Comparing percutaneous treatment and cholecystectomy outcomes in acute cholecystitis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Acute cholecystitis (AC) is a common and serious condition characterized by gallbladder inflammation, most often caused by cystic duct obstruction due to gallstones. Although laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CC) is the preferred surgical treatment, percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) is frequently considered for high-risk surgical patients. The optimal management strategy for these patients remains a topic of debate. These systematic review and meta-analysis aim to provide an updated evaluation of studies comparing the clinical outcomes of AC patients treated with PC versus those undergoing CC, as well as the outcomes of CC alone versus PC followed by CC. METHODS: A literature search was carried out across Web of Science, Medline, Embase, and PubMed up to April 2024. Observational studies comparing patients undergoing PC versus CC, as well as CC versus PC followed by CC, and reporting mortality, morbidity, and readmission were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were independently performed by two reviewers, with bias risk evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Scale. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was obtained through meta-analyses by using STATA software (Version 18). RESULTS: A total of 27 studies were included, with 16 comparing PC versus CC and 11 assessing PC followed by CC versus CC alone. Meta-analyses revealed that CC was associated with significantly lower mortality (OR = 0.26; 95% CI = 0.14-0.48) and readmission rates (OR = 0.37; 95% CI = 0.18-0.75) compared to PC. The benefits of laparoscopic cholecystectomy over percutaneous cholecystostomy were particularly evident for mortality (OR = 0.17; 95% CI = 0.09-0.33), while a non-significant trend towards reduced readmission rates was also observed (OR = 0.28; 95% CI = 0.07-1.13). However, PC was identified as a viable alternative in high-risk surgical patients. Studies examining PC followed by CC versus CC alone showed diverse results, with some indicating reduced surgical complications and improved outcomes, while others reported no significant benefits. CONCLUSION: This work highlights that CC is associated with better outcomes, including lower mortality and readmission rates, compared to both PC alone and PC followed by CC. The combined approach did not show a significant advantage over immediate CC. Further research with larger studies and standardized protocols is needed to refine treatment strategies for high-risk AC patients.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,018 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».