经皮肝穿刺胆囊引流联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术与急诊腹腔镜胆囊切除术对中度急性胆囊炎疗效的Meta分析

目的 系统评价经皮肝穿刺胆囊引流联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术与急诊腹腔镜胆囊切除术的治疗方案选择对中度急性胆囊炎的治疗效果及不良反应。方法 检索PubMed、EMBASE、Web of Science、Cochrane Library、中国期刊全文数据库（CNKI）、维普中文科技期刊数据库（VIP）、中国生物医学文献数据库（CBM）、万方数据库中有关经皮肝穿刺胆囊引流术联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术与急诊腹腔镜胆囊切除术对中度急性胆囊炎治疗的随机对照试验研究，检索时限为建库之日起至2018 年5 月。所有检索出并纳入研究的文献均由2 名研究者进行独立的文献质量评价和数据提取。文献数据统一采用RevMan 5.3 软件进行分析，对无法进行Meta分析的文献指标进行描述性分析。结果 总共纳入11 篇文献，包括1 283 例中度急性胆囊炎患者。Meta分析结果显示：在发生中度急性胆囊炎时经皮肝穿刺胆囊引流术联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术与急诊腹腔镜胆囊切除术相比可降低中转开腹率（RR 0.45，95%CI 0.23～0.85，P=0.01），减少术中出血量（SMD -41.50，95%CI -51.18～-31.82，P＜0.001）和术后并发症发生率（RR 0.50，95%CI0.31～0.81，P＜0.001），但两种治疗方式在手术时间上的差异并无统计学意义（SMD 1.10，95%CI -4.27～6.47，P=0.69）。此外，经皮肝穿刺胆囊引流术联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术比急诊腹腔镜胆囊切除术能够更好地缩短患者术后住院时间（SMD -1.21，95%CI -2.17～-0.25，P=0.01）。结论 在治疗中度急性胆囊炎时，经皮肝穿刺胆囊引流术联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术比急诊腹腔镜胆囊切除术具有更好的效果。     

急性胆囊炎早期与延迟腹腔镜手术对比的Meta分析

目的:评价急性胆囊炎行早期腹腔镜胆囊切除术(ELC)与延迟腹腔镜胆囊切除术(DLC)的手术并发症、中转开腹率及卫生经济学指标。方法:通过计算机检索2000年1月至2020年12月PubMed、Springer、Cochrane、万方、中国知网数据库有关急性胆囊炎行ELC与DLC对比的中英文文献,回顾性研究相关文献采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表进行文献质量评价,随机对照研究采用Cochrane系统评价工具进行评价,应用Review Manager 5.2软件进行Meta分析。结果:经过文献筛选及资料提取,共12篇文献、4 773例患者纳入研究,10篇为随机对照研究,2篇为回顾性研究。Meta分析结果显示,DLC组总住院时间长于ELC组(WMD=-4.03,95%CI:-5.25～-2.82,P<0.00001),DLC组手术时间长于ELC组(WMD=3.30,95%CI:0.99～5.60,P=0.005),两组术中与术后并发症、中转开腹率及术后住院时间差异无统计学意义。结论:ELC与DLC治疗急性胆囊炎在手术并发症、中转开腹率方面无明显差别,但ELC可缩短手术时间与住院时间,具有一定的...     

急性胆囊炎行腹腔镜胆囊切除术手术时机选择的Meta分析

目的:系统评价腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)治疗急性胆囊炎的最佳手术时机。方法:通过计算机检索万方、中文科技期刊、中国知网等数据库,查找所有比较早期与延期行LC治疗急性胆囊炎疗效的随机对照试验中文文献,检索时限为建库至2016年8月,按照纳入、排除标准由两名独立的研究人员进行文献选择、数据提取及质量评价,使用Rev Man 5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果:共纳入15项研究,总计2 325例患者。本研究所收集的数据经Meta分析提示,与延期LC相比,早期LC具有更低的中转开腹率[OR=0.55,95%CI(0.37,0.83),P=0.004]、更低的并发症发生率[OR=0.64,95%CI(0.45,0.91),P=0.01]、更短的手术时间[MD=-3.69,95%CI(-5.46,-1.92),P<0.0001],差异有统计学意义。结论:相较延期LC,急性胆囊炎发作72 h内早期行LC可降低中转开腹率、并发症发生率,缩短手术时间,可能是治疗急性胆囊炎的最佳手术时机。     

择期腹腔镜胆囊切除术预防性使用抗生素的作用Meta分析

目的:评价预防性使用抗生素在择期腹腔镜胆囊切除术中的作用。方法:检索相关数据库,收集在2003年1月—2014年12月期间公开发表的关于预防性使用抗生素在择期腹腔镜胆囊切除术的随机对照试验(RCT),按纳入排除标准进行文献筛选、资料提取和方法学质量评价后,采用Rev Man 5.2.10软件进行Meta分析。结果:最终共纳入9篇RCT研究,共2 316例患者,其中预防组1 165例,对照组1 151例。Meta分析结果显示,预防组与对照组比较,术后总感染率(RR=0.98,95%CI=0.59~1.61)、表浅切口感染率(RR=0.82,95%CI=0.48~1.41)及胆汁培养阳性率(RR=0.82,95%CI=0.64~1.05)差异均无统计学意义(均P0.05);在纳入包含糖尿病及胆绞痛的RCT中,总感染率及表浅切口感染率差异无统计学意义(均P0.05)。结论:择期腹腔镜胆囊切除术预防性使用抗生素不能降低术后感染的发生率,但该结论仍需多中心、大样本、前瞻性RCT研究验证。     

快速康复理念在腹腔镜胆囊切除围手术期应用的Meta分析

目的:系统评价快速康复理念在腹腔镜胆囊切除围手术期应用的临床效果。方法:检索各数据库中有关腹腔镜胆囊切除术应用快速康复理念的随机对照试验文献,检索时间截止至2012年7月。进行试验筛选、资料提取、质量评价和Meta分析。结果:共纳入8个研究的1 060位患者,快速康复组相比传统组能减少住院时间(MD=-2.36,95%CI=-3.47~-1.25)(P<0.01),缩短术后首次排气时间(SMD=-3.04,95%CI=-4.92~-1.16)(P<0.01),降低肺部感染的发生率(OR=-0.20,95%CI=0.05~0.79)(P=0.02),降低住院费用。结论:应用快速康复外科理念能明显加快腹腔镜胆囊切除术后患者的康复,值得深入研究和临床推广。     

单孔与传统腹腔镜胆囊切除术的比较：随机对照试验的Meta 分析

目的：评价单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术（SILC）与传统腹腔镜胆囊切除术（CLC）的安全性和有效性。方法：计算机检索各数据库中有关SILC与CLC的前瞻性随机对照试验。检索时限均为建库至2012年11月。按Cochrane系统评价员手册对纳入文献的方法学质量进行评价后,提取数据,采用RevMan 5.1统计软件行Meta分析。结果：筛选后最终纳入17个研究,共1 267例患者,其中SILC组654例,CLC组613例。Meta分析结果显示,手术时间SILC组长于CLC组（WMD=13.02,95%CI=7.95~18.09,P<0.001）;术后切口外观评分和患者满意度评分SILC组优于CLC组（WMD=1.21,95%CI=0.70~1.72,P<0.001;WMD=0.76,95%CI=0.53~1.00,P<0.001）;术后并发症、术后疼痛评分和住院时间两组间差异无统计学意义（RR=1.13,95%CI=0.87~1.48,P=0.35;WMD=0.03,95%CI= -0.82~0.88,P=0.95;WMD=-0.06,95%CI=-0.40~0.28,P=0.73）。结论：对于治疗非复杂性的胆囊良性疾病,SILC是一项安全而有效的手术操作;它具有良好的切口外观和患者满意的优点。     

三维与二维腹腔镜胆囊切除术治疗胆囊良性疾病疗效与安全性比较的Meta分析

背景与目的:三维(3D)与二维(2D)腹腔镜胆囊切除术哪种治疗方式更有利于胆囊良性疾病患者,目前尚无一致结论,亦无大样本量的多中心研究予以证实。本研究通过Meta分析方法评价3D腹腔镜与2D腹腔镜在胆囊切除术中应用的临床疗效与安全性,以期为胆囊良性病变的治疗选择提供参考。方法:系统检索中英文数据库,根据纳入及排除标准筛选关于比较3D与2D腹腔镜应用于胆囊切除术临床疗效的文献,检索时间截止为2020年3月。在对纳入研究进行方法学质量评价和数据提取后,采用 RevMan 5.3软件行Meta分析。结果:最终纳入11篇研究,包括7个随机对照研究(RCT)和4个回顾性研究,共980例患者,其中3D组438例,2D组542例。Meta分析结果显示,与2D组比较,3D组手术时间(MD=-8.64,95% CI=-12.87～-4.42,P=0.000 1)、术中失血量(MD=-13.82,95% CI=-19.98～-7.65,P=0.000 1)、术中并发症发生率(OR=0.52,95% CI=0.32～0.83,P=0.006)均明显降低;在整体分析中,3D组住院时间较2D组缩短(MD=-0.13,95% CI=-0.25～-0.02,P=0.02),但在RCT及回顾性研究的亚组分析中,两组住院时间无统计学差异(MD=-0.12,95% CI=-0.24～0.01,P=0.06;MD=-0.20,95% CI=-0.45～0.05,P=0.12);在中转开腹率(OR=0.74,95% CI=0.30～1.79,P=0.50)及术后并发症发生率(OR=0.67,95% CI=0.35～1.28,P=0.23)方面两组均无统计学差异。结论:3D腹腔镜在胆囊切除术应用的临床疗效及安全性优于2D腹腔镜,值得临床推广应用,未来还需多中心大样本随机对照试验来予以验证。     

老年人腹股沟疝腹腔镜与开腹手术的疗效及安全性评价:Meta分析

目的分析腹腔镜与开腹手术对于治疗老年人腹股沟疝的疗效与安全性。方法检索万方、中国知网、PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane Library等电子数据库,并人工检索相关电子期刊,针对筛选出的临床随机对照试验,运用Meta分析的方法综合比较相关指标并做综合评价。结果最终纳入8篇文献,共计818例老年病人。腹腔镜组与开腹组相比,在手术时间上差异无统计学意义(SMD=0.00,95%CI:-1.41~1.41,P=0.99);但住院时间更短(SMD=-1.64,95%CI:-2.06~-1.22,P0.01);并发症数量也较少(RR=0.31,95%CI:0.19~0.50,P0.01);治疗有效率更高(OR=3.17,95%CI:1.06~9.49,P=0.04)。结论腹腔镜治疗老年人腹股沟疝具有明显优势,应成为主要术式。     

预防性使用抗生素在腹腔镜胆囊切除术的作用

目的用Meta分析的方法评价择期低风险的腹腔镜胆囊切除术预防性抗生素使用的效果。方法检索1933年—2010年10月发表的有关择期低感染风险的腹腔镜胆囊切除使用抗生素的随机对照临床试验。按入选和排除标准,有18项临床试验纳入本研究,Jadad评分低于3分为低质量试验并被排除,最终有12项纳入研究。由2名评价者对入选研究中有关试验设计、研究对象的特征、研究结果等内容独立进行摘录,用RevMan4.2软件进行分析OR值。结果对于择期低感染风险的腹腔镜胆囊切除术抗生素使用组和无抗生素使用组两组之间整体感染(OR=1.11,95%CI:0.68～1.82,P=0.98)、切口感染(OR=1.07,95%CI:0.59～1.94,P=0.99)、腹腔感染(OR=2.88,95%CI:0.3～28.09,P=0.98)、其他部位感染(OR=1.0,95%CI:0.43～2.35,P=0.65)、胆囊内胆汁细菌培养(OR=0.84,95%CI:0.55～1.12,P=1.08)等差异均无统计学意义。住院时间抗生素组较未使用组明显缩短(WMD=-0.16,95%CI:-0.22～-0.09,P<0.01)。结论择期低感染风险...     

腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术的系统评价

目的评价腹腔镜和开腹阑尾切除术的临床效果。方法按照Cochrane系统评价方法,计算机检索PubMed、Wiley Online Library、Medline、Embase、Cochrane图书馆及中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、中国学术期刊网全文数据库(VIP)、中文科技期刊全文数据库(CNKI),检索时间截至2011年11月,并手工检索相关文献,查找比较腹腔镜和开腹阑尾切除术的随机对照文献。由2位研究者按照纳入和排除标准筛选文献,评价质量并提取资料后采用RevMan 4.2.2进行Meta分析。分析两种手术方法的伤口感染、住院时间、手术时间、住院费用及腹腔脓肿发生率。结果纳入8篇随机对照试验,Meta分析结果显示,腹腔镜和开腹阑尾切除术的伤口感染〔OR=0.19,95%CI(0.09,0.38),P<0.000 01〕、手术时间〔WMD=3.66,95%CI(0.50,6.82),P=0.02〕及住院费用〔WMD=503.96,95%CI(337.23,670.70),P<0.000 01〕比较,差异均有统计学意义;二者的住院时间〔WMD=-0.11,95%CI(-3.64,3.43),P=0.95〕及腹腔脓肿发生率〔OR=1.40,95%CI(0.23,8.64),P=0.71〕比较,差异无统计学意义。结论腹腔镜阑尾切除手术较开腹阑尾切除术伤口感染率低,但手术时间长,费用高;二者住院时间和腹腔脓肿发生率差异无统计学意义。     

Early versus delayed-interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis

BACKGROUND: Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been advocated for the management of acute cholecystitis, but little evidence exists to support the superiority of this approach over delayed-interval operation. The current systematic review was undertaken to compare the outcomes and efficacy between early and delayed-interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis in an evidence-based approach using metaanalytical techniques. METHODS: A search of electronic databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, was conducted to identify relevant articles published between January 1988 and June 2004. Only randomized or quasi-randomized prospective clinical trials in the English language comparing the outcomes of early and delayed-interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis were recruited. Both qualitative and quantitative statistical analyses were performed. The effect size of outcome parameters was estimated by odds ratio or weighted mean difference where feasible and appropriate. RESULTS: A total of four clinical trials comprising 504 patients met the inclusion criteria. Failure of conservative treatment requiring emergency cholecystectomy occurred for 43 patients (23%) in the delayed group. Metaanalyses demonstrated a significantly shortened total length of hospital stay in the early group (weighted mean difference, -1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.42 to -0.99; p < 0.001). Pooled estimates did not show any significant differences between the two approaches in terms of operation time, conversion rate, overall complication rate, incidence of bile leakage, and intraabdominal collection. CONCLUSIONS: The safety and efficacy of early and delayed-interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis were comparable. Because evidence suggested that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy reduced the total length of hospital stay and the risk of readmissions attributable to recurrent acute cholecystitis, it is therefore a more cost-effective approach for the management of acute cholecystitis.     

Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a prospective randomized trial

Background: The role of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis is not yet clearly established. The aim of this prospective randomized study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis and to compare the results with delayed cholecystectomy.Methods: Between January 2001 and November 2002, 40 patients with a diagnosis of acute cholecystitis were assigned randomly to early laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 24 h of admission (early group, n = 20) or to initial conservative treatment followed by delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 6 to 12 weeks later (delayed group, n = 20).Results: There was no significant difference in the conversion rates (early, 25% vs delayed, 25%), operating times (early, 104 min vs delayed, 93 min), postoperative analgesia requirements (early, 5.3 days vs delayed, 4.8 days), or postoperative complications (early, 15% vs delayed, 20%). However, the early group had significantly more blood loss (228 vs 114 ml) and shorter hospital stay (4.1 vs 10.1 days).Conclusions: Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis is safe and feasible, offering the additional benefit of a shorter hospital stay. It should be offered to patients with acute cholecystitis, provided the surgery is performed within 72 to 96 h of the onset of symptoms.     

Early Versus Delayed Cholecystectomy for Acute Cholecystitis: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Purpose We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to determine the optimal timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and open cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis.Methods We retrieved randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared early with delayed cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis by systematically searching Medline and the Cochrane Library for studies published between 1966 and 2003. The outcomes of primary interest were mortality and morbidity.Results The ten trials we analyzed comprised 1 014 subjects; 534 were assigned to the early group and 480 assigned to the delayed group. The combined risk difference of mortality appeared to favor open cholecystectomy in the early period (risk difference, −0.02; 95% confidence interval, −0.44 to −0.00), but no differences were found among laparoscopic procedures or among all procedures. The combined risk difference of morbidity showed no differences between the open and laparoscopic procedures. The combined risk difference of the rate of conversion to open surgery showed no differences in the included laparoscopic studies; however, the combined total hospital stay was significantly shorter in the early group than in the delayed group.Conclusions There is no advantage to delaying cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis on the basis of outcomes in mortality, morbidity, rate of conversion to open surgery, and mean hospital stay. Thus, early cholecystectomy should be performed for patients with acute cholecystitis.     

Timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis: Any controversy?

Objective: The timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis remains controversial. This article reviews the latest evidence for the timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the management of acute cholecystitis. Methodology: Trials comparing early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC; carried out within 1 week of onset of symptoms) versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (DLC; carried out at least 6 weeks after symptoms settled) for acute cholecystitis were identified from Ovid Medline, Cochrane Library and PubMed database. Only meta‐analyses and randomized clinical trials were reviewed. Results: A total of seven prospective randomized trials including 670 patients and four meta‐analyses were reviewed. ELC was superior to DLC in terms of a shorter hospital stay without any significant difference in perioperative mortality and morbidity. Conclusions: Current evidence supports ELC as the preferred treatment strategy for acute cholecystitis. It allows a shorter hospital stay, but shares similar operative morbidity, mortality and conversion rate as DLC.     

Meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials on the safety and effectiveness of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis

Background:

In many countries laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis is mainly performed after the acute episode has settled because of the anticipated increased risk of morbidity and higher conversion rate from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy.

Methods:

A systematic review was performed with meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC; performed within 1 week of onset of symptoms) versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (performed at least 6 weeks after symptoms settled) for acute cholecystitis. Trials were identified from The Cochrane Library trials register, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded and reference lists. Risk ratio (RR) or mean difference was calculated with 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i.) based on intention‐to‐treat analysis.

Results:

Five trials with 451 patients were included. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of bile duct injury (RR 0·64 (95 per cent c.i. 0·15 to 2·65)) or conversion to open cholecystectomy (RR 0·88 (95 per cent c.i. 0·62 to 1·25)). The total hospital stay was shorter by 4 days for ELC (mean difference ?4·12 (95 per cent c.i. ?5·22 to ?3·03) days).

Conclusion:

ELC during acute cholecystitis appears safe and shortens the total hospital stay. Copyright © 2009 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A survey of the timing and approach to the surgical management of cholelithiasis in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis and acute cholecystitis in the UK

BACKGROUND: Recent management guidelines and randomised clinical trials have provided evidence-based guidance to the management of acute biliary pancreatitis and acute cholecystitis. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to the 1086 members of the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland. There were 583 responders (54%). RESULTS: A policy of cholecystectomy during the index admission or within 4 weeks in fit patients recovering from mild acute biliary pancreatitis was adopted by 58% of surgeons, and was significantly associated with an upper gastrointestinal and hepato-pancreato-biliary subspecialty interest and a volume of more than 50 cholecystectomies per annum (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.26-0.72; P = 0.001: and OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.29-0.74; P = 0.001, respectively). A policy of urgent cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis was adopted by 20% of surgeons, and was significantly associated with an upper gastrointestinal/hepato-pancreato-biliary subspecialty interest and the 'routine' adoption of laparoscopic approach to cholecystectomy (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.19-0.60; P < 0.001: and OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.3-0.86; P = 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The management of cholelithiasis in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis in the UK remains suboptimal. Moreover, only a minority of surgeons offer patients presenting with acute cholecystitis the benefits of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The management of acute biliary disease may be improved if these cases were concentrated in the hands of surgeons with upper gastrointestinal/hepato-pancreato-biliary interest and those who perform laparoscopic cholecystectomy regularly.     

The timing of surgery for cholecystitis: a review of 202 consecutive patients at a large municipal hospital

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, cholecystectomy for cholecystitis is performed within 3 days of the onset of symptoms or after 5 weeks, allowing for resolution of the inflammatory response. This study reviewed the outcomes of cholecystectomy performed for patients with gallstone disease in the acute (n = 45), intermediate (n = 55), and delayed (n = 102) periods after the onset of symptoms. METHODS: The medical records of 202 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy at a large municipal hospital were reviewed retrospectively. The primary outcomes studied were length of hospital stay, conversion to open cholecystectomy, and complications. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the conversion rate (acute [18%] vs intermediate [20%] vs delayed [11%]) or complication rate (acute [16%] vs intermediate [9%] vs delayed [7%]) among the 3 groups. The delayed group had a significantly shorter length of hospital stay than the intermediate or acute group (3.1 +/- 3.8 vs 4.3 +/- 3.8 vs 1.7 +/- 2.1, respectively, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who present with acute symptoms of cholecystitis should undergo surgery during the same admission, regardless of the duration of symptoms.     

Total gastrectomy. Updated operative mortality and long-term survival with particular reference to patients older than 70 years of age.

OBJECTIVE: The current study compared the results of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for treatment of acute cholecystitis. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Although recent reports have suggested the use of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis, the complication and conversion rates remain high. No data are available on whether initial medical treatment can improve the results. METHOD: Among 497 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 52 (10.5%) had a clinical diagnosis of acute cholecystitis confirmed by ultrasonography. Twenty-seven of these patients had early surgery, that is, within 120 hours of admission, and 25 had interval cholecystectomy after initial medical treatment. RESULTS: The early group required modifications in operative technique more frequently (p < 0.001). The conversion rate (7.4%) and minor complication rate (22%) were comparable. Successful early laparoscopic cholecystectomy required a longer operative time (137.2 minutes vs. 98.0 minutes; p < 0.05) and postoperative hospital stay (4.6 days vs. 2.5 days; p < 0.005) but reduced the total hospital stay (6.4 days vs. 12.4 days; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the treatment of acute cholecystitis has no adverse effect on complication and conversion rates. Although it is technically demanding and time consuming, this procedure provides the economic advantage of a markedly reduced total hospital stay.