Jonathan G A Koo1, Yiong Huak Chan2, Vishal G Shelat3. 1. Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore. 2. Biostatistics Unit, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 3. Hepato-Pancreatico-Biliary Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, 11 Jalan Tan Tock Seng, Singapore, 308433, Singapore. vishal_g_shelat@ttsh.com.sg.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy (LSC) is a safe bailout procedure in situations when dissection of "critical view of safety" is not possible. After the proposed classification of subtotal cholecystectomy into "fenestrating" and "reconstituting" techniques in 2016, a comparative review of the outcomes of both methods is timely. METHODS: A literature search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science database was conducted up to January 31, 2020 for studies that reported LSC. Studies reporting LSC only in patients with Mirizzi syndrome or xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis were excluded. Our analysis includes 39 studies with 1784 cases of LSC. We report a comparison of outcomes between reconstituting and fenestrating LSC on 1505 cases [935 reconstituting (62.1%) and 570 fenestrating (37.9%)]. RESULTS: Following LSC, the rate of open conversion is 7.7%, hemorrhage is 0.4%, bile duct injury is 0.3%, bile leak is 15.4%, retained stone is 4.6%, subhepatic or subphrenic collection is 2.9%, superficial surgical site infection is 2.0% and 30-day mortality is 0.2%. 8.8% of patients required postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), 1.1% required percutaneous intervention, and 2.2% required reoperation. Compared to reconstituting LSC, fenestrating LSC has a higher incidence of open conversion (n = 58, 10.2% vs. n = 43, 4.6%, p < 0.001), retained stones (n = 38, 6.7% vs. n = 38, 4.1%, p = 0.0253), subhepatic or subphrenic collections (n = 33, 5.8% vs. n = 13, 1.4%, p < 0.001), superficial surgical site infections (n = 18, 3.2% vs. n = 14, 1.5%, p = 0.0303), postoperative ERCP (n = 82, 14.4% vs. n = 62, 6.6%, p < 0.001), and need for reoperation (n = 20, 3.5% vs. n = 12, 1.3%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although reconstituting LSC has better outcomes, both techniques are complementary. Intraoperative findings and surgical expertise impact the choice.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy (LSC) is a safe bailout procedure in situations when dissection of "critical view of safety" is not possible. After the proposed classification of subtotal cholecystectomy into "fenestrating" and "reconstituting" techniques in 2016, a comparative review of the outcomes of both methods is timely. METHODS: A literature search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science database was conducted up to January 31, 2020 for studies that reported LSC. Studies reporting LSC only in patients with Mirizzi syndrome or xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis were excluded. Our analysis includes 39 studies with 1784 cases of LSC. We report a comparison of outcomes between reconstituting and fenestrating LSC on 1505 cases [935 reconstituting (62.1%) and 570 fenestrating (37.9%)]. RESULTS: Following LSC, the rate of open conversion is 7.7%, hemorrhage is 0.4%, bile duct injury is 0.3%, bile leak is 15.4%, retained stone is 4.6%, subhepatic or subphrenic collection is 2.9%, superficial surgical site infection is 2.0% and 30-day mortality is 0.2%. 8.8% of patients required postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), 1.1% required percutaneous intervention, and 2.2% required reoperation. Compared to reconstituting LSC, fenestrating LSC has a higher incidence of open conversion (n = 58, 10.2% vs. n = 43, 4.6%, p < 0.001), retained stones (n = 38, 6.7% vs. n = 38, 4.1%, p = 0.0253), subhepatic or subphrenic collections (n = 33, 5.8% vs. n = 13, 1.4%, p < 0.001), superficial surgical site infections (n = 18, 3.2% vs. n = 14, 1.5%, p = 0.0303), postoperative ERCP (n = 82, 14.4% vs. n = 62, 6.6%, p < 0.001), and need for reoperation (n = 20, 3.5% vs. n = 12, 1.3%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although reconstituting LSC has better outcomes, both techniques are complementary. Intraoperative findings and surgical expertise impact the choice.
Authors: Yuichi Yamashita; Tadahiro Takada; Steven M Strasberg; Henry A Pitt; Dirk J Gouma; O James Garden; Markus W Büchler; Harumi Gomi; Christos Dervenis; John A Windsor; Sun-Whe Kim; Eduardo de Santibanes; Robert Padbury; Xiao-Ping Chen; Angus C W Chan; Sheung-Tat Fan; Palepu Jagannath; Toshihiko Mayumi; Masahiro Yoshida; Fumihiko Miura; Toshio Tsuyuguchi; Takao Itoi; Avinash N Supe Journal: J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 7.027
Authors: J A Shea; M J Healey; J A Berlin; J R Clarke; P F Malet; R N Staroscik; J S Schwartz; S V Williams Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1996-11 Impact factor: 12.969