Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Nov 29;18(1):111.
doi: 10.1186/s12893-018-0445-9.

Same-admission Versus Delayed Cholecystectomy for Mild Acute Biliary Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Affiliations
Free PMC article
Review

Same-admission Versus Delayed Cholecystectomy for Mild Acute Biliary Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Yun-Xiao Lyu et al. BMC Surg. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Background: The timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) performed after the mild acute biliary pancreatitis (MABP) is still controversial. We conducted a review to compare same-admission laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SA-LC) and delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (DLC) after mild acute biliary pancreatitis (MABP).

Methods: We systematically searched several databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library) for relevant trials published from 1 January 1992 to 1 June 2018. Human prospective or retrospective studies that compared SA-LC and DLC after MABP were included. The measured outcomes were the rate of conversion to open cholecystectomy (COC), rate of postoperative complications, rate of biliary-related complications, operative time (OT), and length of stay (LOS). The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom).

Results: This meta-analysis involved 1833 patients from 4 randomized controlled trials and 7 retrospective studies. No significant differences were found in the rate of COC (risk ratio [RR] = 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-1.97; p = 0.36), rate of postoperative complications (RR = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.67-1.69; p = 0.80), rate of biliary-related complications (RR = 1.28; 95% CI, 0.42-3.86; p = 0.66), or OT (RR = 1.57; 95% CI, - 1.58-4.72; p = 0.33) between the SA-LC and DLC groups. The LOS was significantly longer in the DLC group (RR = - 2.08; 95% CI, - 3.17 to - 0.99; p = 0.0002). Unexpectedly, the subgroup analysis showed no significant difference in LOS according to the Atlanta classification (RR = - 0.40; 95% CI, - 0.80-0.01; p = 0.05). The gallstone-related complications during the waiting time in the DLC group included gall colic, recurrent pancreatitis, acute cholecystitis, jaundice, and acute cholangitis (total, 25.39%).

Conclusion: This study confirms the safety of SA-LC, which could shorten the LOS. However, the study findings have a number of important implications for future practice.

Keywords: Cholecystectomy; Laparoscopic; Meta-analysis; Pancreatitis; Review.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram of the published articles evaluated for inclusion in this meta-analysis
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Forest plot of the meta-analysis comparing SA-LC and DLC regarding the incidence of COC (a. all;b. subgroup of MABP criteria).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Forest plot of the meta-analysis comparing SA-LC and DLC regarding the incidence of postoperative complication (a. all; b. subgroup of MABP criteria).
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Forest plot of the subgroup meta-analysis of the incidence of biliary-related complication (a. all;b. subgroup of MABP criteria).
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Forest plot of the meta-analysis comparing SA-LC and DLC regarding the incidence of operative time (a. all;b. subgroup of MABP criteria).
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Forest plot of the meta-analysis comparing SA-LC and DLC regarding the incidence of length of hospital stay (a. all;b. subgroup of MABP criteria)

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 1 article

References

    1. Peery AF, Crockett SD, Barritt AS, Dellon ES, Eluri S, Gangarosa LM, Jensen ET, Lund JL, Pasricha S, Runge T, et al. Burden of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(7):1731–1741. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.08.045. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Banks PA, Freeman ML. Practice parameters Committee of the American College of G: practice guidelines in acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101(10):2379–2400. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00856.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tenner S, Baillie J, DeWitt J, Vege SS. American College of Gastroenterology guideline: management of acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(9):1400–1415. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2013.218. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gullo L, Pezzilli R. Acute pancreatitis is unlikely after morphine administration. Dig Liver Dis. 2000;32(1):74. doi: 10.1016/S1590-8658(00)80052-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Yadav D, Lowenfels AB. The epidemiology of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. Gastroenterology. 2013;144(6):1252–1261. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.01.068. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Feedback