Interval cholecystectomy following drainage procedures for acute cholecystitis: percutaneous transhepatic vs endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage.

BACKGROUND

Gallbladder drainage procedures are often considered for acute cholecystitis (AC) patients with significant peri-operative risks. While percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) has been evaluated in previous studies, there is scarce data on the feasibility and efficacy of endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder stenting (ETGBS) in patients with AC. This study aimed to compare the characteristics of interval cholecystectomy following ETGBS and PTGBD.

METHODS

This retrospective descriptive study included patients who underwent ETGBS and/or PTGBD for AC and subsequently underwent interval cholecystectomy between 2018 and 2023. Demographics, operative technique, and postoperative complications of patients with ETGBS and PTGBD were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients were included (14 ETGBS and 45 PTGBD). The median days between ETGBS and cholecystectomy were significantly longer than the PTGBD group (64 [45-150] days vs. 16 [10-42] days, p=0.045). The median operation time was significantly longer in the ETGBS group.　Among 33 patients who underwent subtotal cholecystectomy, the ERGBS group more frequently required closure of the gallbladder stump due to the difficulty in ligating the cystic duct compared to the PTGBD group (75.0% vs. 28.0%, p=0.035). Similarly, the fundus-first approach was more commonly selected in the ERGBS group (62.5% vs. 28.0%, p=0.01). No significant differences in the incidence of postoperative complications were observed between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Interval cholecystectomy following ETGBS is more technically demanding compared to PTGBD. Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy following ETGBS could be a potential treatment option for patients who are unfit for early surgery, with the recognition of the difficulty in ligating the cystic duct.