Surgical management of acute cholecystitis in a nationwide Danish cohort
- 6 Downloads
In the Danish national guidelines from 2006 on the treatment of acute cholecystitis, early laparoscopic operation within 5 days after the debut of symptoms was recommended. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcome in patients with acute cholecystitis subjected to cholecystectomy in Denmark in the five-year period hereafter.
All patients undergoing cholecystectomy in the period 2006–2010 were registered in the Danish Cholecystectomy Database, from which outcome data were collected. The effect of potential risk factors such as age, gender, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, previous pancreatitis, previous abdominal surgery, year of operation, surgical approach, and surgeon experience was analyzed.
Of 33,853 patients registered with a cholecystectomy, 4667 (14%) were operated for acute cholecystitis. In 95% of the patients, laparoscopic cholecystectomy was intended and in 5% primary open access was chosen. The frequency of conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery was 18%. High age and ASA score, operation in the early years of the period, and open or converted procedure all increased the risk of hospital stay to > 3 days or readmission. High age and ASA score, converted or open operation, and previous pancreatitis increased the risk of additional procedures. Postoperative mortality was 1.2%, and significant risk factors for postoperative death were age, low BMI, high ASA score, early year of operation, and open procedures.
Acute cholecystectomy was safely managed laparoscopically in most patients after the introduction of national guidelines, with an increasing rate of laparoscopically completed procedures during the study period.
KeywordsAcute cholecystitis Laparoscopy National guidelines Postoperative complications Cholecystectomy
J: analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of manuscript, critical revision of manuscript. R: analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of manuscript, critical revision of manuscript. K: analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of manuscript, critical revision of manuscript. B: study conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of manuscript, critical revision of manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Based on national Danish law, informed consent was not needed from participants included in the study.
- 9.Ansaloni L, Pisano M, Coccolini F, Peitzmann AB, Fingerhut A, Catena F, Agresta F, Allegri A, Bailey I, Balogh ZJ, Bendinelli C, Biffl W, Bonavina L, Borzellino G, Brunetti F, Burlew CC, Camapanelli G, Campanile FC, Ceresoli M, Chiara O, Civil I, Coimbra R, De Moya M, Di Saverio S, Fraga GP, Gupta S, Kashuk J, Kelly MD, Khokha V, Jeekel H, Latifi R, Leppaniemi A, Maier RV, Marzi I, Moore F, Piazzalunga D, Sakakushev B, Sartelli M, Scalea T, Stahel PF, Taviloglu K, Tugnoli G, Uraneus S, Velmahos GC, Wani I, Weber DG, Viale P, Sugrue M, Ivatury R, Kluger Y, Gurusamy KS, Moore EE (2016) 2016 WSES guidelines on acute calculous cholecystitis. World J Emerg Surg 11:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-016-0082-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.The Danish National Board of Health (2006) Guidelines for the treatment of patients with gallstone disease. [Online]. Available from: https://www.sst.dk/-/media/Udgivelser/2006/Publ2006/PLAN/SfR/Galdesten/Galdestenssygdomme,-d-,pdf.ashx. Accessed 5 July 2019.
- 11.Bardram L, Rosenberg J, Kristiansen VB (2005) The Danish Cholecystectomy Database--DCD. Ugeskr Laeger 167:2618–2620Google Scholar
- 15.Halpin V, Gupta A (2011) Acute cholecystitis. BMJ Clin Evid. 0411.Google Scholar
- 17.Paul Wright G, Stilwell K, Johnson J, Hefty MT, Chung MH (2015) Predicting length of stay and conversion to open cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis using the 2013 Tokyo Guidelines in a US population. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 22:795–801. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbp.284 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Coccolini F, Catena F, Pisano M, Gheza F, Fagiuoli S, Di Saverio S, Leandro G, Montori G, Ceresoli M, Corbella D, Sartelli M, Sugrue M, Ansaloni L (2015) Open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 18:196–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.04.083 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.González-Muñoz JI, Franch-Arcas G, Angoso-Clavijo M, Sánchez-Hernández M, García-Plaza A, Caraballo-Angeli M, Muñoz-Bellvís L (2017) Risk-adjusted treatment selection and outcome of patients with acute cholecystitis. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 402:607–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-016-1508-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Grau-Talens EJ, Motos-Micó JJ, Giraldo-Rubio R, Aparicio-Gallego JM, Salgado JF, Ibáñez CD, Mangione-Castro PG, Arribas-Jurado M, Jordán-Chaves C, Arias-Díaz J (2018) Small-incision cholecystectomy (through a cylinder retractor) under local anaesthesia and sedation: a prospective observational study of five hundred consecutive cases. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 403:733–740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-018-1707-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Gutt CN, Encke J, Köninger J, Harnoss J-C, Weigand K, Kipfmüller K, Schunter O, Götze T, Golling MT, Menges M, Klar E, Feilhauer K, Zoller WG, Ridwelski K, Ackmann S, Baron A, Schön MR, Seitz HK, Daniel D, Stremmel W, Büchler MW (2013) Acute cholecystitis: early versus delayed cholecystectomy, a multicenter randomized trial (ACDC study, NCT00447304). Ann Surg 258:385–393. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182a1599b CrossRefGoogle Scholar