Primary versus delayed repair for bile duct injuries sustained during cholecystectomy: results of a survey of the Association Francaise de Chirurgie

BACKGROUND: Bile duct injuries (BDIs) sustained during a cholecystectomy still remain a major surgical problem, and it is still not clear whether the injury should be repaired immediately or a delayed repair is preferred. METHODS: A retrospective national French survey was conducted to compare the results of immediate (at time of cholecystectomy), early (within 45 days after a cholecystectomy) and late (beyond 45 days after a cholecystectomy) surgical repair for BDI sustained during a cholecystectomy. RESULTS: Forty-seven surgical centres provided 640 cases of bile duct injury sustained during a cholecystectomy of which 543 were analysed for the purpose of the present study. The timing of repair was immediate in 194 cases (35.7%), early in 216 cases (39.8%) and late in 133 cases (24.5%). The type of repair was a suture repair in 157 cases (81%), and a bilio-digestive reconstruction in 37 cases (19%) for immediate repair; a suture repair in 119 cases (55.1%) and a bilio-digestive anastomosis in 96 cases (44.9%) for the early repair; and a bilio-digestive reconstruction in 129 cases (97%) and a suture repair in 4 cases (3%) for late repair. A second procedure was required in 110 cases (56.7%) for immediate repair, 80 cases (40.7%) for early repair (P < 0.05) and in 9 cases (6.8%) for late repair (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The timing of surgical repair for a bile duct injury sustained during a cholecystectomy influences significantly the rate of a second procedure and a late repair should be preferred option

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

IRCAD recommendation on safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

An expert recommendation conference was conducted to identify factors associated with adverse events during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with the goal of deriving expert recommendations for the reduction of biliary and vascular injury. Nineteen hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgeons from high-volume surgery centers in six countries comprised the Research Institute Against Cancer of the Digestive System (IRCAD) Recommendations Group. Systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase was conducted. Using nominal group technique, structured group meetings were held to identify key items for safer LC. Consensus was achieved when 80% of respondents ranked an item as 1 or 2 (Likert scale 1-4). Seventy-one IRCAD HPB course participants assessed the expert recommendations which were compared to responses of 37 general surgery course participants. The IRCAD recommendations were structured in seven statements. The key topics included exposure of the operative field, appropriate use of energy device and establishment of the critical view of safety (CVS), systematic preoperative imaging, cholangiogram and alternative techniques, role of partial and dome-down (fundus-first) cholecystectomy. Highest consensus was achieved on the importance of the CVS as well as dome-down technique and partial cholecystectomy as alternative techniques. The put forward IRCAD recommendations may help to promote safe surgical practice of LC and initiate specific training to avoid adverse events