Ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis of predictors of failure

被引:13
|
作者
Balciscueta, Izaskun [1 ]
Barbera, Ferran [2 ]
Lorenzo, Javier [1 ]
Martinez, Susana [1 ]
Sebastian, Maria [1 ]
Balciscueta, Zutoia [3 ]
机构
[1] La Ribera Univ Hosp, Dept Gen & Digest Surg, Valencia, Spain
[2] La Fe Univ Hosp, Dept Gynecol & Obstet, Valencia, Spain
[3] Arnau Vilanova Hosp, Dept Gen & Digest Surg, Valencia, Spain
关键词
DAY-SURGERY; OUTPATIENT CHOLECYSTECTOMY; ADMISSION; CARE; SELECTION; TRIAL; SAFE;
D O I
10.1016/j.surg.2020.12.029
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy has proven to be a safe and cost-effective technique; however, it is not yet a universally widespread procedure. The aim of the study was to determine the predictive factors of outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy failure. Method: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis methodology. MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Ovid, and ISRCTN Registry were searched. The main variables were demographic (age, sex), clinical (weight, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, previous complicated biliary pathology, history of abdominal surgery in supramesocolic compartment, gallbladder wall thickness), and surgical factors (operative time, afternoon surgery). The secondary variables were the prevalence rates of outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy failure due to pain or postoperative nausea and vomiting. Results: Fourteen studies (4,194 patients) were included, with a mean outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy failure rate of 23.4%. The predictors of outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy failure were: age >65 years (odds ratio: 2.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-3.86; P = .0009), body mass index >30 (odds ratio: 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-2.45; P = .03), American Society of Anesthesiologists score >III (odds ratio: 2.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.72-4.87; P < .0001), previous complicated biliary pathology (odds ratio: 2.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-4.06; P = .001), gallbladder wall thickening (odds ratio: 2.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-4.04; P = .003), surgical time exceeding 60 minutes (mean difference: -16.03; 95% confidence interval,-21.25 to -10.81; P < .00001), and the beginning of surgery after 1:00 PM (odds ratio: 4.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.97-11.96; P = .007). Sex (odds ratio: 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.57, P = .73) and history of abdominal surgery in the supramesocolic compartment (odds ratio: 2.32; 95 confidence interval, 0.92-5.82, P = .07) were not associated with outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy failure. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis allowed us to identify the predictors of outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy failure. The knowledge of these factors could help surgeons in their decision-making process for the selection of patients who are suitable for outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy. (c) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:373 / 382
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Mattson, Anja
    Sinha, Ankit
    Njere, Ike
    Borkar, Nitin
    Sinha, C. K.
    [J]. SURGEON-JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL COLLEGES OF SURGEONS OF EDINBURGH AND IRELAND, 2023, 21 (03): : E133 - E141
  • [2] Intraoperative Cholangiography in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Hall, Catherine
    Amatya, Slesha
    Shanmugasundaram, Ramesh
    Lau, Ngee-Soon
    Beenen, Edwin
    Gananadha, Sivakumar
    [J]. JSLS-JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC SURGEONS, 2023, 27 (01)
  • [3] A meta-analysis of ambulatory versus inpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy
    Ahmad, N. Z.
    Byrnes, G.
    Naqvi, S. A.
    [J]. SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2008, 22 (09): : 1928 - 1934
  • [4] A meta-analysis of ambulatory versus inpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy
    N. Z. Ahmad
    G. Byrnes
    S. A. Naqvi
    [J]. Surgical Endoscopy, 2008, 22 : 1928 - 1934
  • [5] Safety Outcomes of NOTES Cholecystectomy Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Peng, Cheng
    Ling, Yan
    Ma, Chi
    Ma, Xiaochun
    Fan, Wei
    Niu, Weibo
    Niu, Jun
    [J]. SURGICAL LAPAROSCOPY ENDOSCOPY & PERCUTANEOUS TECHNIQUES, 2016, 26 (05): : 347 - 353
  • [6] Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy in pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Sedaghat, Negin
    Cao, Amy M.
    Eslick, Guy D.
    Cox, Michael R.
    [J]. SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2017, 31 (02): : 673 - 679
  • [7] Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy in pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Negin Sedaghat
    Amy M. Cao
    Guy D. Eslick
    Michael R. Cox
    [J]. Surgical Endoscopy, 2017, 31 : 673 - 679
  • [8] Minilaparoscopic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Thakur, Varsha
    Schlachta, Christopher M.
    Jayaraman, Shiva
    [J]. ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2011, 253 (02) : 244 - 258
  • [9] LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY VERSUS MINILAPAROTOMY IN CHOLELITHIASIS: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
    Vilela Castro, paula Marcela
    Akerman, Denise
    Munhoz, Carolina Brito
    do Sacramento, Iara
    Mazzurana, Monica
    Alvarez, Guines Antunes
    [J]. ABCD-ARQUIVOS BRASILEIROS DE CIRURGIA DIGESTIVA-BRAZILIAN ARCHIVES OF DIGESTIVE SURGERY, 2014, 27 (02): : 148 - 153
  • [10] Ambulatory versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Trejo-Avila, Mario
    Cardenas-Lailson, Eduardo
    Valenzuela-Salazar, Carlos
    Herrera-Esquivel, Jose
    Moreno-Portillo, Mucio
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2019, 34 (08) : 1359 - 1368