Abstract
The laparoscopic approach for acute cholecystitis has gained wide acceptance over the years. The indications for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an acute setting are examined and the evidence provided by the literature reviewed. Today, the laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be considered the treatment of choice for acute cholecystitis. Severe (gangrenous, empyematous) cholecystitis and advanced age do not preclude the laparoscopic indication. Surgery should be done as soon as possible rather than delayed after the resolution of the acute phase. Percutaneous cholecystostomy cannot be recommended as part of a routine protocol for treatment of acute calculous cholecystitis. At present, no evidence-based classification allows us to tailor the treatment of every single patient according to the general or local conditions.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
- Acute Cholecystitis
- Bile Duct Injury
- Open Cholecystectomy
- Percutaneous Cholecystostomy
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
5.1 Introduction
Acute cholecystitis is a relevant healthcare problem. Between 3 and 10 % of all patients with abdominal pain have acute cholecystitis [1].
Cholelithiasis accounts for more than 90 % of causes of acute cholecystitis [2, 3]. About 10–15 % of the adult population of Western countries have gallstones [4–7]. About 700,000 cholecystectomies are performed annually in the USA [8]. In Italy more than 101,000 cholecystectomies have been performed in 2011, 90 % of them laparoscopically [9]. About 10–30 % of cholecystectomies are performed for acute cholecystitis [10].
The laparoscopic approach was initially considered being contraindicated for acute cholecystitis, but it has been adopted later, as experience increased, gradually overtaking open cholecystectomy as the preferred procedure even in an acute setting.
The severity of the disease may range from a mild, self-limited illness to a severe, potentially life-threatening illness.
Between 50 and 70 % of the cases of acute cholecystitis occur in aged patients [11], and steady increase in life expectancy during the past years will make the problem even more relevant in the future. High prevalence of comorbidities in elderly, as well as increased incidence of complications, sepsis, and severe forms of cholecystitis in this population, often causes a serious surgical emergency.
Several international guidelines addressed the issue of diagnosis and treatment of acute cholecystitis [12–15].
5.1.1 Diagnostic Criteria
Diagnosis of acute cholecystitis relies on a combination of local clinical signs, systemic signs of inflammation, and imaging findings. Very similar sets of criteria, able to achieve almost 100 % specificity, have been suggested in the EAES guidelines of 2006 [16] and the Tokyo Consensus Meeting Guidelines [13]; both can be used in the clinical practice.
The EAES guidelines adopted a scheme validated by a systematic review: (a) acute right upper quadrant tenderness for more than 6 h and ultrasound evidence of acute cholecystitis (the presence of gallstones with a thickened and edematous gallbladder wall, positive Murphy’s sign on ultrasound examination, and pericholecystic fluid collections) or (b) acute right upper quadrant tenderness for more than 6 h, an ultrasound image showing the presence of gallstones, and one or more of the following: temperature above 38 °C, leukocytosis, and/or C-reactive protein level greater than 10 mg/L [17].
The Tokyo Consensus Meeting, in 2007, focused on a set of diagnostic criteria that are summarized in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 [18]. The same panel, however, in the 2013 revision of their guidelines, agreed that the proposed criteria were ambiguous and difficult to use, and a definite diagnosis could not be supported in current practice without positive diagnostic imaging studies [13].
The guidelines issued in 2013 included Tc-HIDA scan among the imaging techniques to be taken into consideration and proposed a set of severity assessment criteria that formed the basis for their therapeutic strategy [13].
5.1.2 Indications for Laparoscopy
The safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis has been shown in several studies. Two randomized trials (LoE2) [19, 20], a population-based outcome research (LoE3) [21], and numerous comparative studies demonstrated that laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with faster recovery and shorter hospital stay than open cholecystectomy. The US population-based outcome research showed also lower morbidity and mortality for the 6 years examined [21]. A third randomized controlled study demonstrated that the laparoscopic cholecystectomy caused less surgical trauma and immunosuppression (by measuring serum C-reactive protein and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) secretion of peripheral blood mononuclear cells) and also confirmed that it was associated with a shorter hospital stay [22]. This evidence supported the EAES recommendation that laparoscopic cholecystectomy be the treatment of choice for acute cholecystitis (EAES Consensus Conference about laparoscopic approach to acute abdomen [12] and EAES Consensus Conference about laparoscopic cholecystectomy, held in 2013).
It cannot be excluded, of course, that the better outcome of the laparoscopic cholecystectomy be related to the medical staff attitude toward expectation of faster recovery rather than to true physiopathological changes (expectation bias). The trial published by Johansson in 2005 was designed to avoid this bias and included a blind assessment of outcomes: the wounds were concealed to both patients and postoperative care staff, unaware of the surgical access received by the patient. They showed a very similar postoperative course but still demonstrated a shorter postoperative hospital stay for the laparoscopic group [20].
The preference for laparoscopic cholecystectomy is confirmed by the panel of the Tokyo guidelines, first published in 2007 and recently updated [14], but it is actually limited only to the mildest forms of the disease, excluding most of the severe forms. We will discuss later such a cautious approach and the issue of a therapeutic decision making based on the severity of the local inflammation or the patient general condition as it involves every aspect of the treatment of acute cholecystitis.
Here, it is important to state that review of the literature shows that local inflammatory conditions do not preclude the indication for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Fig. 5.1). The trial of Kivuloto et al. [19], mentioned above, specifically included gangrenous cholecystitis. Furthermore, a recent review of prospective and retrospective series of severe cholecystitis (gangrenous, empyematous, or perforated) (LoE3) [23] did not show an increase in local postoperative complications and confirmed that laparoscopic cholecystectomy is to be considered an acceptable indication for severe cholecystitis despite a demonstrated threefold conversion rate. The patients examined in the review, and treated by laparoscopic cholecystectomy, would have been instead directed to other treatments by the Tokyo guidelines scheme.
Subtotal cholecystectomy also appears to be an acceptable alternative solution in case of intense inflammation and increased risk of damage to Calot triangle structures (LoE3) [24, 25].
Another subgroup that deserves a separate analysis is the elderly population. The number of elderly with acute cholecystitis has been increasing over the years; earlier reports suggested increased morbidity and higher conversion rate for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in elderly [26]. However, the acute biliary disease appears to be more severe in the older patients and overall prevalence of comorbidities is higher, making it difficult to extrapolate data from series involving both acute and chronic gallbladder disease [27, 28] or comparing younger versus older patients [29, 30].
Several prospective and retrospective comparative studies examined laparoscopic versus open surgery for acute cholecystitis in elderly patients demonstrating a reduction in the length of hospitalization [31–33] and morbidity either unchanged [31] or improved [32–34] (LoE3).
5.1.3 Timing of Surgery
In the pre-laparoscopic era, randomized controlled trials comparing early versus delayed open cholecystectomy had found that early surgery was associated with a lower complication rate and a briefer hospital stay [35–38]. In the 1990s, however, it was suggested that early treatment of acute cholecystitis by laparoscopic cholecystectomy could be related to an increased risk of conversion and complications, in particular bile duct injury [39]. Since then, the optimal timing of surgical treatment of acute cholecystitis has been extensively debated. A systematic review of the literature found seven randomized controlled trials [40–46] examined in 5 meta-analysis (LoE1) [10, 47–51] comparing early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Six of those seven papers were RCTs (LoE2), but one of the systematic reviews [51] included a nonrandomized study (LoE3) [45].
All the studies agreed that early treatment reduces total hospital stay, without an increase in complication or conversion rates. In particular, rate of bile duct injury seems to be higher in the delayed treated patients, but the difference was not statistically significant due to the small numbers analyzed in the trials [10, 50].
Four further RCTs (LoE2) were not included in any systematic review because they were published later [52–55]. Three of them reported similar results between the two groups; the large trial by Gutt confirmed the superiority of the early cholecystectomy [54].
The definition of time interval for early or delayed surgery, however, varies among the studies: surgery is considered “early” either 4 or 7 days of the onset of symptoms, and planned delay of treatment after index admission may vary between 6 and 12 weeks. In the studies of Chandler [43], the group of delayed treatment included patients operated after resolution of symptoms or within 5 days if the symptoms failed to resolve; those patients would be considered in the “early” group in the rest of the trials; this study has not been included in 3 out of 5 systematic reviews.
The Cochrane review published by Gurusamy and Samraj [50] pointed out that 17.5 % (range 13.9–25 %) of patients included in the delayed surgery groups required urgent surgery during the interval period, for failure of conservative treatment or recurrent symptoms after discharge, and in this subset the conversion rate was 45 %. These data could further support early surgery.
After those studies, several case series were published and confirmed the value of early surgery. However, population-based outcome researches [56–61] showed that practice patterns remain variable worldwide.
Four cost-utility analyses focused on early versus delayed cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Only one of them, performed in a prospective randomized trial, found no significant difference in the cost or outcomes of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus delayed treatment, with the latter favored by the incremental cost per additional QALY; however, patients operated on for biliary colic were included in that trial [62]. A model-based economic evaluation and two recent additional analyses found that early surgery is less expensive and results in better quality of life than delayed treatment [63–65].
If the advantages of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy are well defined, the optimal amount of delay for surgery after the onset of symptoms is not completely clarified in the above mentioned studies and deserves a more precise definition. One case series reviewed the issue of the amount of delay between the onset of symptoms and surgery and examined its relation to the conversion rate: the earlier the operation, the lower the risk of conversion. The incidence of conversion is lowest (9.5 %) if surgery is performed within 2 days from the onset of symptoms, rises to 16.1 % if surgery is done within 4 days. After that term, the conversion rate is similar to that of delayed surgery (38.9 %) (LoE4) [66]. However, if one recent observational study confirmed those findings [67], others did not [68–70] (LoE4). A subgroup analysis performed by Gurusamy on the data of his Cochrane review [52] did not show a statistically significant difference between the patients treated less than 4 days from the onset of symptoms and those of the studies including also patients with a longer delay. One large population-based studies, mentioned above, examined the association between outcomes and preoperative length of hospital stay (used as a surrogate marker for the onset of symptoms); their patients were divided into six different groups according to the delay of surgery after hospital admission: group 1, operated on the day of admission; group 2, 1 day after hospital admission; group 3, 2 days; group 4, 3 days; group 5, 4 or 5 days; and group 6, on or after day six.
There was no significant association between preoperative length of stay and postoperative mortality or overall morbidity. However, patients hospitalized for two or more days before surgery sustained longer operative times and were significantly more likely to require open cholecystectomy than patients operated on the day of admission. As the time point of surgery is delayed (day of admission versus six and more days after admission), significantly more patients undergo a longer operation and were more likely to be converted to a laparotomy [56]. Similar results were found in the study by Brooks on a total of 5,268 patients [61].
A definitive conclusion on this issue has yet to be reached; however, the available literature allows us to state that cholecystectomy should be performed as early as possible after the onset of symptoms, without evidence of a clear cutoff delay, after which the outcome is significantly worse. Further studies could clarify this issue.
Only one retrospective trial examined the results of early versus delayed treatment in the aged, finding no outcome difference between the two groups [71]. Riall et al., recently, examined a sample of the US Medicare Claims Data System and found that 75 % of the patients aged 66 years and older, urgently or emergently admitted to an acute care facility for a first episode of acute cholecystitis, received an early cholecystectomy (71 % laparoscopic and 29 % open). The diffuse use of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy in elderly patients confirms that most US surgeons trust that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be offered, for acute cholecystitis, even in that age group. The same analysis showed that lack of definitive treatment during initial hospitalization in elderly patients is associated with 38 % gallstone-related readmission rate over the subsequent 2 years (with only 9.5 % of the patients undergoing an elective outpatient cholecystectomy), compared with 4.4 % in patients who underwent early treatment (LoE3) [72].
5.1.4 Percutaneous Cholecystostomy (PC)
Severe comorbidities in elderly or other unstable patients can, however, make early anesthesia or surgery itself too risky. Several alternatives have been proposed for emergency treatment in septic high-risk patients unfit for emergency surgery: conservative treatment (LoE2) [73], tube cholecystostomy followed by early laparoscopic surgery (LoE2) [74] or by delayed surgery (LoE4) [11], and cholecystostomy not followed by surgery (LoE4) [75].
Among the alternatives proposed for the emergency treatment in septic high-risk patients, percutaneous tube cholecystostomy (followed or not by surgery) is extensively reported in the recent literature. In particular the abovementioned Tokyo guidelines consider the percutaneous drainage as mandatory in the severe grade of acute cholecystitis and also suggest its use in the moderate grade, in order to overcome the technical difficulties of an inflamed gallbladder. However, percutaneous gallbladder drainage has never been proven to be an effective alternative to early surgery; the evidence on its role is still lacking.
No randomized controlled trial is yet available on the use of gallbladder drainage in acute cholecystitis. Winbladh et al. published a systematic review with a particularly detailed examination of 53 papers about cholecystostomy as an option in acute cholecystitis (LoE3). The average level of the papers examined in their study is rather poor, and the results are nonhomogeneous. Acknowledged these limitations, the review found no evidence to support the recommendation of percutaneous drainage rather than straight early emergency cholecystectomy even in critically ill patients. Early cholecystectomy actually seems to be a better option for treating acute cholecystitis in the elderly and/or critically ill population [76]. The comparison of the mortality rate after PC (15.4 %) with that after acute cholecystectomy (4.5 %) in similar series shows a significant difference (p < 0.001) in favor of acute cholecystectomy.
After their review, about 13 retrospective and 2 prospective series have been further published, confirming that the groups considered in the studies, their inclusion criteria, the results, and even the conclusions reached by different authors are largely nonhomogeneous. Bearing in mind these limitations, the reported in-hospital mortality for cholecystostomy varies between 4 and 50 % (vs. 4.5 % reported for cholecystectomy), and its morbidity ranges between 8.2 and 62 %.
At the present time, percutaneous cholecystostomy cannot be recommended as part of a routine protocol for treatment of acute calculous cholecystitis, but only considered as a possible alternative to reduce anesthesiology risk in a small subset of patients unfit for emergency surgery due to their severe comorbidities. A randomized controlled trial (CHOCOLATE trial) has been planned to attempt to clarify the largely conflicting evidence [77].
5.1.5 Severity Tailored Approach
If the advantages of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an unselected population are clarified by the evidence reported above, it can be argued that still it could be possible to improve the overall outcome tailoring the treatment according to the severity of the condition and to the patient status.
The question arises if early surgery, in particular laparoscopic, is indicated for every acute cholecystitis. What is the best treatment for the frailer patients and the more advanced forms of inflammation? Should the clinical decision making take into account a grading system for the severity of the disease and the illness of the patient? As a matter of fact, the heterogeneity of patients, comorbidities, and environment in which this disease presents make the diagnosis, and the subsequent therapeutic procedures, very difficult to standardize; the severity of inflammation and its life-threatening potential are also strongly determined by the general condition of the patient, and the choice of a surgical treatment cannot disregard this aspect [78].
The severity assessment criteria, included in the Tokyo guidelines, take into consideration both general and local factors and classify acute cholecystitis into three severity degrees. An acute cholecystitis is defined “severe” if the condition has developed organ dysfunction and “moderate” if local inflammatory condition (marked leukocytosis, palpable tender mass, onset of symptoms >72 h, gangrenous cholecystitis, pericholecystic abscess, hepatic abscess, biliary peritonitis, emphysematous cholecystitis) may increase the probability of local complications (“criteria predicting when conditions might be unfavorable for cholecystectomy in the acute phase”). If none of these conditions are present, the cholecystitis is classified as “mild”[13, 18].
Based on that scheme, the Tokyo guidelines recommend early cholecystectomy only in the mild forms (grade I), in which a laparoscopic cholecystectomy is likely to be easy. In the moderate cases, they maintain that medical therapy with or without early gallbladder drainage (surgical or percutaneous) followed by delayed cholecystectomy is indicated, except in “experienced” centers. Cholecystostomy is also preferred for patients placed in the “severe” grade by their organ dysfunction.
Such severity-based classification, however, has not been validated by studies showing an improved outcome after its introduction, and actually a retrospective series failed to find any significant benefit [85].
The severity tailored approach of the Tokyo guidelines ends up in a large use of delayed cholecystectomy, despite the amount of literature against its use. Today, early laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the gold standard, established (as examined above) by evidence level 1 meta-analysis.
Furthermore, several reports show that early cholecystectomy is safe and effective even in the severe forms of the disease (LoE3) [23, 79, 80], (LoE4) [81] or in the elderly population (LoE4) [71, 72, 82].
Finally, a definitive conclusion about the use of percutaneous cholecystostomy has yet to be drawn as discussed above.
Aside from the Tokyo scheme, several clinical scores for the evaluation of surgical risk for acute conditions are available [83], but none is validated for acute cholecystitis. Weighting the risk of early surgery for acute cholecystitis against a well-established risk score could help in identifying those patients with reduced functional reserve who could benefit from a treatment alternative to surgery. The overall outcome of the treatment of this condition could be improved. This selection is not going to be straightforward, until we can achieve a more complete assessment of the results of the alternative treatments available, including morbi-mortality, functional status, and quality of life beyond hospital stay: de Mestral et al., in an elderly population treated by percutaneous cholecystectomy (890 patients among 27, 718 acute cholecystitis between 2004 and 2011), showed that besides a 5 % in-hospital mortality, an additional 18 % of patients had died by 1 year and less than 50 % had received the planned cholecystectomy. An overall 49 % of patients had at least one gallstone-related emergency department evaluation or hospital admission 1 year after discharge [60].
The need for further investigations aimed to a patient-related and evidence-based algorithm that can be related to the clinical and therapeutic decision making for acute cholecystitis remains.
5.1.6 Is Acute Cholecystitis Actually Treated by Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy?
The surgical approach suggested by the Tokyo guidelines appears to be extremely cautious if compared to the findings available in the literature. The EAES Consensus Conference statements are much more assertive in suggesting that laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the treatment of choice for acute cholecystitis and should be performed as soon as possible after the onset of symptoms. Despite the limited surgical indications, the introduction of the Tokyo guidelines seems to be able to increase the adoption of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy as reported by Asai [84].
A Japanese study, based on a large administrative database, examined the records of 6,080 patients with acute cholecystitis from 777 hospitals (68 academic and 709 community hospitals) between April and December of 2008. It is rather surprising to find that only 35 % of those patients received surgery at some point of their hospital course (mean length of stay 20.2 ± 18.2 days). Among the patients who did not receive gallbladder drainage, most likely the mildest forms, only 50.5 % received early surgery and an additional 13.2 % had cholecystectomy later than 4 days after the hospitalization [58]. After all the introduction of their paper reveals a preconceptual nonsurgical attitude when states that antimicrobial therapy is the mainstay of therapy for acute cholecystitis followed by drainage if the patient fails to improve.
If the Japanese database showed a low cholecystectomy rate for acute gallbladder disease, Western population-based studies reported rates higher but still inferior to the expectations if the indications provided by the literature are to be considered. A report by Csikesz et al., based on the US National Hospital Discharge Survey, demonstrated that the cholecystectomy rate on the first admission was 40 % in the years between 2000 and 2005 [21]. Sandzén et al., on a similar Swedish database, examined between 1988 and 2006, reported that surgery was performed during the index admission in 32.2 % of cases [59]. Only the study on the Medicare Claims Data System, published by Riall et al., reported an overall 75 % cholecystectomy rate during the first admission [72] between 1996 and 2005. It has to be specified that, unlike the Japanese study, the time frame taken into consideration by these reports includes years in which the use of laparoscopy was not widespread.
References
Brewer BJ, Golden GT, Hitch DC et al (1976) Abdominal pain. An analysis of 1000 consecutive cases in a University Hospital emergency room. Am J Surg 131:219–223
Reiss R, Deutsch AA (1993) State of the art in the diagnosis and management of acute cholecystitis. Dig Dis 11:55–64
Yasutoshi K, Tadahiro T, Yoshifumi K et al (2007) Definitions, pathophysiology, and epidemiology of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis: Tokyo Guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 14(1):15–26
Janzon L, Aspelin P, Eriksson S et al (1985) Ultrasonographic screening for gallstone disease in middle-aged women. Detection rate, symptoms, and biochemical features. Scand J Gastroenterol 20:706–710
Jørgensen T (1987) Prevalence of gallstones in a Danish population. Am J Epidemiol 126:912–921
Muhrbeck O, Ahlberg J (1995) Prevalence of gallstones in a Swedish population. Scand J Gastroenterol 30:1125–1128
Attili AF, Carulli N, Roda E et al (1995) Epidemiology of gallstone disease in Italy; prevalence data of the multicenter Italian study on cholelithiasis (MICOL). Am J Epidemiol 141:158–165
National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2009) Opportunities and challenges in digestive diseases research: recommendations of the National Commission on Digestive Diseases. National Institutes of Health/NIH Publication, Bethesda, pp 08–6514, http://catalog.niddk.nih.gov/detail.cfm?id=1252. Accessed 9 may 2011
Ministero della Salute (2012) Rapporto annuale sull’attività di ricovero ospedaliero. Dati SDO 2011. http://www.salute.gov.it/imgs/C_17_pubblicazioni_1930_allegato.pdf. Accessed 23 Dec 2013
Gurusamy K, Samraj K, Gluud C et al (2010) Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the safety and effectiveness of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Br J Surg 97(2):141–150
Borzellino G, de Manzoni G, Ricci F et al (1999) Emergency cholecystostomy and subsequent cholecystectomy for acute gallstones cholecystitis in the elderly. Br J Surg 86:1521–1525
Agresta F, Ansaloni L, Baiocchi GL et al (2012) Laparoscopic approach to acute abdomen from the Consensus Development Conference of the Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica e nuove tecnologie (SICE), Associazione Chirurghi Ospedalieri Italiani (ACOI), Società Italiana di Chirurgia (SIC), Società Italiana di Chirurgia d’Urgenza e del Trauma (SICUT), Società Italiana di Chirurgia nell’Ospedalità Privata (SICOP), and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES). Surg Endosc 26:2134–2164. doi:10.1007/s00464-012-2331-3
Yokoe M, Takada T, Strasberg SM et al (2013) TG13 diagnostic criteria and severity grading of acute cholecystitis (with videos). J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 20:35–46. doi:10.1007/s00534-012-0568-9
Yamashita Y, Takada T, Strasberg SM et al (2013) TG13 surgical management of acute cholecystitis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 20:89–96. doi:10.1007/s00534-012-0567-x
Overby DW, Apelgren KN, Richardson W, Fanelli R (2010) SAGES guidelines for the clinical application of laparoscopic biliary tract surgery. Surg Endosc 24(10):2368–2386
Sauerland S, Agresta F, Bergamaschi R et al (2006) Laparoscopy for abdominal emergencies: evidence based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery. Surg Endosc 20(1):14–29
Trowbridge RL, Rutkowski NK, Shojania KG (2003) Does this patient have acute cholecystitis? J Am Med Assoc 289:80–86
Hirota M, Takada T, Kawarada Y et al (2007) Diagnostic criteria and severity assessment of acute cholecystitis: Tokyo Guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 14(1):78–82
Kiviluoto T, Siren J, Luukkonen P et al (1998) Randomised trial of laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for acute and gangrenous cholecystitis. Lancet 351:321–325
Johansson M, Thune A, Nelvin L et al (2005) Randomized clinical trial of open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the treatment of acute cholecystitis. Br J Surg 92:44–49
Csikesz N, Ricciardi R, Tseng JF et al (2008) Current status of surgical management of acute cholecystitis in the United States. World J Surg 32(10):2230–2236
Boo YJ, Kim WB, Kim J et al (2007) Systemic immune response after open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis: a prospective randomized study. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 67(2):207–214
Borzellino G, Sauerland S, Minicozzi AM et al (2008) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for severe acute cholecystitis. A meta-analysis of results. Surg Endosc 22(1):8–15
Soleimani M, Mehrabi A, Mood ZA et al (2007) Partial cholecystectomy as a safe and viable option in the emergency treatment of complex acute cholecystitis: a case series and review of the literature. Am Surg 73(5):498–507
Davis B, Castaneda G, Lopez J (2012) Subtotal cholecystectomy versus total cholecystectomy in complicated cholecystitis. Am Surg 78:814–817
Fried GM, Barkun JS, Sigman HH et al (1994) Factors determining conversion to laparotomy in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 167:35–41
Brunt LM, Quasebarth MA, Dunnegan DL et al (2001) Outcomes analysis of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the extremely elderly. Surg Endosc 15:700–705
Bingener J, Richards ML, Schwesinger WH et al (2003) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for elderly patients; gold standard for golden years? Arch Surg 138:531–535
Kirshtein B, Bayme M, Bolotin A et al (2008) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis in the elderly: is it safe? Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 18:334–339
do Amaral PC, Azaro Filho EM, Galvao TD et al (2006) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis in elderly patients. JSLS 10:479–483
Pessaux P, Regenet N, Tuech JJ et al (2001) Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy: a prospective comparative study in the elderly with acute cholecystitis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 11(4):252–255
Lujan JA, Sanchez-Bueno F, Parrilla P et al (1998) Laparoscopic vs. open cholecystectomy in patients aged 65 and older. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 8(3):208–210
Chau CH, Tang CN, Siu WT et al (2002) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus open cholecystectomy in elderly patients with acute cholecystitis: retrospective study. Hong Kong Med J 8(6):394–399
Massie MT, Massie LB, Marrangoni AG et al (1993) Advantages of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the elderly and in patients with high ASA classifications. J Laparoendosc Surg 3:467–476
Van der Linden W, Edlund G (1970) Early versus delayed operation for acute cholecystitis. A controlled clinical trial. Am J Surg 120:7–13
Lathinen J, Alhava EM, Aukee S (1978) Acute cholecystitis treated by early and delayed surgery. A controlled clinical trial. Scand J Gastroenterol 13:673–678
Jarvinen HJ, Hastbacka J (1980) Early cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a prospective randomized study. Ann Surg 191:501–505
Norrby S, Herlin P, Holmin T et al (1983) Early or delayed cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis? A clinical trial. Br J Surg 70:163–165
Kum CK, Eypasch E, Lefering R et al (1996) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: is it really safe? World J Surg 20:43–49
Lai PBS, Kwong KH, Leung KL et al (1998) Randomized trial of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Br J Surg 85(6):764–767
Lo C, Liu C, Fan S et al (1998) Prospective randomized study of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Ann Surg 227(4):461–467
Dàvila D, Manzanares C, Pichò ML et al (1999) Experience in the treatment (early vs delayed) of acute cholecystitis via laparoscopy. Cir Esp 66(suppl 1):233
Chandler CF, Lane JS, Ferguson P et al (2000) Prospective evaluation of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for treatment of acute cholecystitis. Am Surg 66:896–900
Johansson M, Thune A, Blomqvist A et al (2003) Management of acute cholecystitis in the laparoscopic era: results of a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Gastrointest Surg 7:642–645
Serralta AS, Bueno JL, Planells MR et al (2003) Prospective evaluation of emergency versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for early cholecystitis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 13:71–75
Kolla SB, Aggarwal S, Kumar A et al (2004) Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a prospective randomized trial. Surg Endosc 18:1323–1327
Papi C, Catarci M, D’Ambrosio L et al (2004) Timing of cholecystectomy for acute calculous cholecystitis: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 99:147–155
Shikata S, Noguchi Y, Fukui T (2005) Early versus delayed cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Today 35:553–560
Lau H, Lo Y, Patil NG, Yuen WK (2006) Early versus delayed-interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. A metaanalysis. Surg Endosc 20:82–87
Gurusamy KS, Samraj K (2006) Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4, CD005440
Siddiqui T, MacDonald A, Chong PS et al (2008) Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Am J Surg 195(1):40–47
Yadav RP, Adhikary S, Agrawal CS et al (2009) A comparative study of early vs. delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ) 7:16–20
Catena F, Ansaloni L, Bianchi E et al (2013) The ACTIVE (Acute Cholecystitis Trial Invasive Versus Endoscopic) study: multicenter randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for acute cholecystitis. Hepatogastroenterology 60:1552–1556. doi:10.5754/hge 12418
Gutt CN, Encke J, Köninger J et al (2013) Acute cholecystitis: early versus delayed cholecystectomy, a multicenter randomized trial (ACDC study, NCT00447304). Ann Surg 258:385–393. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182a1599b
Verma S, Agarwal PN, Bali RS et al (2013) Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a prospective randomized trial. ISRN Minim Invasive Surg 2013:1–3. doi:10.1155/2013/486107
Banz V, Gsponer T, Candinas D, Güller U (2011) Population-based analysis of 4113 patients with acute cholecystitis: defining the optimal time-point for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 254:964–970. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e318228d31c
Navez B, Ungureanu F, Michiels M et al (2012) Surgical management of acute cholecystitis: results of a 2-year prospective multicenter survey in Belgium. Surg Endosc 26:2436–2445. doi:10.1007/s00464-012-2206-7
Murata A, Okamoto K, Matsuda S et al (2012) The care processes for acute cholecystitis according to clinical practice guidelines based on the Japanese administrative database. Tohoku J Exp Med 227:237–244
Sandzén B, Haapamäki MM, Nilsson E et al (2013) Surgery for acute gallbladder disease in Sweden 1989–2006 – a register study. Scand J Gastroenterol. doi:10.3109/00365521.2012.763177
De Mestral C, Rotstein OD, Laupacis A et al (2013) A population-based analysis of the clinical course of 10,304 patients with acute cholecystitis, discharged without cholecystectomy. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 74:26–30. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e3182788e4d; discussion 30–31
Brooks KR, Scarborough JE, Vaslef SN, Shapiro ML (2013) No need to wait: an analysis of the timing of cholecystectomy during admission for acute cholecystitis using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 74(167–173):173–174. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e3182788b71
Macafee DA, Humes DJ, Bouliotis G et al (2009) Prospective randomized trial using cost-utility analysis of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute gallbladder disease. Br J Surg 96(9):1031–1040
Dixon E, Fowler DL, Ghitulescu G, Evidence Based Reviews in Surgery Group (2012) CAGS and ACS evidence based reviews in surgery. 41. Cost-utility analysis of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Can J Surg 55:204–206. doi:10.1503/cjs.012012
Johner A, Raymakers A, Wiseman SM (2013) Cost utility of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Surg Endosc 27:256–262. doi:10.1007/s00464-012-2430-1
Wilson E, Gurusamy K, Gluud C et al (2010) Cost-utility and value-of-information analysis of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Br J Surg 97(2):210–219
Hadad SM, Vaidya JS, Baker L et al (2007) Delay from symptom onset increases the conversion rate in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. World J Surg 31:1298–1301
Catani M, De Milito R, Romagnoli F et al (2008) The best timing of surgery in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: when and how is to be performed. Hepatogastroenterology 55(88):1993–1996
Low JK, Barrow P, Owera A et al (2007) Timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: evidence to support a proposal for an early interval surgery. Am Surg 73(11):1188–1192
Popkharitov A (2008) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 393(6):935–941
Farooq T, Buchanan G, Manda V et al (2009) Is early laparoscopic cholecystectomy safe after the “safe period”? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 19(4):471–474
Sánchez Beorlegui J, Lagunas Lostao E, Lamata Hernández F et al (2009) Treatment of acute cholecystitis in the elderly: urgent surgery versus medical therapy and surgery delay. Rev Gastroenterol Peru 29(4):332–340
Riall TS, Zhang D, Townsend CM Jr et al (2010) Failure to perform cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis in elderly patients is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and cost. J Am Coll Surg 210(5):668–677, 677–679
Schmidt M, Søndenaa K, Vetrhus M et al (2011) Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of observation versus surgery for acute cholecystitis: non-operative management is an option in some patients. Scand J Gastroenterol 46:1257–1262. doi:10.3109/00365521.2011.598548
Akyürek N, Salman B, Yüksel O et al (2005) Management of acute calculous cholecystitis in high-risk patients: percutaneous cholecystotomy followed by early laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 15(6):315–320
Kim HJ, Lee SK, Kim MH et al (2000) Safety and usefulness of percutaneous transhepatic cholecystoscopy examination in high-risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis. Gastrointest Endosc 52(5):645–649
Winbladh A, Gullstrand P, Svanvik J et al (2009) Systematic review of cholecystostomy as a treatment option in acute cholecystitis. HPB (Oxford) 11(3):183–193
Kortram K, van Ramshorst B, Bollen TL et al (2012) Acute cholecystitis in high risk surgical patients: percutaneous cholecystostomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CHOCOLATE trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 13:7. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-13-7
Campanile FC, Catena F, Coccolini F et al (2011) The need for new “patient-related” guidelines for the treatment of acute cholecystitis. World J Emerg Surg 6:44. doi:10.1186/1749-7922-6-44
Choi SB, Han HJ, Kim CY et al (2011) Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the appropriate management for acute gangrenous cholecystitis. Am Surg 77:401–406
Nikfarjam M, Niumsawatt V, Sethu A et al (2011) Outcomes of contemporary management of gangrenous and non-gangrenous acute cholecystitis. HPB (Oxford) 13:551–558
Lo H-C, Wang Y-C, Su L-T et al (2012) Can early laparoscopic cholecystectomy be the optimal management of cholecystitis with gallbladder perforation? A single institute experience of 74 cases. Surg Endosc 26:3301–3306
Lupinacci RM, Nadal LR, Rego RE et al (2013) Surgical management of gallbladder disease in the very elderly: are we operating them at the right time? Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 25:380–384. doi:10.1097/MEG.0b013e32835b7124
Rix TE, Bates T (2007) Pre-operative risk scores for the prediction of outcome in elderly people who require emergency surgery. World J Emerg Surg 2:16. doi:10.1186/1749-7922-2-16
Asai K, Watanabe M, Kusachi S et al (2012) Changes in the therapeutic strategy for acute cholecystitis after the Tokyo guidelines were published. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. doi:10.1007/s00534-012-0536-4
Lee S-W, Yang S-S, Chang C-S et al (2009) Impact of the Tokyo guidelines on the management of patients with acute calculous cholecystitis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 24:1857–1861
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Campanile, F.C., Carrara, A., Motter, M., Ansaloni, L., Agresta, F. (2014). Laparoscopy and Acute Cholecystitis: The Evidence. In: Agresta, F., Campanile, F., Vettoretto, N. (eds) Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05407-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05407-0_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-05406-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-05407-0
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)