Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Retrospective Analysis of Outcomes Following Percutaneous Cholecystostomy for Acute Cholecystitis

  • Original Scientific Report
  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) is often performed for patients with acute cholecystitis who are too high risk for cholecystectomy. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the outcomes of this cohort of patients over a 5-year period.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of all patients treated with PC for acute cholecystitis in a tertiary centre teaching hospital was conducted. The study period ranged from January 2010 to December 2015. Clinical data were extracted from the hospitals′ electronic database system, as well as reviewing clinical notes and imaging reports. The aims of this study were to detect the reason PC was undertaken as opposed to surgery, the subsequent definitive management of patients initially treated with PC, the incidence of common bile duct stones (CBDS), the complications from PC, and the 30-day mortality.

Results

A total of 96 patients were identified. The total number of patients with CBDS was 27 (28.1%). Fourteen (14.6%) patients were shown to have CBDS on initial imaging. CBDS was detected in 12 patients (12.5%) at cholangiogram during their PC procedure. One patient had CBDS detected during a check cholangiogram at 6 weeks, which was not seen on initial imaging. Twenty-eight patients (29.2%) underwent an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), during their index admission. The main reasons for PC were a high American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) score (49%), sepsis requiring organ support (19.8%), empyema of the gallbladder (29.1%), failed external biliary drainage for biliary obstruction (2.1%), and concomitant palliative malignancy (5.2%). Interval cholecystectomy was performed in 24 patients (25%). The total 30-day in-hospital mortality was 16.7%.

Conclusion

PC is an effective and safe alternative as salvage therapy in high-risk elderly patients who have multiple comorbidities. It is valuable as a temporising measure before definitive treatment in high-risk patients. A high index of suspicion for CBDS (and further imaging with MRCP or a check cholangiogram) is warranted to detect missed CBDS. This is particularly relevant in this vulnerable group of patients where CBDS may represent a future source of recurrent sepsis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wadhwa V, Jobanputra Y, Garg SK, Patwardhan S, Mehta D, Sanaka MR (2017) Nationwide trends of hospital admissions for acute cholecystitis in the United States. Gastroenterol Rep 5(1):36–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Loozen CS, Van Ramshorst B, Van Santvoort HC, Boerma D (2017) Early cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis in the elderly population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Surg 34(5):371–379

  3. Schirmer BD, Winters KL, Edlich RF (2005) Cholelithiasis and cholecystitis. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 15(3):329–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Williams E, Beckingham I, El Sayed G, Gurusamy K, Sturgess R, Webster G et al (2017) Updated guideline on the management of common bile duct stones (CBDS). Gut 66(5):765–782

  5. Lammert F, Miquel J-F (2008) Gallstone disease: from genes to evidence-based therapy. J Hepatol 48(Suppl 1):S124–S135

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Escartín A, González M, Cuello E, Pinillos A, Muriel P, Merichal M et al (2019) Acute cholecystitis in very elderly patients: disease management, outcomes, and risk factors for complications. Surg Res Pract 2019:9709242

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Agrawal R, Sood KC, Agarwal B (2015) Evaluation of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis. Surg Res Pract 2015:349801

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Serralta AS, Bueno JL, Planells MR, Rodero DR (2003) Prospective evaluation of emergency versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for early cholecystitis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 13(2):71–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Beliaev AM, Booth M (2016) An association between conversion of laparoscopic cholecystectomy to open surgery and intra‐abdominal organ injury. ANZ J Surg 86(7-8):625

  10. Papadakis M, Ambe PC, Zirngibl H (2015) Critically ill patients with acute cholecystitis are at increased risk for extensive gallbladder inflammation. World J Emerg Surg 10:59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Haltmeier T, Benjamin E, Inaba K, Lam L, Demetriades D (2015) Early versus delayed same-admission laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis in elderly patients with comorbidities. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 78(4):801–807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Okamoto K, Suzuki K, Takada T, Strasberg SM, Asbun HJ, Endo I et al (2018) Tokyo Guidelines 2018: flowchart for the management of acute cholecystitis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 25(1):55–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Akyürek N, Salman B, Yüksel O, Tezcaner T, Irkörücü O, Yücel C et al (2005) Management of acute calculous cholecystitis in high-risk patients: percutaneous cholecystotomy followed by early laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 15(6):315–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Winbladh A, Gullstrand P, Svanvik J, Sandström P (2009) Systematic review of cholecystostomy as a treatment option in acute cholecystitis. HPB (Oxford) 11(3):183–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sparkman RS (1967) Bobbs centennial: the first cholecystotomy. Surgery 61(6):965–971

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hardy KJ (1993) Carl Langenbuch and the Lazarus Hospital: events and circumstances surrounding the first cholecystectomy. Aust N Z J Surg 63(1):56–64

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Elyaderani M, Gabriele OF (1979) Percutaneous cholecystostomy and cholangiography in patients with obstructive jaundice. Radiology 130(3):601–602

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Radder RW (1982) Percutaneous cholecystostomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 139(6):1240–1241

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Shaver RW, Hawkins IF Jr, Soong J (1982) Percutaneous cholecystostomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 138(6):1133–1136

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ren Z, Xu Y, Zhu S (2012) Percutaneous transhepatic cholecystostomy for choledocholithiasis with acute cholangitis in high-risk patients. Hepatogastroenterology 59(114):329–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hamy A, Visset J, Likholatnikov D, Lerat F, Gibaud H, Savigny B et al (1997) Percutaneous cholecystostomy for acute cholecystitis in critically ill patients. Surgery 121(4):398–401

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Borzellino G, De Manzoni G, Ricci F, Castaldini G, Guglielmi A, Cordiano C (1999) Emergency cholecystostomy and subsequent cholecystectomy for acute gallstone cholecystitis in the elderly. Br J Surg 86(12):1521–1525

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Sugiyama M, Tokuhara M, Atomi Y (1998) Is percutaneous cholecystostomy the optimal treatment for acute cholecystitis in the very elderly? World J Surg 22(5):459–463

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Furtado R, Le Page P, Dunn G, Falk GL (2016) High rate of common bile duct stones and postoperative abscess following percutaneous cholecystostomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 98(2):102–106

  25. Loftus TJ, Brakenridge SC, Moore FA, Dessaigne CG, Sarosi GA, Zingarelli WJ et al (2017) Routine surveillance cholangiography after percutaneous cholecystostomy delays drain removal and cholecystectomy. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 82(2):351–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kharbutli B, Velanovich V (2008) Management of preoperatively suspected choledocholithiasis: a decision analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 12(11):1973–1980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Barteau JA, Castro D, Arregui ME, Tetik C (1995) A comparison of intraoperative ultrasound versus cholangiography in the evaluation of the common bile duct during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 9(5):490–496

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Jung G-S, Kim YJ, Yun JH, Park JG, Yun BC, Han BH et al (2019) Percutaneous transcholecystic removal of common bile duct stones: case series in 114 patients. Radiology 290(1):238–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Li YL, Wong KH, Chiu KWH, Cheng AKC, Cheung RKO, Yam MKH et al (2018) Percutaneous cholecystostomy for high-risk patients with acute cholangitis. Medicine (Baltimore) 97(19):e0735

  30. Szary NM, Al-Kawas FH (2013) Complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: how to avoid and manage them. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y) 9(8):496–504

    Google Scholar 

  31. Loozen CS, Van Santvoort HC, Van Duijvendijk P, Besselink MG, Gouma DJ, Nieuwenhuijzen GA et al (2018) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus percutaneous catheter drainage for acute cholecystitis in high risk patients (CHOCOLATE): multicentre randomised clinical trial. BMJ 363:k3965

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Park JK, Yang J Il, Wi JW, Park JK, Lee KH, Lee KT, et al (2019) Long-term outcome and recurrence factors after percutaneous cholecystostomy as a definitive treatment for acute cholecystitis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 34(4):784–90

  33. Fukami Y, Kurumiya Y, Mizuno K, Sekoguchi E, Kobayashi S (2014) Cholecystectomy in octogenarians: be careful. Updates Surg 66(4):265–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Nikfarjam M, Yeo D, Perini M, Fink MA, Muralidharan V, Starkey G et al (2014) Outcomes of cholecystectomy for treatment of acute cholecystitis in octogenarians. ANZ J Surg 84(12):943–948

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, University Hospitals of Leicester, NHS Trust, Gwendolen Road, Leicester, LE5 4PW, United Kingdom

    L. L. Kuan, T. Oyebola, A. Mavilakandy, A. R. Dennison & G. Garcea

  2. Discipline of Surgery, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    L. L. Kuan

Authors
  1. L. L. Kuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. Oyebola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Mavilakandy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. R. Dennison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. G. Garcea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. L. Kuan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kuan, L.L., Oyebola, T., Mavilakandy, A. et al. Retrospective Analysis of Outcomes Following Percutaneous Cholecystostomy for Acute Cholecystitis. World J Surg 44, 2557–2561 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-020-05491-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-020-05491-5

Search

Navigation