Evidence Hub

Early Versus Delayed Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Acute Calculous Cholecystitis: A Systematic Review

Hakam I AA, Sultan MA, Hak Ami HA, Durayb AA, AlYousfi LA, Ageeli FE, Aburasain AB, Homadi IA et al.

Cureus, 2026

Abstract

Acute calculous cholecystitis is a common emergency surgical condition, and the optimal timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) remains controversial. Previous meta-analyses have not consistently distinguished evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies or separated postoperative complications from composite strategy-level morbidity. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception through June 2026. Dichotomous outcomes from RCTs were pooled using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model, while observational studies were synthesized narratively. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool and the Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria (11 RCTs and six observational studies). Meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrated that early LC did not significantly increase conversion to open surgery (odds ratio (OR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58-1.38; I² = 0%), bile leak (OR 1.80, 95% CI 0.69-4.66), bile duct injury (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.15-2.48), mortality (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.21-4.17), or postoperative complications (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.38-1.40). In contrast, composite strategy morbidity, which incorporated waiting-period events, was…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free