OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) is used for the treatment of acute cholecystitis in patients with high surgical risk due to the severity of cholecystitis and/or the underlying acute or chronic medical comorbidities. The evidence for this strategy is unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed and the Cochrane databases for English-language studies published from January 1979 through December 31, 2019, for randomized clinical trials (RCTs), meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and observational studies. RESULTS: The two randomized studies that have compared PC with cholecystectomy (CCY) or conservative treatment have shown that the clinical outcomes did not differ significantly between the groups. Similar results have been found in the large majority of retrospective cohorts or single-center studies that have compared PC with CCY. CONCLUSIONS: PC does not seem to offer any benefit compared with CCY in the treatment of acute cholecystitis in patients with high surgical risk due to the severity of cholecystitis and/or the underlying acute or chronic medical comorbidities. A large, prospective, randomized study that compares percutaneous PC and CCY in patients with high surgical risk and/or moderate to severe cholecystitis is warranted.
Percutaneous cholecystostomy in the treatment of acute cholecystitis: Is there still a role? A 20-year literature review
Sganga G;
2020
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) is used for the treatment of acute cholecystitis in patients with high surgical risk due to the severity of cholecystitis and/or the underlying acute or chronic medical comorbidities. The evidence for this strategy is unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed and the Cochrane databases for English-language studies published from January 1979 through December 31, 2019, for randomized clinical trials (RCTs), meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and observational studies. RESULTS: The two randomized studies that have compared PC with cholecystectomy (CCY) or conservative treatment have shown that the clinical outcomes did not differ significantly between the groups. Similar results have been found in the large majority of retrospective cohorts or single-center studies that have compared PC with CCY. CONCLUSIONS: PC does not seem to offer any benefit compared with CCY in the treatment of acute cholecystitis in patients with high surgical risk due to the severity of cholecystitis and/or the underlying acute or chronic medical comorbidities. A large, prospective, randomized study that compares percutaneous PC and CCY in patients with high surgical risk and/or moderate to severe cholecystitis is warranted.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
