Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy in pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The operative management of symptomatic cholelithiasis during pregnancy is either laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) or open cholecystectomy (OC). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes of the laparoscopic and open approach for cholecystectomy during pregnancy. METHOD: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL and Current Contents Connect using appropriate search terms. All comparative studies reporting maternal, fetal, and/or surgical complications were included. RESULTS: Eleven comparative studies, with a total of 10,632 patients, were included. The laparoscopic approach was performed at mean 18-week gestation and the open approach at mean 24-week gestation. LC was associated with decreased risks for fetal (OR 0.42; 95 % CI 0.28-0.63; p < 0.001), maternal (OR 0.42; 95 % CI 0.33-0.53; p < 0.001) and surgical (OR 0.45; 95 % CI 0.25-0.82, p = 0.01) complications. The average length of hospital stay (LOS) was: LC 3.2 days and OC 6.0 days (p = 0.02). The conversion rate from LC to OC was 3.8 %. CONCLUSION: The results of this first meta-analysis suggest that LC is associated with fewer maternal and fetal complications than OC during pregnancy. However, 91 % of included patients were in the first or second trimester at the time of surgery. These findings do not account for gestational age during pregnancy, which may be a significant confounding factor. The results support intervention for symptomatic gallstones in the first and second trimester with a laparoscopic approach.

Study design in evidence-based surgery: What is the role of case-control studies?

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard in terms of study design, however, in the surgical setting conducting RCTs can often be unethical or logistically impossible. Case-control studies should become the major study design used in surgical research when RCTs are unable to be conducted and definitely replacing case series which offer little insight into surgical outcomes and disease processes.

Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy is superior to delayed acute cholecystitis: a meta-analysis of case-control studies.

BACKGROUND: Since the advent of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) there has been continued debate regarding the management of acute cholecystitis with either early or delayed LC. Nearly all studies have demonstrated that early LC has a significantly shorter total length of hospital stay compared with delayed LC. Although previous randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis have shown clinical outcomes to favour early surgery, clinical practice continues to vary significantly worldwide. In addition, there is much confusion in the optimal timing for early LC with definitions of early varying from 72 h to 7 days. There have been numerous case-control studies investigating the timing of LC in acute cholecystitis. The aim of this paper is to pool the results from all case-control studies to investigate outcomes including mortality rates, complication rates, length of hospital stay and conversion rates to open procedures. METHODS: A search of electronic databases was performed for case-control studies published between 1985-February 2015. RESULTS: Results from 77 case-control studies showed statistically significant reductions in mortality, complications, bile duct leaks, bile duct injuries, wound infections, conversion rates, length of hospital stay and blood loss associated with early LC. Although LC within the 72-h window is optimal, patients operated after this window still benefit from early surgery compared to delayed surgery. The duration of symptoms in acute cholecystitis should not influence the surgeons' willingness to operate acutely. CONCLUSIONS: Early LC is clearly superior to delayed LC in acute cholecystitis. The most recent evidence-based practice strongly suggests that early LC should be standard of care in the management of acute cholecystitis.

Early Cholecystectomy Is Superior to Delayed Cholecystectomy for Acute Cholecystitis: a Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis remains an issue for debate amongst general surgeons. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between early and delayed cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. The primary outcome measures included mortality rates, complication rates, length of hospital stay and conversion rates to open procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of electronic databases was performed for randomised controlled trials. Fifteen studies were included. RESULTS: Early surgery has a decreased risk of wound infections (RR 0.57, 95 % CI 0.35-0.93, p=0.01) compared with delayed surgery but no difference in mortality, bile duct injuries, bile duct leaks and the risk of conversion to open surgery. Of patients in the delayed group, 9.7 % failed initial non-operative management and underwent emergency LC. Early surgery had a significantly reduced total hospital stay and mean hospital costs compared with delayed surgery. CONCLUSION: Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis demonstrated decreased incidence of wound infections, a shorter total length of stay and decreased costs with no difference in the rates of mortality, bile duct injuries, bile leaks and conversions. These results support that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the best care and should be considered a routine in patients presenting with acute cholecystitis.