for relevant studies comparing the PTGBD + LC and ELC for moderate AC was performed. The statistical analysis was conducted using Stata.

Results: A total of 14 studies were included. The pooled analysis revealed that PTGBD + LC group had a shorter operation time (SMD = -1.07, 95%CI = -1.19 to -0.95), lower amount of intraoperative bleeding (SMD = -0.93, 95%CI = -1.07 to -0.79), lower conversion rate (OR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.17-0.44), lower postoperative complications (OR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.23-0.88) shorter postoperative hospital stay (SMD = -1.20, 95%CI = -1.33 to -1.07), lower wound infection rate (OR = 0.41, 95%CI = 0.23-0.74) and higher hospitalization expenses (SMD = 1.13, 95%CI = 0.96 to 1.29) compared with ELC group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of bile leak, bile duct injury and total hospital stay.

Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggested that PTGBD + LC has significant advantages over ELC for moderate AC patients, including lower surgical difficulty, lower conversion rate, fewer postoperative complications, and shorter hospital stay.

中度急性胆囊炎经皮经肝胆囊引流术后急诊与择期腹腔镜胆囊切除术:一项 Meta 分析。
背景:关于中度急性胆囊炎(AC)的治疗策略仍存在争议。经皮经肝胆囊引流术(PTGBD)后腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)与急诊胆囊切除术(ELC)相比具有优势。然而,相关结果仍存在争议。因此,我们进行了这项最新的荟萃分析,以澄清这一问题:对比较 PTGBD + LC 和 ELC 治疗中度 AC 的相关研究进行了全面的文献检索。结果:共纳入 14 项研究:结果:共纳入 14 项研究。汇总分析显示,PTGBD + LC 组手术时间更短(SMD = -1.07, 95%CI = -1.19 to -0.95),术中出血量更少(SMD = -0.93, 95%CI = -1.07 to -0.79),转换率更低(OR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.17-0.44),术后并发症更少(OR = 0.45,95%CI=0.23-0.88)、术后住院时间更短(SMD=-1.20,95%CI=-1.33--1.07)、伤口感染率更低(OR=0.41,95%CI=0.23-0.74)以及住院费用更高(SMD=1.13,95%CI=0.96-1.29)。胆漏、胆管损伤和总住院时间的发生率无明显差异:这项荟萃分析表明,对于中度 AC 患者,PTGBD + LC 比 ELC 有明显优势,包括手术难度低、转换率低、术后并发症少、住院时间短。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Surgical Innovation
Surgical Innovation 医学-外科
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
72
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Surgical Innovation (SRI) is a peer-reviewed bi-monthly journal focusing on minimally invasive surgical techniques, new instruments such as laparoscopes and endoscopes, and new technologies. SRI prepares surgeons to think and work in "the operating room of the future" through learning new techniques, understanding and adapting to new technologies, maintaining surgical competencies, and applying surgical outcomes data to their practices. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信