Predictive Factors for Drain Placement After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Purpose: Currently, surgical drainage during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is still placed in selected patients. Evidence of the non-beneficial effect of the surgical drain comes from studies with a heterogeneous population. This preliminary study aims to identify any clinical, demographic, or intraoperative predictive factors for a surgical drain placement during LC as the first step to identify population for a prospective randomized study. Method: The study was conducted in a single referral center and academic hospital between 2014 and 2018. Patients who underwent unconverted LC were divided into two groups: Group A (drain) and Group B (no drain). We explored baseline, preoperative, intraoperative characteristics, and postoperative outcomes. Results: Between 409 patients who underwent LC: 90 (22%) patients were in Group A (drain). Age >64 years, male sex, cholecystitis, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) ≥ 1, experienced surgeon, intraoperative technical difficulties, need for an additional trocar, operative time >60 min, and estimated blood loss >10 ml were predictive factors at univariate analysis. While at multivariate analysis, cholecystitis (odds ratio [OR]: 2.8, 95% CI:1.5–5.1; p < 0.001), CCI ≥ 1 (OR:1.9, 95% CI:1.0–3.5; p = 0.05), intraoperative technical difficulties (OR: 3.6, 95% CI:1.8–6.2; p < 0.001), need of an additional trocar (OR: 2.5, 95% CI: 1.4–4.4; p < 0.005), and estimated blood loss >10 ml (OR: 3.0, 95% CI:1.7–5.3; p < 0.0001) were predictive factors for a surgical drain placement during LC. Conclusions: This study identified predictive factors that currently drive the surgeons to a surgical drain placement after LC. Randomized prospective studies are needed to define the use of drain placement in these selected patients

The Impact of COVID-19 on Plastic Surgery Residency Training

Abstract: Nowadays didactic and surgical activities for residents in the surgery field are less and less due to an increasing burden of documentation and \u201cnon-educational work.\u201d Considering the current lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it has never been so important to find different ways to allow residents to improve their knowledge. We asked all plastic and esthetic surgery residents in our country to fill out a questionnaire to investigate changes in their didactical activity and analyze problems about their professional growth in the last few months. From the results of such questionnaires, we found that most of the residents feel the decrease in surgical activities during this time is a detrimental factor for their training and that even if all the schools have changed their didactical activities no school has introduced the use of virtual simulators to compensate for the decrease in surgical practice. Actually, the majority of residents use webinars to keep updated, stating that such technologies are useful but not sufficient to analyze plastic surgery topics in depth during COVID-19 lockdown. Virtual interactive tools are well known in different clinical and surgical specialties, and they are considered as a valid support, but it seems that in plastic surgery they are not so used. According to the most recent studies about residents\u2019 didactical program, we have investigated the potential of Anatomage Table in combination with Touch Surgery application as physical and mental aids to bypass the decreased number and kind of surgical interventions performed in this particular time. Anatomage is an academic user-friendly touch screen table; it is used by both medical students and residents to learn human anatomy and to master surgical anatomy. Touch Surgery is an application available on smartphones and tablets that gives the possibility to watch real and virtually designed surgical videos, accompanied by explanatory comments on the surgical phases; they are interactive and give the possibility to check what you have learned through tests administered after virtual classes. In our opinion, these tools represent reliable solutions to improve plastic residents\u2019 training, mostly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Level of Evidence V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266

Open versus laparoscopically-assisted oesophagectomy for cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled phase III trial - the MIRO trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Open transthoracic oesophagectomy is the standard treatment for infracarinal resectable oesophageal carcinomas, although it is associated with high mortality and morbidity rates of 2 to 10% and 30 to 50%, respectively, for both the abdominal and thoracic approaches. The worldwide popularity of laparoscopic techniques is based on promising results, including lower postoperative morbidity rates, which are related to the reduced postoperative trauma. We hypothesise that the laparoscopic abdominal approach (laparoscopic gastric mobilisation) in oesophageal cancer surgery will decrease the major postoperative complication rate due to the reduced surgical trauma.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The MIRO trial is an open, controlled, prospective, randomised multicentre phase III trial. Patients in study arm A will receive laparoscopic-assisted oesophagectomy, i.e., a transthoracic oesophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy and laparoscopic gastric mobilisation. Patients in study arm B will receive the same procedure, but with the conventional open abdominal approach. The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the major postoperative 30-day morbidity. Secondary objectives are to assess the overall 30-day morbidity, 30-day mortality, 30-day pulmonary morbidity, disease-free survival, overall survival as well as quality of life and to perform medico-economic analysis. A total of 200 patients will be enrolled, and two safety analyses will be performed using 25 and 50 patients included in arm A.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Postoperative morbidity remains high after oesophageal cancer surgery, especially due to major pulmonary complications, which are responsible for 50% of the postoperative deaths. This study represents the first randomised controlled phase III trial to evaluate the benefits of the minimally invasive approach with respect to the postoperative course and oncological outcomes in oesophageal cancer surgery.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p><a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00937456">NCT00937456</a> (ClinicalTrials.gov)</p

Global overview of the management of acute cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic (CHOLECOVID study)

Background: This study provides a global overview of the management of patients with acute cholecystitis during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: CHOLECOVID is an international, multicentre, observational comparative study of patients admitted to hospital with acute cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data on management were collected for a 2-month study interval coincident with the WHO declaration of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and compared with an equivalent pre-pandemic time interval. Mediation analysis examined the influence of SARS-COV-2 infection on 30-day mortality. Results: This study collected data on 9783 patients with acute cholecystitis admitted to 247 hospitals across the world. The pandemic was associated with reduced availability of surgical workforce and operating facilities globally, a significant shift to worse severity of disease, and increased use of conservative management. There was a reduction (both absolute and proportionate) in the number of patients undergoing cholecystectomy from 3095 patients (56.2 per cent) pre-pandemic to 1998 patients (46.2 per cent) during the pandemic but there was no difference in 30-day all-cause mortality after cholecystectomy comparing the pre-pandemic interval with the pandemic (13 patients (0.4 per cent) pre-pandemic to 13 patients (0.6 per cent) pandemic; P = 0.355). In mediation analysis, an admission with acute cholecystitis during the pandemic was associated with a non-significant increased risk of death (OR 1.29, 95 per cent c.i. 0.93 to 1.79, P = 0.121). Conclusion: CHOLECOVID provides a unique overview of the treatment of patients with cholecystitis across the globe during the first months of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The study highlights the need for system resilience in retention of elective surgical activity. Cholecystectomy was associated with a low risk of mortality and deferral of treatment results in an increase in avoidable morbidity that represents the non-COVID cost of this pandemic

Cholecystectomy in the elderly: clinical outcomes and risk factors

AIM OF THE STUDY: Recent decades have seen a steady increase in the number of elderly patients undergoing cholecystectomy surgery. The objective of this study is to evaluate clinical outcomes in this cohort of patients and to identify any predictive factors correlative with adverse outcomes arising in the postoperative period. METHOD: A retrospective study was conducted regarding patients aged ≥65 years who underwent cholecystectomy surgery. The independent variables considered to be related to the patient were: age, gender, co-morbidities, and severity of cholelithiasis. The clinical variables were type of procedure, length of stay and hospitalization. The outcomes considered were mortality, re-intervention, transfer to intensive care and post-operative complications. RESULTS: 778 patients with an age between 65 and 74 and 508 patients with an age above 75 were reviewed. With the increase of age, patients who underwent cholecystectomy presented greater co-morbidity, more accesses in emergency, more cases of cholecystitis, which led to a higher number of interventions in open surgery. Considering postoperative outcomes: the need for intensive care, postoperative complications and mortality significantly increase in older patients. Negative predictive factors are the presence of co-morbidities, emergency access and cholecystectomy performed in open. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients undergoing cholecystectomy are an increased surgical risk group in particular because of the presence of co-morbidities and because of the frequent need to perform an emergency procedure often for complicated lithiasis pathology. This implies a special attention towards these patients, and towards those over 75 considering, when possible, alternative treatments such as percutaneous drainage. KEY WORDS: Cholecystectomy, Elderly, Outcomes, Risk factors