急性胆源性胰腺炎胆囊切除术的适应症和时机 - 系统性综述。

Current health sciences journal Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-31 DOI:10.12865/CHSJ.50.01.16
Suzana Măceș Piele, Silviu Daniel Preda, Ștefan Pătrașcu, Stylliani Laskou, Konstantinos Sapalidis, Daniela Dumitrescu, Valeriu Șurlin
{"title":"急性胆源性胰腺炎胆囊切除术的适应症和时机 - 系统性综述。","authors":"Suzana Măceș Piele, Silviu Daniel Preda, Ștefan Pătrașcu, Stylliani Laskou, Konstantinos Sapalidis, Daniela Dumitrescu, Valeriu Șurlin","doi":"10.12865/CHSJ.50.01.16","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP) poses significant challenges in determining the optimal timing and approach for cholecystectomy, particularly in mild, moderately severe, and severe forms. This article reviews the existing literature on cholecystectomy timing and its impact on outcomes in ABP. A systematic literature search yielded 41 relevant articles from PubMed and Scopus databases. In mild ABP, early cholecystectomy within 72 hours of onset is increasingly favoured due to reduced technical difficulty and lower risk of recurrent pancreatitis. Conversely, delayed cholecystectomy, although traditionally practiced, may lead to higher recurrence rates and prolonged hospital stays. For moderate severe ABP, evidence remains limited, but early cholecystectomy appears to decrease hospital stay without increasing perioperative complications. In severe ABP, consensus suggests delaying cholecystectomy until peripancreatic collections resolve, typically 6 to 10 weeks post-onset, to minimize surgical morbidity. The role of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) alongside cholecystectomy remains contentious, with guidelines recommending its use in specific scenarios such as cholangitis or biliary obstruction. However, routine ERCP in mild ABP lacks robust evidence and may increase complications. Challenges persist regarding the management of residual choledocholithiasis post-ABP, highlighting the need for improved diagnostic criteria and management protocols. Overall, this review underscores the evolving landscape of cholecystectomy timing in ABP and provides insights into current best practices and areas for future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":93963,"journal":{"name":"Current health sciences journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11151952/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Indication and Timing of Cholecystectomy in Acute Biliary Pancreatitis - Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Suzana Măceș Piele, Silviu Daniel Preda, Ștefan Pătrașcu, Stylliani Laskou, Konstantinos Sapalidis, Daniela Dumitrescu, Valeriu Șurlin\",\"doi\":\"10.12865/CHSJ.50.01.16\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP) poses significant challenges in determining the optimal timing and approach for cholecystectomy, particularly in mild, moderately severe, and severe forms. This article reviews the existing literature on cholecystectomy timing and its impact on outcomes in ABP. A systematic literature search yielded 41 relevant articles from PubMed and Scopus databases. In mild ABP, early cholecystectomy within 72 hours of onset is increasingly favoured due to reduced technical difficulty and lower risk of recurrent pancreatitis. Conversely, delayed cholecystectomy, although traditionally practiced, may lead to higher recurrence rates and prolonged hospital stays. For moderate severe ABP, evidence remains limited, but early cholecystectomy appears to decrease hospital stay without increasing perioperative complications. In severe ABP, consensus suggests delaying cholecystectomy until peripancreatic collections resolve, typically 6 to 10 weeks post-onset, to minimize surgical morbidity. The role of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) alongside cholecystectomy remains contentious, with guidelines recommending its use in specific scenarios such as cholangitis or biliary obstruction. However, routine ERCP in mild ABP lacks robust evidence and may increase complications. Challenges persist regarding the management of residual choledocholithiasis post-ABP, highlighting the need for improved diagnostic criteria and management protocols. Overall, this review underscores the evolving landscape of cholecystectomy timing in ABP and provides insights into current best practices and areas for future research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93963,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current health sciences journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11151952/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current health sciences journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12865/CHSJ.50.01.16\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current health sciences journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12865/CHSJ.50.01.16","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

急性胆源性胰腺炎(ABP)给确定胆囊切除术的最佳时机和方法带来了巨大挑战,尤其是轻度、中度和重度胰腺炎。本文回顾了有关胆囊切除术时机及其对急性胆源性胰腺炎预后影响的现有文献。通过系统性文献检索,我们从 PubMed 和 Scopus 数据库中找到了 41 篇相关文章。对于轻度 ABP,由于技术难度降低、复发性胰腺炎风险降低,越来越多的人倾向于在发病 72 小时内进行早期胆囊切除术。相反,延迟胆囊切除术虽然是传统做法,但可能会导致更高的复发率和更长的住院时间。对于中度重度 ABP,证据仍然有限,但早期胆囊切除术似乎可缩短住院时间,且不会增加围手术期并发症。对于重度 ABP,共识建议推迟胆囊切除术,直到胰周积液消退,通常是发病后 6 到 10 周,以最大限度地降低手术发病率。内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)与胆囊切除术的作用仍存在争议,指南建议在胆管炎或胆道梗阻等特定情况下使用ERCP。然而,在轻度 ABP 中常规使用 ERCP 缺乏有力的证据,而且可能会增加并发症。ABP术后残余胆总管结石的处理仍面临挑战,这凸显了改进诊断标准和处理方案的必要性。总之,本综述强调了 ABP 胆囊切除术时机的演变情况,并就当前最佳实践和未来研究领域提供了见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Indication and Timing of Cholecystectomy in Acute Biliary Pancreatitis - Systematic Review.

Acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP) poses significant challenges in determining the optimal timing and approach for cholecystectomy, particularly in mild, moderately severe, and severe forms. This article reviews the existing literature on cholecystectomy timing and its impact on outcomes in ABP. A systematic literature search yielded 41 relevant articles from PubMed and Scopus databases. In mild ABP, early cholecystectomy within 72 hours of onset is increasingly favoured due to reduced technical difficulty and lower risk of recurrent pancreatitis. Conversely, delayed cholecystectomy, although traditionally practiced, may lead to higher recurrence rates and prolonged hospital stays. For moderate severe ABP, evidence remains limited, but early cholecystectomy appears to decrease hospital stay without increasing perioperative complications. In severe ABP, consensus suggests delaying cholecystectomy until peripancreatic collections resolve, typically 6 to 10 weeks post-onset, to minimize surgical morbidity. The role of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) alongside cholecystectomy remains contentious, with guidelines recommending its use in specific scenarios such as cholangitis or biliary obstruction. However, routine ERCP in mild ABP lacks robust evidence and may increase complications. Challenges persist regarding the management of residual choledocholithiasis post-ABP, highlighting the need for improved diagnostic criteria and management protocols. Overall, this review underscores the evolving landscape of cholecystectomy timing in ABP and provides insights into current best practices and areas for future research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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