Impact of B-mode-ultrasound-guided transhepatic and transperitoneal cholecystostomy tube placement on laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Transhepatic or transperitoneal technique for cholecystostomy: results of the multicentre retrospective audit of cholecystostomy and further interventions (MACAFI)

Objective:

This analysis of the MACAFI (multicentre audit of cholecystostomy and further interventions) data aims to assess the procedural technique and technical specifications related to percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) insertion in patients with acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC). PC can be performed either with transperitoneal (TP) or a transhepatic (TH) approach. There is no clear evidence for the superiority of either technique.

Methods:

The data set included patients who underwent PC for ACC between first January 2019 and first January 2021. Data included patient demographics, imaging diagnosis, insertion technique, tube size, and outcomes including 6 month follow-up.

Results:

1186 patients from 36 sites were identified through the MACAFI study with 913 patients having access route recorded. A transhepatic route was used in 572 [62.6%] compared to 308 TP [33.7%]. There was an increased rate of bleeding when using the TH route (2.6% vs 0.3%, p = 0.01) although other post-procedural complications (such as bile leak) were similar between the two groups. No significant difference was demonstrated in 30- or 90-day mortality (TH vs TP, 8.7vs 9.3%, p = 0.86 and 13.8vs 15.4%, p = 0.58, respectively). The readmission rate with recurrent cholecystitis was significantly greater in those with TH compared to TP approach (22.0% vs  14.9%, p = 0.01, respectively).

Conclusion:

The TP PC approach may be safer than TH, with lower bleeding complication rate and fewer readmissions.

Advances in knowledge:

A transperitoneal approach for cholecystostomy was associated with lower bleeding complication rate and lower rate of readmissions with recurrent cholecystitis compared to the transhepatic approach.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of early vs late interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy following percutaneous cholecystostomy

BACKGROUND

High risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis are commonly treated with percutaneous cholecystostomy (PTC) drainage. The optimal timing of subsequent interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) remains unclear.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched to identify studies published between 01/01/2000 and 31/12/2020, reporting on interval LC outcomes in patients initially treated by PTC. Early and late interval LC were defined as <30 and ≥ 30 days respectively. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies was used for quality assessment. Meta-analysis of proportions was conducted using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 512 studies were screened, 41 met the inclusion criteria. There were 22 studies in both early and late interval LC groups, with 3 included studies reporting both early and late groups. Following quality assessment, 29 studies were included in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between early and late interval LC in terms of conversion rates (7.2% vs 8.3%, p = 0.854), 90-day morbidity (12.8% vs 15.9%, p = 0.496), and 90-day mortality (0.25% vs 0.32%, p = 0.704). Heterogeneity was significant (I²>50%) in all groups.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence of interval LC within or beyond 30 days demonstrates no significant impact on outcomes. Patient factors, clinical experience, and hospital facilities may prove more important predictors.