Ola Ahmed1, Ailin C Rogers2,3, Jarlath C Bolger1, Achille Mastrosimone1, Michael J Lee4, Aoife N Keeling4, Daniel Cheriyan5, William B Robb1. 1. Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin 9, Ireland. 2. Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin 9, Ireland. wrobb@rcsi.ie. 3. Department of General and Upper GI Surgery, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin 9, Ireland. wrobb@rcsi.ie. 4. Department of Radiology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin 9, Ireland. 5. Department of Gastroenterology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin 9, Ireland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage is a novel method of treating acute cholecystitis in patients deemed too high risk for surgery. It involves endoscopic stent placement between the gallbladder and the alimentary tract to internally drain the infection and is an alternative to percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC). This meta-analysis assesses the clinical outcomes of high-risk patients undergoing endoscopic drainage with an acute cholecystoenterostomy (ACE) compared with PC in acute cholecystitis. METHODS: A literature search was performed using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. Databases were searched for studies reporting outcomes of patients undergoing ACE or PC. Results were reported as mean differences or pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: A total of 1593 citations were reviewed; five studies comprising 495 patients were ultimately selected for analysis. There were no differences in technical or clinical success rates between the two groups on pooled meta-analysis. ACE had significantly lower post-procedural pain scores (mean difference - 3.0, 95% CI - 2.3 to - 3.6, p < 0.001, on a 10-point pain scale). There were no statistically significant differences in procedure complications between groups. Re-intervention rates were significantly higher in the PC group (OR 4.3, 95% CI 2.0-9.3, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: ACE is a promising alternative to PC in high-risk patients with acute cholecystitis, with equivalent success rates, improved pain scores and lower re-intervention rates, without the morbidities associated with external drainage.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage is a novel method of treating acute cholecystitis in patients deemed too high risk for surgery. It involves endoscopic stent placement between the gallbladder and the alimentary tract to internally drain the infection and is an alternative to percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC). This meta-analysis assesses the clinical outcomes of high-risk patients undergoing endoscopic drainage with an acute cholecystoenterostomy (ACE) compared with PC in acute cholecystitis. METHODS: A literature search was performed using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. Databases were searched for studies reporting outcomes of patients undergoing ACE or PC. Results were reported as mean differences or pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: A total of 1593 citations were reviewed; five studies comprising 495 patients were ultimately selected for analysis. There were no differences in technical or clinical success rates between the two groups on pooled meta-analysis. ACE had significantly lower post-procedural pain scores (mean difference - 3.0, 95% CI - 2.3 to - 3.6, p < 0.001, on a 10-point pain scale). There were no statistically significant differences in procedure complications between groups. Re-intervention rates were significantly higher in the PC group (OR 4.3, 95% CI 2.0-9.3, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION:ACE is a promising alternative to PC in high-risk patients with acute cholecystitis, with equivalent success rates, improved pain scores and lower re-intervention rates, without the morbidities associated with external drainage.
Authors: Shayan Irani; Saowanee Ngamruengphong; Anthony Teoh; Uwe Will; Jose Nieto; Barham K Abu Dayyeh; S Ian Gan; Michael Larsen; Hon Chi Yip; Mark D Topazian; Michael J Levy; Christopher C Thompson; Andrew C Storm; Gulara Hajiyeva; Amr Ismail; Yen-I Chen; Majidah Bukhari; Yamile Haito Chavez; Vivek Kumbhari; Mouen A Khashab Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2016-12-30 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Anthony Yuen Bun Teoh; Carlos Serna; Irene Penas; Charing Ching Ning Chong; Manuel Perez-Miranda; Enders K W Ng; James Yun Wong Lau Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Ido Mizrahi; Haggi Mazeh; Jonathan B Yuval; Gidon Almogy; Miklosh Bala; Natalia Simanovski; Nadeen Abu Ata; Eran Kuchuk; Jacob Rachmuth; Aviram Nissan; Ahmed Eid Journal: Surgery Date: 2015-06-18 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Yuichi Yamashita; Tadahiro Takada; Yoshifumi Kawarada; Yuji Nimura; Masahiko Hirota; Fumihiko Miura; Toshihiko Mayumi; Masahiro Yoshida; Steven Strasberg; Henry A Pitt; Eduardo de Santibanes; Jacques Belghiti; Markus W Büchler; Dirk J Gouma; Sheung-Tat Fan; Serafin C Hilvano; Joseph W Y Lau; Sun-Whe Kim; Giulio Belli; John A Windsor; Kui-Hin Liau; Vibul Sachakul Journal: J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg Date: 2007-01-30
Authors: E Atar; G N Bachar; S Berlin; C Neiman; E Bleich-Belenky; S Litvin; M Knihznik; A Belenky; E Ram Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2014-03-01 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Kirsten Kortram; Bert van Ramshorst; Thomas L Bollen; Marc G H Besselink; Dirk J Gouma; Tom Karsten; Philip M Kruyt; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Johannes C Kelder; Ellen Tromp; Djamila Boerma Journal: Trials Date: 2012-01-12 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Sebastian Sowier; Aleksander Sowier; Anna Wiechowska-Kozłowska; Jacek Białecki; Przemysław Pyda Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2018-11-14 Impact factor: 1.195
Authors: Petr Dvorak; Petr Hoffmann; Ondrej Renc; Tomas Dusek; Stanislav Rejchrt; Ondrej Slezak; Pavel Vyroubal Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2019-05-05 Impact factor: 1.195