Background It is not clear whether laparoscopic transcystic exploration (LTCE) laparoscopic choledochotomy (LCD) is superior in the management of choledocholithiasis. In this meta‐analysis, the success of LTCE versus LCD was evaluated. Methods Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Trip, PubMed, Ovid and Embase databases were searched systematically for relevant literature up to May 2017. Studies that compared the success rate of LTCE and LCD in patients with choledocholithiasis were included. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Multiple independent reviewers contributed on a cloud‐based platform. Random‐effects model was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) or standardized mean differences (MDs) with 95 per cent confidence intervals. An a priori hypothesis was generated based on clinical experience that LTCE is as successful as LCD. Results Of 3533 screened articles, 25 studies comprising 4224 patients were included. LTCE achieved a lower duct clearance rate than LCD (OR 0.38, 95 per cent c.i. 0·24 to 0·59). It was associated with a shorter duration of surgery (MD −0·86, 95 per cent c.i. −0·97 to −0·77), lower bile leak (OR 0·46, 0·23 to 0·93) and shorter hospital stay (MD −0·78, −1·14 to −0·42) than LCD. There was no statistically significant difference in conversion, stricture formation or reintervention rate. Conclusion LCD has a higher rate of successful duct clearance, but is associated with a longer duration of surgery and hospital stay, and a higher bile leak rate.

Background: Acute acalculous cholecystitis (AAC) accounts for 5-10% of cases of acute cholecystitis. The advantage of interval cholecystectomy for patients with AAC is unclear. Therefore, a retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with AAC at our institution was performed over a 5-year period. Methods: Patients were identified via hospital coding using the keywords “acalculous cholecystitis, cholecystostomy and gall bladder perforation.” Follow-up data was obtained by performing a retrospective review of the patients' hospital records. Results: A total of 33 patients with AAC were identified and followed for a median period of 18 months. The median age at presentation was 70 (10-96) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade was 3 (1-5). Twenty-three patients (70%) were treated with antibiotics alone, 7 patients (21%) with percutaneous cholecystostomy and 3 patients (9%) with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The 90-day mortality rate was 30% with significant correlation to comorbid status, as all deaths occurred in ASA grade 3-5 individuals (p = 0.020). Two patients (6%) developed recurrent AAC and were managed non-operatively. Conclusion: Antibiotics and cholecystostomy were the mainstay of AAC management, and comorbid status influenced related mortality. Our results suggest that it appears safe to avoid interval cholecystectomy in patients who recover from AAC, as they are typically high-risk surgical candidates.