Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: early or delayed?: Evidence from a systematic review of discordant meta-analyses.

Abstract

The laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is an important approach of treating acute cholecystitis and the timing of performing this given treatment is associated with clinical outcomes. Although several meta-analyses have been done to investigate the optimal timing of implementing this treatment, the conflicting findings from these meta-analyses still confuse decision-making. And thus, we performed this systematic review to assess discordant meta-analyses and generate conclusive findings to facilitate informed decision-making in clinical context eventually. We electronically searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE to include meta-analysis comparing early (within 7 days of the onset of symptoms) with delayed LC (at least 1 week after initial conservative treatment) for acute cholecystitis through August 2015. Two independent investigators completed all tasks including scanning and appraising eligibility, abstracting essential information using prespecified extraction form, assessing methodological quality using Oxford Levels of Evidence and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool, and assessing the reporting quality using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), as well as implementing Jadad algorithm in each step for the whole process. A heterogeneity degree of ≤50% is accepted. Seven eligible meta-analyses were included eventually. Only one was Level I of evidence and remaining studies were Level II of evidence. The AMSTAR scores varied from 8 to 11 with a median of 9. The PRISMA scores varied from 19 to 26. The most heterogeneity level fell into the desired criteria. After implementing Jadad algorithm, 2 meta-analyses with more eligible RCTs were selected based on search strategies and implication of selection. The best available evidence indicated a nonsignificant difference in mortality, bile duct injury, bile leakage, overall complications, and conversion to open surgery, but a significant reduction in wound infection, hospitalization, and operation duration and improvement of the quality of life when compared early LC with delayed LC. However, number of work days lost, hospital costs, and patient satisfaction are warranted to be assessed further. With the best available evidence, we recommend early LC to be as the standard treatment option in treating acute cholecystitis.