Intraoperative assessment of biliary anatomy for prevention of bile duct injury: a review of current and future patient safety interventions

Background Bile duct injury (BDI) is a dreaded complication of cholecystectomy, often caused by misinterpretation of biliary anatomy. To prevent BDI, techniques have been developed for intraoperative assessment of bile duct anatomy. This article reviews the evidence for the different techniques and discusses their strengths and weaknesses in terms of efficacy, ease, and cost-effectiveness. Method PubMed was searched from January 1980 through December 2009 for articles concerning bile duct visualization techniques for prevention of BDI during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Results Nine techniques were identified. The critical-view-of-safety approach, indirectly establishing biliary anatomy, is accepted by most guidelines and commentaries as the surgical technique of choice to minimize BDI risk. Intraoperative cholangiography is associated with lower BDI risk (OR 0.67, CI 0.61-0.75). However, it incurs extra costs, prolongs the operative procedure, and may be experienced as cumbersome. An established reliable alternative is laparoscopic ultrasound, but its longer learning curve limits widespread implementation. Easier to perform are cholecystocholangiography and dye cholangiography, but these yield poor-quality images. Light cholangiography, requiring retrograde insertion of an optical fiber into the common bile duct, is too unwieldy for routine use. Experimental techniques are passive infrared cholangiography, hyperspectral cholangiography, and near-infrared fluorescence cholangiography. The latter two are performed noninvasively and provide real-time images. Quantitative data in patients are necessary to further evaluate these techniques. Conclusions The critical-view-of-safety approach should be used during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Intraoperative cholangiography or laparoscopic ultrasound is recommended to be performed routinely. Hyperspectral cholangiography and near-infrared fluorescence cholangiography are promising novel techniques to prevent BDI and thus increase patient safety

30-day morbidity and mortality of sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and one anastomosis gastric bypass: a propensity score-matched analysis of the GENEVA data

Background: There is a paucity of data comparing 30-day morbidity and mortality of sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). This study aimed to compare the 30-day safety of SG, RYGB, and OAGB in propensity score-matched cohorts. Materials and methods: This analysis utilised data collected from the GENEVA study which was a multicentre observational cohort study of bariatric and metabolic surgery (BMS) in 185 centres across 42 countries between 01/05/2022 and 31/10/2020 during the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. 30-day complications were categorised according to the Clavien–Dindo classification. Patients receiving SG, RYGB, or OAGB were propensity-matched according to baseline characteristics and 30-day complications were compared between groups. Results: In total, 6770 patients (SG 3983; OAGB 702; RYGB 2085) were included in this analysis. Prior to matching, RYGB was associated with highest 30-day complication rate (SG 5.8%; OAGB 7.5%; RYGB 8.0% (p = 0.006)). On multivariate regression modelling, Insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolaemia were associated with increased 30-day complications. Being a non-smoker was associated with reduced complication rates. When compared to SG as a reference category, RYGB, but not OAGB, was associated with an increased rate of 30-day complications. A total of 702 pairs of SG and OAGB were propensity score-matched. The complication rate in the SG group was 7.3% (n = 51) as compared to 7.5% (n = 53) in the OAGB group (p = 0.68). Similarly, 2085 pairs of SG and RYGB were propensity score-matched. The complication rate in the SG group was 6.1% (n = 127) as compared to 7.9% (n = 166) in the RYGB group (p = 0.09). And, 702 pairs of OAGB and RYGB were matched. The complication rate in both groups was the same at 7.5 % (n = 53; p = 0.07). Conclusions: This global study found no significant difference in the 30-day morbidity and mortality of SG, RYGB, and OAGB in propensity score-matched cohorts

30-Day morbidity and mortality of bariatric metabolic surgery in adolescence during the COVID-19 pandemic – The GENEVA study

Background: Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is an effective treatment for adolescents with severe obesity. Objectives: This study examined the safety of MBS in adolescents during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: This was a global, multicentre and observational cohort study of MBS performed between May 01, 2020, and October 10,2020, in 68 centres from 24 countries. Data collection included in-hospital and 30-day COVID-19 and surgery-specific morbidity/mortality. Results: One hundred and seventy adolescent patients (mean age: 17.75 ± 1.30 years), mostly females (n = 122, 71.8%), underwent MBS during the study period. The mean pre-operative weight and body mass index were 122.16 ± 15.92 kg and 43.7 ± 7.11 kg/m2, respectively. Although majority of patients had pre-operative testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (n = 146; 85.9%), only 42.4% (n = 72) of the patients were asked to self-isolate pre-operatively. Two patients developed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection post-operatively (1.2%). The overall complication rate was 5.3% (n = 9). There was no mortality in this cohort. Conclusions: MBS in adolescents with obesity is safe during the COVID-19 pandemic when performed within the context of local precautionary procedures (such as pre-operative testing). The 30-day morbidity rates were similar to those reported pre-pandemic. These data will help facilitate the safe re-introduction of MBS services for this group of patients

A systematic review and consensus definitions for standardised end-points in perioperative medicine: pulmonary complications

BackgroundThere is a need for robust, clearly defined, patient-relevant outcome measures for use in randomised trials in perioperative medicine. Our objective was to establish standard outcome measures for postoperative pulmonary complications research

Erratum:Nutritional access routes following oesophagectomy - A systematic review (European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2011) 65 (565-573) DOI:10.1038/ejcn.2010.292)

Nutritional support in patients undergoing oesophagectomy is of paramount importance in this usually malnourished patient group, but encountering significant clinical practice variation between units. Our aim was therefore to assess the strength of evidence behind nutritional support routes post-oesophagectomy. The Cochrane Library and Controlled Trials Registry, MEDLINE (Ovid) (1966-April 2009), PubMed, EMBASE (1966-April 2009), CINAHL, Web of knowledge and SCOPUS databases, were electronically searched for the highest level of evidence, with English language as a limit. Reference follow-up was also used. Studies were critically reviewed based on The NHS Public Health Resource Unit Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Tools. Five randomised control trials (RCTs) and one case-control trial, with 344 patients, were included in the review. There was a significant variation in the routes assessed (including intravenous fluid therapy, peripheral and central line nutrition, feeding jejunostomy, nasojejunal and nasoduodenal tubes) and the methodological quality of each study, with small patient numbers. No route was found to be superior over another in the RCTs. In the case-control trial, the combination of enteral parenteral nutrition led to shorter hospital stay compared with parenteral feeding alone. Nasojejunal and nasoduodenal tubes are associated with a significant rate of dislodgement. There is absence of strong direct evidence supporting a single feeding access route in oesophagectomy patients. Clinical decisions should be made based on available evidence from other types of gastrointestinal surgery, currently favouring enteral nutrition. If enteral feeding is chosen, feeding jejunostomy may be superior to nasojejunal or duodenal tubes.</p