Percutaneous Gallbladder Drainage Research Articles

The Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Cholecystitis: A Comprehensive Narrative Review for a Practical Approach.

Acute cholecystitis (AC), generally associated with the presence of gallstones, is a relatively frequent disease that can lead to serious complications. For these reasons, AC warrants prompt clinical diagnosis and management. There is general agreement in terms of considering early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC) to be the best treatment for AC. The optimal timeframe to perform ELC is within 72 h from diagnosis, with a possible extension of up to 7-10 days from symptom onset. In the first hours or days after hospital admission, before an ELC procedure, the patient's medical management comprises fasting, intravenous fluid infusion, antimicrobial therapy, and possible administration of analgesics. Additionally, concomitant conditions such as choledocholithiasis, cholangitis, biliary pancreatitis, or systemic complications must be recognized and adequately treated. The importance of ELC is related to the frequent recurrence of symptoms and complications of gallstone disease in the interval period between the onset of AC and surgical intervention. In patients who are not eligible for ELC, it is suggested to delay surgery at least 6 weeks after the clinical presentation. Critically ill patients, who are unfit for surgery, may require rescue treatments, such as percutaneous or endoscopic gallbladder drainage (GBD). A particular treatment approach should be applied to special populations such as pregnant women, cirrhotic, and elderly patients. In this review, we provide a practical diagnostic and therapeutic approach to AC, even in specific clinical situations, based on evidence from the literature.

Endoscopic Gallbladder Drainage: A Comprehensive Review on Indications, Techniques, and Future Perspectives.

In recent years, therapeutic endoscopy has become a fundamental tool in the management of gallbladder diseases in light of its minimal invasiveness, high clinical efficacy, and good safety profile. Both endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (TGBD) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) provide effective internal drainage in patients with acute cholecystitis unfit for cholecystectomy, avoiding the drawbacks of external percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PGBD). The availability of dedicated lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) for EUS-guided transluminal interventions contributed to the expansion of endoscopic therapies for acute cholecystitis, making endoscopic gallbladder drainage easier, faster, and hence more widely available. Moreover, EUS-GBD with LAMS opened the possibility of several cholecystoscopy-guided interventions, such as gallstone lithotripsy and clearance. Finally, EUS-GBD has also been proposed as a rescue drainage modality in malignant biliary obstruction after failure of standard techniques, with encouraging results. In this review, we will describe the TBGD and EUS-GBD techniques, and we will discuss the available data on clinical efficacy in different settings in comparison with PGBD. Finally, we will comment on the future perspectives of EUS-GBD, discussing the areas of uncertainty in which new data are more strongly awaited.

Ultrasound-Guided Interventions in the Biliary System.

Ultrasound guidance in biliary interventions has become the standard tool to facilitate percutaneous biliary drainage as well as percutaneous gall bladder drainage. Monitoring of the needle tip whilst penetrating the tissue in real time using ultrasound allows precise manoeuvres and exact targeting without radiation exposure. Without the need for fluoroscopy, ultrasound-guided drainage procedures can be performed bedside as a sometimes life-saving procedure in patients with severe cholangitis/cholecystitis when they are critically ill in intensive care units and cannot be transported to a fluoroscopy suite. This article describes the current data background and guidelines and focuses on specific sonographic aspects of both the procedures of percutaneous biliary drainage and gallbladder drainage.

Large Single-center Experience with Long-term Outcomes of EUS-guided Transmural Gallbladder Drainage.

To describe the long-term outcomes of patients after EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD), including those who underwent standardized stent exchanges for permanent plastic stents. EUS-GBD has become one of the first-line alternatives for gallbladder decompression, with outcomes and safety profiles comparable to that of percutaneous gallbladder drainage. However, the long-term outcomes of EUS-GBD are not well-described. We report our single-center experience of a large cohort who underwent EUS-GBD. Patients who underwent EUS-GBD from August 2014 to December 2022 were included in the study. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and procedure details were recorded. Patients were followed until complete stent removal, end of study period, or death. Short and long-term outcomes include technical and clinical success, stent patency, recurrent cholecystitis, cholecystectomy, and death. During the study period, 128 patients were included. One hundred and one patients had benign indications for EUS-GBD, including cholecystitis and choledocholithiasis. Of those with malignant indications, 23 of 27 had distal malignant biliary obstruction. Technical and clinical successes were 95.3% and 95.1%, respectively. Stents were exchanged for 2 permanent double pigtail plastic stents in 43.0%. The mean stent patency was 421 days (488 d among those still alive) without any recurrent cholecystitis. EUS-GBD demonstrates prolonged stent patency and minimal long-term adverse events, particularly among patients who underwent stent exchanges for permanent plastic stents. EUS-GBD is also promising for patients presenting with choledocholithiasis and biliary colic who are not surgical candidates.

Current trends of minimally invasive therapy for cholecystocholedocholithiasis.

The minimally invasive approach of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided procedures for cholecystocholedocholithiasis, such as EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD), EUS-guided rendezvous (EUS-RV), and EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), is affirmed as an effective treatment for patients with acute cholecystitis (AC) who are unfit for surgery and for patients with common bile duct stones (CBDSs) who have experienced a previous ERCP failure. Furthermore, in cases of difficult CBDS extraction during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), cholangioscopy-guided electrohydraulic lithotripsy (CS-EHL) has showed optimal results. The main objective of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness of EUS-GBD and percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD) in patients with AC who are unfit for surgery. We also aimed to evaluate the efficacy of EUS-GBD, EUS-BD, and EUS-RV following ERCP failure and the effectiveness of CS-EHL for difficult CBDS extraction in our hospital. The secondary aim was to examine the safety of these procedures. We conducted a retrospective evaluation of all the EUS-GBD, PT-GBD, EUS-BD, EUS-RV, and CS-EHL procedures, which were prospectively collected in the gastroenterology and digestive endoscopy unit and the general surgery unit from January 2020 to June 2023. The efficacy was expressed in terms of technical and clinical success rates, while safety was assessed based on the rate of adverse events (AEs). We enrolled 83 patients with AC and high surgical risk. Among them, 57 patients (68.7%, 24/57 male, median age 85 ± 11 years) underwent EUS-GBD, and 26 (31.3%, 19/26 male, median age 83 ± 7 years) underwent PT-GBD. The technical and clinical success rates were 96.5 and 100% for EUS-GBD, and 96.1 and 92% for PT-GBD. The AEs for EUS-GBD were 1.7%, and for PT-GBD, it was 12%. ERCP for CBDS extraction failed in 77 patients. Among them, 73 patients (94.8%) underwent EUS-RV with technical and clinical success rates of 72.6% (53/73) and 100%, respectively. No AEs were reported. Four out of 77 patients were directly treated with EUS-BD for pyloric inflammatory stenosis. In 12 patients (16.4%), following unsuccessful EUS-RV with a CBD diameter ≥ 12 mm, an EUS-BD was performed. Both technical and clinical success rates for EUS-BD were 100%, and no AEs were reported. EUS-GBD was the treatment of choice for the remaining 8 (10.9%) patients after failure of both ERCP and EUS-RV. The procedure had high technical and clinical success rates (both at 100%), and no AEs were reported. The 12 difficult CBDS extraction treated with CS-EHL also showed high technical and clinical success rates (both at 100%), with no reported AEs. The minimally invasive approach for cholecystocholedocholithiasis, especially EUS-guided procedures, had high efficacy and safety in treating AC in high-risk surgical patients and CBDS extraction after a previously unsuccessful ERCP.

S159 Management of Surgically High-Risk Patients With Acute Cholecystitis: A Comparative Retrospective Study of Percutaneous Cholecystostomy vs Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Gallbladder Drainage

S159 Management of Surgically High-Risk Patients With Acute Cholecystitis: A Comparative Retrospective Study of Percutaneous Cholecystostomy vs Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Gallbladder Drainage

S1286 Impact of Endoscopic Compared to Percutaneous Gallbladder Drainage for Patients With Acute Cholecystitis in Hospitalized Patients in the US

S1286 Impact of Endoscopic Compared to Percutaneous Gallbladder Drainage for Patients With Acute Cholecystitis in Hospitalized Patients in the US

Acute cholecystitis: Which flow-chart for the most appropriate management?

Acute cholecystitis (AC) is a very common disease in clinical practice. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains the gold standard treatment for AC, however due to aging population, the increased prevalence of multiple comorbidities and the extensive use of anticoagulants, surgical procedures may be too risky when dealing with patients in emergency settings. In these subsets of patients, a mini-invasive management may be an effective option, both as a definitive treatment or as bridge-to-surgery. In this paper, several non-operative treatments are described and their benefits and drawbacks are highlighted. Percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD) is one of the most common and widespread techniques. It is easy to perform and has a good cost/benefit ratio. Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) is a challenging procedure that is usually performed in high volume centers by expert endoscopists, and it has a specific indication for selected cases. EUS-guided drainage (EUS-GBD) is still not widely available, but it is an effective procedure that could have several advantages, especially in rate of reinterventions. All these treatment options should be considered together in a stepwise approach and addressed to patients after an accurate case-by-case evaluation in a multidisciplinary discussion. In this review, we provide a possible flowchart in order to optimize treatments, resource and provide to patients a tailored approach.

Management of Acute Cholecystitis in High-Risk Patients: Percutaneous Gallbladder Drainage as a Definitive Treatment vs. Emergency Cholecystectomy-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This systematic review aims to investigate whether percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder biliary drainage (PTGBD) is superior to emergency cholecystectomy (EC) as a definitive treatment in high-risk patients with acute cholecystitis (AC). A systematic literature search was performed until December 2022 using the Scopus, Medline/PubMed and Web of Science databases. Seventeen studies have been included with a total of 783,672 patients (32,634 treated with PTGBD vs. 4663 who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 343 who had open cholecystectomy and 746,032 who had some form of cholecystectomy, but without laparoscopic or open approach being specified). An analysis of the results shows that PTGBD, despite being less invasive, is not associated with lower morbidity with respect to EC (RR 0.77 95% CI [0.44 to 1.34]; I2 = 99%; p = 0.36). A lower postoperative mortality was reported in patients who underwent EC (2.37%) with respect to the PTGBD group (13.78%) (RR 4.21; 95% CI [2.69 to 6.58]; p < 0.00001); furthermore, the risk of hospital readmission for biliary complications (RR 2.19 95% CI [1.72 to 2.79]; I2 = 48%; p < 0.00001) and hospital stay (MD 4.29 95% CI [2.40 to 6.19]; p < 0.00001) were lower in the EC group. In our systematic review, the majority of studies have very low-quality evidence and more RCTs are needed; furthermore, PTGBD is inferior in the treatment of AC in high-risk patients. The definition of high-risk patients is important in interpreting the results, but the methods of assessment and definitions differ between studies. The results of our systematic review and meta-analysis failed to demonstrate any advantage of using PTGBD over ER as a definitive treatment of AC in critically ill patients, which suggests that EC should be considered as the treatment of choice even in very high-risk patients. Most likely, the inferiority of PTGBD versus early LC for high-risk patients is related to an association of various patient-side factor conditions and the severity of acute cholecystitis.

Endoscopic Gallbladder Drainage Conversion versus Conservative Treatment Following Percutaneous Gallbladder Drainage in High-Risk Surgical Patients.

There are no consensus guidelines for patients with acute cholecystitis undergoing percutaneous cholecystostomy who are unfit for interval cholecystectomy. The current study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of endoscopic gallbladder drainage, i.e. conversion from percutaneous cholecystostomy (including endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder stenting and endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage), and conservative treatment after percutaneous cholecystostomy tube removal. This retrospective review included patients who underwent percutaneous cholecystostomy for acute cholecystitis between January 2017 and December 2020. Consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic gallbladder drainage or percutaneous cholecystostomy tube removal without interval cholecystectomy were included. Outcome measures included recurrent acute cholecystitis and unplanned readmission due to gallstone-related diseases. During the study period, 238 patients were selected (63 underwent endoscopic gallbladder drainage conversion and 175 underwent conservative treatment). Patients who underwent endoscopic gallbladder drainage conversion had lower rates of recurrent acute cholecystitis (3 [4.76%] vs 31 [17.71%], p=0.012) and unplanned readmission due to gallstone-related diseases (6 [9.52%] vs 40 [22.86%], p=0.022) than those who underwent conservative treatment following percutaneous cholecystostomy tube removal. In the univariate and multivariate analyses, calculus cholecystitis (odds ratio, 13.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.83 to 102.83; p=0.011) and conversion of endoscopic gallbladder drainage (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.06 to 0.78; p=0.019) were significant predictive factors for recurrent acute cholecystitis. Endoscopic gallbladder drainage conversion led to more favorable outcomes than conservative treatment after percutaneous cholecystostomy tube removal. Therefore, endoscopic gallbladder drainage conversion may be considered a promising treatment option for patients undergoing percutaneous cholecystostomy who are at a high surgical risk.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Gallbladder Drainage versus Percutaneous Gallbladder Drainage for Acute Cholecystitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD) has been the treatment of choice for acute cholecystitis patients who are not suitable for surgery. The effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) as an alternative to PT-GBD is not clear. In this meta-analysis, we have compared their efficacy and adverse events. Methods: We adhered to the PRISMA statement to conduct this meta-analysis. Online databases were searched for studies that compared EUS-GBD and PT-GBD for acute cholecystitis. The primary outcomes of interest were technical success, clinical success, and adverse events. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the random-effects model. Results: A total of 396 articles were screened, and 11 eligible studies were identified. There were 1136 patients, of which 57.5% were male, 477 (mean age 73.33 ± 11.28 years) underwent EUS-GBD, and 698 (mean age 73.77 ± 8.7 years) underwent PT-GBD. EUS-GBD had significantly better technical success (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.17-0.94; p = 0.04), fewer adverse events (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.21-0.61; p = 0.00), and lower reintervention rates (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.05-0.57; p = 0.00) than PT-GBD. No difference in clinical success (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.65-2.79; p = 0.42), readmission rate (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.08-1.54; p = 0.16), or mortality rate (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.30-1.80; p = 0.50) was noted. There was low heterogeneity (I2 = 0) among the studies. Egger's test showed no significant publication bias (p = 0.595). Conclusion: EUS-GBD can be a safe and effective alternative to PT-GBD for treating acute cholecystitis in non-surgical patients and has fewer adverse events and a lower reintervention rate than PT-GBD.

ACUTE CHOLECYSTITIS IN HIGH-RISK PATIENTS. SURGICAL, RADIOLOGICAL, OR ENDOSCOPIC TREATMENT? BRAZILIAN COLLEGE OF DIGESTIVE SURGERY POSITION PAPER.

Acute cholecystitis (AC) is an acute inflammatory process of the gallbladder that may be associated with potentially severe complications, such as empyema, gangrene, perforation of the gallbladder, and sepsis. The gold standard treatment for AC is laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, for a small group of AC patients, the risk of laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be very high, mainly in the elderly with associated severe diseases. In these critically ill patients, percutaneous cholecystostomy or endoscopic ultrasound gallbladder drainage may be a temporary therapeutic option, a bridge to cholecystectomy. The objective of this Brazilian College of Digestive Surgery Position Paper is to present new advances in AC treatment in high-risk surgical patients to help surgeons, endoscopists, and physicians select the best treatment for their patients. The effectiveness, safety, advantages, disadvantages, and outcomes of each procedure are discussed. The main conclusions are: a) AC patients with elevated surgical risk must be preferably treated in tertiary hospitals where surgical, radiological, and endoscopic expertise and resources are available; b) The optimal treatment modality for high-surgical-risk patients should be individualized based on clinical conditions and available expertise; c) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains an excellent option of treatment, mainly in hospitals in which percutaneous or endoscopic gallbladder drainage is not available; d) Percutaneous cholecystostomy and endoscopic gallbladder drainage should be performed only in well-equipped hospitals with experienced interventional radiologist and/or endoscopist; e) Cholecystostomy catheter should be removed after resolution of AC. However, in patients who have no clinical condition to undergo cholecystectomy, the catheter may be maintained for a prolonged period or even definitively; f) If the cholecystostomy catheter is maintained for a long period of time several complications may occur, such as bleeding, bile leakage, obstruction, pain at the insertion site, accidental removal of the catheter, and recurrent AC; g) The ideal waiting time between cholecystostomy and cholecystectomy has not yet been established and ranges from immediately after clinical improvement to months. h) Long waiting periods between cholecystostomy and cholecystectomy may be associated with new episodes of acute cholecystitis, multiple hospital readmissions, and increased costs. Finally, when selecting the best treatment option other aspects should also be considered, such as costs, procedures available at the medical center, and the patient's desire. The patient and his family should be fully informed about all treatment options, so they can help making the final decision.

Management of acute cholecystitis

Acute cholecystitis is an inflammation of the gallbladder most often related to gallstones. The diagnostic and severity criteria are well described by the Tokyo criteria. Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains the treatment of choice. It can also be performed in elderly patients and in pregnant women during any trimester. For patients not eligible for surgery, percutaneous or echo-endoscopic gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) are effective treatment alternatives. The management of acute cholecystitis must therefore be adapted to each patient by carefully evaluating the risks and benefits associated with surgery.

Percutaneous Gallbladder Drainage for Acute Calculous Cholecystitis: What Next?

Percutaneous Gallbladder Drainage for Acute Calculous Cholecystitis: What Next?

Long-term outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage versus insitu or ex situ percutaneous gallbladder drainage in real-world practice.

Many studies showed better outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) when compared with percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (P-GBD) in which most tubes were left insitu. However, no studies have directly compared EUS-GBD with P-GBD after tube removal (ex situ). We compared the long-term outcomes of EUS-GBD and ex situ or insitu P-GBD in high surgical risk patients with acute cholecystitis. We reviewed the records of 182 patients (EUS-GBD, n=75; P-GBD, n=107) who underwent gallbladder drainage. The procedural outcomes, long-term outcomes, and adverse events were compared. The EUS-GBD group and the P-GBD group had similar rates of technical and clinical success. Early adverse events were less common in the EUS-GBD group (5.5% vs. 18.9%, P=0.010). The long-term outcomes were evaluated in 168 patients (EUS-GBD, n=67; P-GBD ex situ, n=84; P-GBD insitu, n=17). The rate of cholecystitis recurrence in the EUS-GBD group (6.0%) was similar to that in the P-GBD ex situ group (9.6%, P=0.422), but significantly lower than that in the P-GBD insitu group (23.5%, P=0.049). P-GBD insitu was a significant predictor of recurrent cholecystitis (hazard ratio 14.6; 95% confidence interval 2.9-72.8). The long-term recurrence rate of acute cholecystitis in patients who underwent EUS-GBD was comparable to that in patients whose P-GBD could be removed. However, patients in whom P-GBD could not be removed showed higher rates of recurrent cholecystitis than patients with EUS-GBD.

EGS P08 Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural gallbladder drainage – Who can benefit?

Abstract Background Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EGBD, cholecysto-duodenostomy) is a safe alternative to percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PGBD) for treatment of acute cholecystitis, and avoids morbidity from external drains. However it may complicate attempts at future cholecystectomy. We aimed to identify a patient subgroup that would not be fit for surgery in the future and therefore should be considered for EGBD. Methods Patients with cholecystitis were identified retrospectively using hospital coding (2012–2022). Additional codes for cholecystectomy and percutaneous drainage were used to identify subgroups. Patient characteristics were also collected. Charleston comorbidity index (CCI) and APACHEII score were calculated where data were available. Statistical analyses were performed in R (Welch t-test). Data are displayed (mean LC vs mean NLC, p value). Results 5653 patients with cholecystitis were identified (3765 LC, 66.6%). 53(0.94%) underwent PGBD. 23(43%) subsequently underwent LC. Patients in the LC group were younger (62.2vs74 p=0.002) and had a lower CCI (3.6vs5.9 p=0.001) compared to the non-operative (NLC) group. APACHE scores were calculated in 40/53 patients (16 LC, 24 NLC) and were similar between groups (8.5vs10.6 p=0.76). BMI was calculated in 41 patients (18 LC, 23 NLC) and was not significantly different (30.0vs30.6 p=0.19). Conclusions We have identified an older, more comorbid subgroup of patients with severe cholecystitis who are unlikely to be fit for surgery and could potentially benefit from definitive EGBD. There remains a place for PGBD in patients that will eventually become suitable for LC.

Endosonography-Guided Versus Percutaneous Gallbladder Drainage Versus Cholecystectomy in Fragile Patients with Acute Cholecystitis-A High-Volume Center Study.

Background and Objectives: Acute cholecystitis is a frequent cause of admission to the emergency department, especially in old and frail patients. Percutaneous drainage (PT-GBD) and endosonographic guided drainage (EUS-GBD) could be an alternative option for relieving symptoms or act as a definitive treatment instead of a laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy (LC, OC). The aim of the present study was to compare different treatment groups. Materials and Methods: This is a five-year monocentric retrospective study including patients ≥65 years old who underwent an urgent operative procedure. A descriptive analysis was conducted comparing all treatment groups. A propensity score was estimated based on the ACS score, incorporated into a predictive model, and tested by recursive partitioning analysis. Results: 163 patients were included: 106 underwent a cholecystectomy (81 laparoscopic (LC) and 25 Open (OC)), 33 a PT-GBD and 21 EUS-GBD. The sample was categorized into three prognostic groups according to the adverse event occurrence rate. All patients treated with EUS-GBD or LC resulted in the low risk group, and the adverse event rate (AE) was 10/96 (10.4%). The AE was 4/28 (14.2%) and 21/36 (58.3%) in the middle- and high-risk groups respectively (p &lt; 0.001). These groups included all the patients who underwent an OC or a PT-GBD. The PT-GBD group had a lower clinical success rate (55.5%) and higher RR (16,6%) when compared with other groups. Conclusions: Surgery still represents the gold standard for AC treatment. Nevertheless, EUS-GBD is a good alternative to PT-GBD in terms of clinical success, RR and AEs in all kinds of patients.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided cholecystostomy versus percutaneous cholecystostomy (PTC) in the management of acute cholecystitis in patients unfit for surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Surgical cholecystectomy is the gold standard strategy for the management of acute cholecystitis (AC). However, some patients are considered unfit for surgery due to certain comorbid conditions. As such, we aimed to compare less invasive treatment strategies such as endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) and percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD) for the management of patients with AC who are suboptimal candidates for surgical cholecystectomy. A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was performed to identify all the studies comparing EUS-GBD versus PT-GBD for patients with AC who were unfit for surgery. A subgroup analysis was also performed for comparison of the group undergoing drainage via cautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) versus PT-GBD. The outcomes included technical and clinical success, adverse events (AEs), recurrent cholecystitis, reintervention, and hospital readmission. Eleven studies including 1155 patients were included in the statistical analysis. There was no difference between PT-GBD and EUS-GBD in all the evaluated outcomes. On the subgroup analysis, the endoscopic approach with cautery-enhanced LAMS was associated with lower rates of adverse events (RD = - 0.33 (95% CI - 0.52 to -0.14; p = 0.0006), recurrent cholecystitis (- 0.05 RD (95% CI - 0.09 to -0.02; p = 0.02), and hospital readmission (- 0.36 RD (95% CI-0.70 to - 0.03; p = 0.03) when compared to PT-GBD. All other outcomes were similar in the subgroup analyses. EUS-GBD using cautery-enhanced LAMS is superior to PT-GBD in terms of safety profile, recurrent cholecystitis, and hospital readmission rates in the management of patients with acute cholecystitis who are suboptimal candidates for cholecystectomy. However, when cautery-enhanced LAMS are not used, the outcomes of EUS-GBD and PT-GBD are similar. Thus, EUS-GBD with cautery-enhanced LAMS should be considered the preferable approach for gallbladder drainage for this challenging population.

Indirect cholecystoduodenal fistula via hepatoduodenal ligament secondary to gangrenous cholecystitis: a case report

BackgroundCholecystoduodenal fistula is an infrequent complication of gallbladder diseases. In the majority of cases, the fistula is formed by direct communication between the gallbladder and duodenum due to gallstone impaction in the gallbladder neck. We herein report a rare case of indirect cholecystoduodenal fistula via the hepatoduodenal ligament secondary to gangrenous cholecystitis.Case presentationAn 80-year-old woman suspected of having emphysematous cholecystitis by a previous doctor was referred to our hospital for urgent surgery. The initial diagnosis based on additional examinations was gangrenous cholecystitis penetrating the hepatoduodenal ligament. Since she did not complain of signs of peritonitis and was taking an anticoagulant medicine, we avoided surgery and selected percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) instead. Contrast imaging of the PTGBD tube and upper endoscopy identified the indirect cholecystoduodenal fistula via the hepatoduodenal ligament. Despite repeated attempts at endoscopic fistula closure using clips, the fistula did not close successfully. We therefore performed laparoscopic cholecystectomy and fistula closure. The postoperative clinical course was uneventful, and she left the hospital on postoperative day 15. The resected gallbladder contained small black stones, and a histological examination revealed gangrenous cholecystitis with no malignant signatures.ConclusionWe encountered a rare case of indirect cholecystoduodenal fistula via the hepatoduodenal ligament secondary to gangrenous cholecystitis that was successfully treated by laparoscopic cholecystectomy and fistula closure. It is important to recognize the possible formation of indirect cholecystoduodenal fistula in cases of gangrenous cholecystitis penetrating the hepatoduodenal ligament.

Outcome of early cholecystectomy compared to percutaneous drainage of gallbladder and delayed cholecystectomy for patients with acute cholecystitis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Compare outcomes of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC) and percutaneous trans-hepatic drainage of gallbladder (PTGBD) as an initial intervention for AC and to compare operative outcomes of ELC and delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (DLC). English-language studies published until December 2020 were searched. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies compared EC and PTGBD with delayed cholecystectomy for patients presented with acute cholecystitis were considered. Main outcomes were mortality, conversion to open, complications and length of hospital stay. Out of 1347 records, 14 studies were included. 205,361 (94.7%) patients had EC and 11,565 (5.3%) patients had PTGBD as an initial intervention for AC. Mortality was higher in PTGBD; HR, 95% CI: [3.68 (2.13, 6.38)]. In contrast, complication rate was significantly higher in EC group (47%) vs PTGBD group (8.7%) in patients admitted to ICU; P-value=0.011. Patients who had ELC were at higher risk of post-operative complications compared to DLC; RR [95% CI]: 2.88 [1.78, 4.65]. Risk of bile duct injury was six folds more in ELC; RR [95% CI]: 6.07 [1.67, 21.99]. ELC may be a preferred treatment option over PTGBD in AC. However, patient and disease specific factors should be considered to avoid unfavourable outcomes with ELC.