1
|
Lucocq J, Hamilton D, Bakhiet A, Tasnim F, Rahman J, Scollay J, Patil P. Derivation and validation of a predictive model for subtotal cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2024; 38:6551-6559. [PMID: 39285041 PMCID: PMC11525303 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-11241-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/20/2024] [Accepted: 08/29/2024] [Indexed: 11/01/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Rates of subtotal cholecystectomy (STC) are increasing in response to challenging cases of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) to avoid bile duct injury, yet are associated with significant morbidity. The present study identifies risk factors for STC and both derives and validates a risk model for STC. METHODS LC performed for all biliary pathology across three general surgical units were included (2015-2020). Clinicopathological, intraoperative and post-operative details were reported. Backward stepwise multivariable regression was performed to derive the most parsimonious predictive model for STC. Bootstrapping was performed for internal validation and patients were categorised into risk groups. RESULTS Overall, 2768 patients underwent LC (median age, 53 years; median ASA, 2; median BMI, 29.7 kg/m2), including 99 cases (3.6%) of STC. Post-operatively following STC, there were bile leaks in 29.3%, collections in 19.2% and retained stones in 10.1% of patients. Post-operative intervention was performed in 29.3%, including ERCP (22.2%), laparoscopy (5.0%) and laparotomy (3.0%). The following variables were positive predictors of STC and were included in the final model: age > 60 years, male sex, diabetes mellitus, acute cholecystitis (AC), increased severity of AC (CRP > 90 mg/L), ≥ 3 biliary admissions, pre-operative ERCP with/without stent, pre-operative cholecystostomy and emergency LC (AUC = 0.84). Low, medium and high-risk groups had a STC rate of 0.8%, 3.9% and 24.5%, respectively. DISCUSSION The present study determines the morbidity of STC and identifies high-risk features associated with STC. A risk model for STC is derived and internally validated to help surgeons identify high-risk patients and both improve pre-operative decision-making and patient counselling.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James Lucocq
- Department of General and Upper GI Surgery, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, UK.
| | - David Hamilton
- Department of General and Upper GI Surgery, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, UK
| | | | - Fabiha Tasnim
- Department of General and Upper GI Surgery, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, UK
| | - Jubayer Rahman
- Department of General and Upper GI Surgery, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, UK
| | - John Scollay
- Department of General and Upper GI Surgery, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, UK
| | - Pradeep Patil
- Department of General and Upper GI Surgery, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Tummers FHMP, Peltenburg SI, Metzemaekers J, Jansen FW, Blikkendaal MD. Evaluation of the effect of previous endometriosis surgery on clinical and surgical outcomes of subsequent endometriosis surgery. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2023; 308:1531-1541. [PMID: 37639036 PMCID: PMC10520192 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-023-07193-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2023] [Accepted: 08/13/2023] [Indexed: 08/29/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Patients often undergo repeat surgery for endometriosis, due to recurrent or residual disease. Previous surgery is often considered a risk factor for worse surgical outcome. However, data are scarce concerning the influence of subsequent endometriosis surgery. METHODS A retrospective study in a centre of expertise for endometriosis was conducted. All endometriosis subtypes and intra-operative steps were included. Detailed information regarding surgical history of patients was collected. Surgical time, intra-operative steps and major post-operative complications were obtained as outcome measures. RESULTS 595 patients were included, of which 45.9% had previous endometriosis surgery. 7.9% had major post-operative complications and 4.4% intra-operative complications. The patient journey showed a median of 3 years between previous endometriosis surgeries. Each previous therapeutic laparotomic surgery resulted on average in 13 additional minutes (p = 0.013) of surgical time. Additionally, it resulted in more frequent performance of adhesiolysis (OR 2.96, p < 0.001) and in a higher risk for intra-operative complications (OR 1.81, p = 0.045), however no higher risk for major post-operative complications (OR 1.29, p = 0.418). Previous therapeutic laparoscopic endometriosis surgery, laparotomic and laparoscopic non-endometriosis surgery showed no association with surgical outcomes. Regardless of previous surgery, disc and segmental bowel resection showed a higher risk for major post-operative complications (OR 3.64, p = 0.017 respectively OR 3.50, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION Previous therapeutic laparotomic endometriosis surgery shows an association with longer surgical time, the need to perform adhesiolysis, and more intra-operative complications in the subsequent surgery for endometriosis. However, in a centre of expertise with experienced surgeons, no increased risk of major post-operative complications was observed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Sophie I Peltenburg
- Department of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Jeroen Metzemaekers
- Department of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Frank Willem Jansen
- Department of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
- Department of Biomechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Mathijs D Blikkendaal
- Endometriosis Center, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands
- Nederlandse Endometriose Kliniek, Reinier de Graaf Hospital, Delft, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Lopacinski AB, Guy KM, Burgess JR, Collins JN. Differences in Outcome Between Open vs Laparoscopic Insertion of Ventriculoperitoneal Shunts. Am Surg 2021; 88:716-721. [PMID: 34734537 DOI: 10.1177/00031348211050594] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Abdominal access during ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt insertion has historically been obtained by neurosurgeons via an open abdominal approach. With recent advances in laparoscopy, neurosurgeons frequently consult general surgery for aid during the procedure. The goal of this study is to identify if laparoscopic assistance improves the overall outcomes of the procedure. METHODS This retrospective study included all patients who underwent open or laparoscopic VP shunt placement between September 2012 and August 2020 at our tertiary referral hospital. Patient demographics, comorbidities, prior history of abdominal surgery, open vs. laparoscopic insertion, operation time, and complications within 30 days were obtained. RESULTS Neurosurgery placed 107 shunts using an open abdominal technique and general surgery placed 78 using laparoscopy. The average OR time in minutes was 75.5 minutes for the open cohort and 61.8 for the laparoscopic cohort (p = 0.006). In patients without a history of abdominal surgery, the average OR time in minutes was 79.4 in the open cohort and 57.1 in the laparoscopic cohort (p = 0.015). The postoperative shunt infection rate was 10.2% in the open group and 3.8% in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.077). DISCUSSION Laparoscopic placement of VP shunts is a reasonable alternative to open placement and results in shorter OR times. There is also a trend toward few infections in the laparoscopic placement. There appears to be an advantage with a team approach and laparoscopic placement of the peritoneal portion of the shunt.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aaron B Lopacinski
- Department of Surgery, 6040Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA
| | - Kevin M Guy
- Department of Surgery, 6040Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA
| | - Jessica R Burgess
- Department of Surgery, 6040Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA
| | - Jay N Collins
- Department of Surgery, 6040Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Zarbaliyev E, Sevmiş M, Sarsenov D, Çelik S, Çağlıkülekçi M. When Should I Use an Additional Port at the Time of Three-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2021; 32:668-674. [PMID: 34609925 DOI: 10.1089/lap.2021.0523] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective: Today, it is recommended that the laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is made with standard three ports. In this study, we aimed to determine the preoperative and intraoperative factors that require the use of an additional fourth port during three-port LC. Materials and Methods: All patients who started LC with three ports between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019 were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups as those who underwent three-port LC and those who required additional ports. Independent parameters affecting the transition from three ports to four ports were analyzed using logistic regression analysis. The patients who underwent LC with three ports were included in Group 1 and the patients requiring an additional port were included in Group 2. Results: A total of 234 patients (139 women and 95 men) were included in the study. The average age of patients was 52.95 ± 16.26 (20-89) and body mass index is 28.64 ± 5.4 (15.73-48.89), respectively. Three ports were used in 148 patients (Group 1), and an additional fourth port was used in 42 patients (Group 2). Female gender, history of upper laparotomy, presence of acute infection findings, urgent surgery, and advanced age were observed to increase the use of additional ports. In multivariate analysis, it was shown that the presence of hepatic barrier (P < .001) and the presence of complete adhesion in the gallbladder (P < .001) significantly increased the use of additional trocars during LC. In addition, female gender was found to cause an increase of 6.62 times (P < .001). Conclusion: Many factors may require the use of additional ports during three-port LC. The use of an additional fourth port should not be avoided, especially in cases where hilum dissection is prevented due to liver origin, in female patients and in cases with complete adhesion to the gallbladder.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elbrus Zarbaliyev
- Department of General Surgery, Gaziosmanpaşa Hospital, Yeni Yüzyil University, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Murat Sevmiş
- Department of General Surgery, Gaziosmanpaşa Hospital, Yeni Yüzyil University, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Dauren Sarsenov
- Department of General Surgery, Nazif Bağrıaçık Kadıköy Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Sebahattain Çelik
- Department of General Surgery, Van Training and Research Hospital, Health Sciences University, Van, Turkey
| | - Mehmet Çağlıkülekçi
- Department of General Surgery, Gaziosmanpaşa Hospital, Yeni Yüzyil University, İstanbul, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Katar MK, Ersoy PE. Is Previous Upper Abdominal Surgery a Contraindication for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy? Cureus 2021; 13:e14272. [PMID: 33954075 PMCID: PMC8091467 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.14272] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
Background and objective In this era of minimally invasive surgery and enhanced recovery procedures, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the prevailing treatment method for symptomatic cholelithiasis. However, there are some contraindications for this operation, such as a previous upper abdominal surgery. Additionally, the median conversion rate of LC is 5%. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effect of previous upper abdominal surgery on LC. Methods The study was designed as a single-center, retrospective, and observational analysis. A total of 277 LC patients were evaluated by classifying them into two groups - group A: those without previous upper abdominal surgery; group B: those with a history of previous upper abdominal surgery. Results Not surprisingly, the operation time and the degree of adhesions in group B were significantly higher compared to group A (p<0.001). On the other hand, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of complication rates, conversion rates, and the length of hospital stay (p=0.118, p=0.761, p=0.083, respectively). Conclusion LC is a safe method for cholelithiasis even in patients with a history of upper abdominal surgery. Previous upper abdominal surgery does not affect the conversion rates and length of hospital stay. Hence, previous upper abdominal surgery should not be accepted as a contraindication for LC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mehmet Kağan Katar
- General Surgery, Yozgat Bozok University Faculty of Medicine, Yozgat, TUR
| | - Pamir Eren Ersoy
- General Surgery, Yozgat Bozok University Faculty of Medicine, Yozgat, TUR
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Zhang ZM, Zhang C, Liu Z, Liu LM, Zhu MW, Zhao Y, Wan BJ, Deng H, Yang HY, Liao JH, Zhu HY, Wen X, Liu LL, Wang M, Ma XT, Zhang MM, Liu JJ, Liu TT, Huang NN, Yuan PY, Gao YJ, Zhao J, Guo XA, Liao F, Li FY, Wang XT, Yuan RJ, Wu F. Therapeutic experience of an 89-year-old high-risk patient with incarcerated cholecystolithiasis: A case report and literature review. World J Clin Cases 2020; 8:4908-4916. [PMID: 33195660 PMCID: PMC7642542 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i20.4908] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2020] [Revised: 08/24/2020] [Accepted: 09/10/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia poses a particular challenge to the emergency surgical treatment of elderly patients with high-risk acute abdominal diseases. Elderly patients are a high-risk group for surgical treatment. If the incarceration of gallstones cannot be relieved, emergency surgery is unavoidable.
CASE SUMMARY We report an 89-year-old male patient with acute gangrenous cholecystitis and septic shock induced by incarcerated cholecystolithiasis. He had several coexisting, high-risk underlying diseases, had a history of radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer, and was taking aspirin before the operation. Nevertheless, he underwent emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy, with maintenance of postoperative heart and lung function, successfully recovered, and was discharged on day 8 after the operation.
CONCLUSION Emergency surgery for elderly patients with acute abdominal disease is safe and feasible during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the key is to abide strictly by the hospital’s epidemic prevention regulations, fully implement the epidemic prevention procedure for emergency surgery, fully prepare before the operation, accurately perform the operation, and carefully manage the patient postoperatively.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zong-Ming Zhang
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Chong Zhang
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Zhuo Liu
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Li-Min Liu
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Ming-Wen Zhu
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Yue Zhao
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Bai-Jiang Wan
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Hai Deng
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Hai-Yan Yang
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Jia-Hong Liao
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Hong-Yan Zhu
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Xue Wen
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Li-Li Liu
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Man Wang
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Xiao-Ting Ma
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Miao-Miao Zhang
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Jiao-Jiao Liu
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Tian-Tian Liu
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Niu-Niu Huang
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Pei-Ying Yuan
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Yu-Jiao Gao
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Jing Zhao
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Xi-Ai Guo
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Fang Liao
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Feng-Yuan Li
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Xue-Ting Wang
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Rui-Jiao Yuan
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| | - Fang Wu
- Department of Pathology, Beijing Electric Power Hospital, State Grid Corporation of China, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100073, China
| |
Collapse
|