MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411118843 · doi:10.1186/s13017-025-00622-6

Comparing percutaneous treatment and cholecystectomy outcomes in acute cholecystitis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4411118843 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gabriele Fanciulli, Giuliana Favara, Andrea Maugeri, Martina Barchitta, Antonella Agodi, Guido Basile

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Emergency Surgery · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversità di Catania
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisAcute cholecystitisCholecystectomyCholecystitisPercutaneousGeneral surgerySystematic reviewIntensive care medicineMEDLINESurgeryInternal medicineGallbladder

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of Emergency SurgerySame topicGallbladder and Bile Duct DisordersFrench-language works237,207