Comparative Study
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate timing for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the treatment of acute cholecystitis remains controversial. More recent evaluation indicates early laparoscopic surgery may be a safe option in acute cholecystitis, although conversion rates may be higher. No conclusive evidence establishing best practice in terms of clinical benefit exists.

METHODS: All randomized clinical studies published between 1987 and 2006 comparing early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis were analyzed, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status. Exclusions were quasi-randomized trials, inadequate follow-up description, or allocation concealment. Endpoints included conversion rates, postoperative complications, total hospital stay, and operation time. Random and fixed-effect models were used to aggregate the study endpoints and assess heterogeneity.

RESULTS: Four studies containing 375 patients were included. No significant study heterogeneity or publication bias was found. There was no significant difference in conversion rates (odds ratio = .915 [95% confidence interval (CI), .567-1.477], P = .718) and postoperative complications (odds ratio = 1.073 [95% CI, .599-1.477], P = .813) between both groups. Operation time was significantly reduced (weighted mean difference [WMD] = .412 [95% CI, .149-.675], P = .002) with delayed cholecystectomy. The total hospital stay was significantly reduced (WMD = .905 [95% CI, .630-1.179], P = .0005) with early cholecystectomy. The postoperative stay was significantly reduced in the delayed group (WMD = .393 [95% CI, .128-.659], P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS: These meta-analysis data suggest that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy allows significantly shorter total hospital stay at the cost of a significantly longer operation time with no significant differences in conversion rates or complications.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app