OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to evaluate surgical outcomes of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gangrenous and empyematous acute cholecystitis defined as severe acute cholecystitis. BACKGROUND: It is not known to what extent surgical outcomes of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for severe acute cholecystitis differ from those for the nonsevere acute form, making it questionable whether urgent laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the best approach even in severe acute cases. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted to identify: (1) comparative studies which reported laparoscopic surgical outcomes separately for severe acute and nonsevere acute cholecystitis; (2) studies comparing such an approach with open cholecystectomy, subtotal laparoscopic cholecystectomy or cholecystostomy in severe acute cholecystitis. Results were pooled by standard meta-analytic techniques. RESULTS: Seven studies with a total of 1,408 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were found. The risks of conversion (RR 3.2, 95% CI 2.5 to 4.2) and overall postoperative complications (RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.2) were significantly higher in severe acute cholecystitis with respect to the nonsevere acute forms. However, no difference was detected as regards to local postoperative complications. No studies comparing open cholecystectomy or cholecystostomy with urgent laparoscopy were found. CONCLUSION: A lower feasibility of laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been found for severe cholecystitis. A lower threshold of conversion is recommended since this may allow to reduce local postoperative complications. Literature data lack valuable comparative studies with other treatment modalities, which therefore need to be investigated.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to evaluate surgical outcomes of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gangrenous and empyematous acute cholecystitis defined as severe acute cholecystitis. BACKGROUND: It is not known to what extent surgical outcomes of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for severe acute cholecystitis differ from those for the nonsevere acute form, making it questionable whether urgent laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the best approach even in severe acute cases. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted to identify: (1) comparative studies which reported laparoscopic surgical outcomes separately for severe acute and nonsevere acute cholecystitis; (2) studies comparing such an approach with open cholecystectomy, subtotal laparoscopic cholecystectomy or cholecystostomy in severe acute cholecystitis. Results were pooled by standard meta-analytic techniques. RESULTS: Seven studies with a total of 1,408 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were found. The risks of conversion (RR 3.2, 95% CI 2.5 to 4.2) and overall postoperative complications (RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.2) were significantly higher in severe acute cholecystitis with respect to the nonsevere acute forms. However, no difference was detected as regards to local postoperative complications. No studies comparing open cholecystectomy or cholecystostomy with urgent laparoscopy were found. CONCLUSION: A lower feasibility of laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been found for severe cholecystitis. A lower threshold of conversion is recommended since this may allow to reduce local postoperative complications. Literature data lack valuable comparative studies with other treatment modalities, which therefore need to be investigated.
Authors: S Chopra; G D Dodd; A L Mumbower; K N Chintapalli; W H Schwesinger; K R Sirinek; J P Dorman; H Rhim Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: B Navez; D Mutter; Y Russier; M Vix; F Jamali; D Lipski; E Cambier; P Guiot; J Leroy; J Marescaux Journal: World J Surg Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Vincenzo Napolitano; Roberto Cirocchi; Alessandro Spizzirri; Lorenzo Cattorini; Francesco La Mura; Eriberto Farinella; Umberto Morelli; Carla Migliaccio; Pamela Del Monaco; Stefano Trastulli; Micol Sole Di Patrizi; Diego Milani; Francesco Sciannameo Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2009-11-10 Impact factor: 5.469