Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23813478›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013

Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for uncomplicated biliary colic.

Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Rahul Koti, Giuseppe Fusai, Brian R Davidson

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. A Multicenter Randomized Prospective Study of Early Cholecystectomy for Pediatric Patients with Biliary Colic.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Is Nighttime Really Not the Right Time for a Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy?Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2018
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kurinchi Selvan GurusamyDepartment of Surgery, Royal Free Campus, UCL Medical School, London, UK. kurinchi2k@hotmail.com.
Rahul Koti
Giuseppe Fusai
Brian R Davidson
Roland Hill (United Kingdom) · GBThe Royal Free Hospital · GB

Funding

Department of Health 10/4001/11
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUncomplicated biliary colic is one of the commonest indications for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy involves several months of waiting if performed electively. However, people can develop life-threatening complications during this waiting period.

objectivesTo assess the benefits and harms of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for people with uncomplicated biliary colic due to gallstones. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until March 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised clinical trials, irrespective of language and publication status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted the data. We sought to include data on short-term mortality (30-day mortality or in-hospital mortality), bile duct injury, other serious adverse events, quality of life, conversion to open cholecystectomy, length of hospital stay, operating time, and return to work. We planned to calculate the risk ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes using RevMan and based on intention-to-treat analysis when data were available. Since only one trial contributed data to this review, Fisher's exact test was used for binary outcomes. A P value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. MAIN

resultsOnly one trial including 75 participants (average age: 43 years; females: 65% of participants), randomised to early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (less than 24 hours after diagnosis) (n = 35) or delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (mean waiting period of 4.2 months) (n = 40), contributed information to this review. The trial had a high risk of bias. Information on the outcome mortality was available for the 75 participants. Information on serious adverse events was available for 68 participants (28 people in the early group and 40 people in the delayed group). The other outcomes were available for 28 participants in the early laparoscopic cholecystectomy group and 35 participants in the delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy group. There were no deaths in the early group (0/35) (0%) versus 1/40 (2.5%) in the delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy group (P > 0.9999). There was no bile duct injury in either group. There were no serious adverse events related to the surgery in either group. During the waiting period, complications developed in the delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy group. The complications that the participants suffered included pancreatitis (n = 1), empyema of the gallbladder (n = 1), gallbladder perforation (n = 1), acute cholecystitis (n = 2), cholangitis (n = 2), obstructive jaundice (n = 2), and recurrent biliary colic (requiring hospital visits) (n = 5). In total, 14 participants required hospital admissions for the above symptoms. All of these admissions occurred in the delayed group as all the participants were operated on within 24 hours in the early group. The proportion of people who developed serious adverse events was 0/28 (0%) in the early group, which was significantly lower than in the delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy group 9/40 (22.5%) (P = 0.0082). This trial did not report quality of life or return to work. There was no significant difference in the proportion of people who required conversion to open cholecystectomy in the early group 0/28 (0%) compared with the delayed group (6/35 or 17.1%) (P = 0.0743). There was a statistically significant shorter hospital stay in the early group than in the delayed group (MD -1.25 days, 95% CI -2.05 to -0.45). There was a statistically significant shorter operating time in the early group than the delayed group (MD -14.80 minutes, 95% CI -18.02 to -11.58). AUTHORS'

conclusionsBased on evidence from only one high-bias risk trial, it appears that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (less than 24 hours after diagnosis of biliary colic) decreases the morbidity during the waiting period for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy (mean waiting time 4.2 months), the hospital stay, and operating time. Further randomised clinical trials are necessary to confirm or refute these findings, and to determine if early laparoscopic cholecystectomy is better than the delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy if the waiting time is shortened further.

Indexed as

Time-to-TreatmentAdultBiliary Tract DiseasesCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicColicFemaleHumansMaleRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID23813478
PMCPMC11473020
OpenAlexW1565438803

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.