Textbook outcome in urgent early cholecystectomy for acute calculous cholecystitis: results post hoc of the S.P.Ri.M.A.C.C study

Introduction: A textbook outcome patient is one in which the operative course passes uneventful, without complications, readmission or mortality. There is a lack of publications in terms of TO on acute cholecystitis. Objetive: The objective of this study is to analyze the achievement of TO in patients with urgent early cholecystectomy (UEC) for Acute Cholecystitis. and to identify which factors are related to achieving TO. Materials and methods: This is a post hoc study of the SPRiMACC study. It ́s a prospective multicenter observational study run by WSES. The criteria to define TO in urgent early cholecystectomy (TOUEC) were no 30-day mortality, no 30-day postoperative complications, no readmission within 30 days, and hospital stay ≤ 7 days (75th percentile), and full laparoscopic surgery. Patients who met all these conditions were taken as presenting a TOUEC. Outcomes: 1246 urgent early cholecystectomies for ACC were included. In all, 789 patients (63.3%) achieved all TOUEC parameters, while 457 (36.6%) failed to achieve one or more parameters and were considered non-TOUEC. The patients who achieved TOUEC were younger had significantly lower scores on all the risk scales analyzed. In the serological tests, TOUEC patients had lower values for in a lot of variables than non-TOUEC patients. The TOUEC group had lower rates of complicated cholecystitis. Considering operative time, a shorter duration was also associated with a higher probability of reaching TOUEC. Conclusion: Knowledge of the factors that influence the TOUEC can allow us to improve our results in terms of textbook outcome

Goodbye Hartmann trial: a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study on the current use of a surgical procedure developed a century ago

Background: Literature suggests colonic resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) instead of Hartmann's procedure (HP) for the treatment of left-sided colonic emergencies. We aim to evaluate the surgical options globally used to treat patients with acute left-sided colonic emergencies and the factors that leading to the choice of treatment, comparing HP and RPA. Methods: This is a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. A total 1215 patients with left-sided colonic emergencies who required surgery were included from 204 centers during the period of March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020. with a 1-year follow-up. Results: 564 patients (43.1%) were females. The mean age was 65.9 ± 15.6 years. HP was performed in 697 (57.3%) patients and RPA in 384 (31.6%) cases. Complicated acute diverticulitis was the most common cause of left-sided colonic emergencies (40.2%), followed by colorectal malignancy (36.6%). Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3b) were higher in the HP group (P < 0.001). 30-day mortality was higher in HP patients (13.7%), especially in case of bowel perforation and diffused peritonitis. 1-year follow-up showed no differences on ostomy reversal rate between HP and RPA. (P = 0.127). A backward likelihood logistic regression model showed that RPA was preferred in younger patients, having low ASA score (≤ 3), in case of large bowel obstruction, absence of colonic ischemia, longer time from admission to surgery, operating early at the day working hours, by a surgeon who performed more than 50 colorectal resections. Conclusions: After 100 years since the first Hartmann's procedure, HP remains the most common treatment for left-sided colorectal emergencies. Treatment's choice depends on patient characteristics, the time of surgery and the experience of the surgeon. RPA should be considered as the gold standard for surgery, with HP being an exception

Prediction of morbidity and mortality after early cholecystectomy for acute calculous cholecystitis: results of the S.P.Ri.M.A.C.C. study

BackgroundLess invasive alternatives than early cholecystectomy (EC) for acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) treatment have been spreading in recent years. We still lack a reliable tool to select high-risk patients who could benefit from these alternatives. Our study aimed to prospectively validate the Chole-risk score in predicting postoperative complications in patients undergoing EC for ACC compared with other preoperative risk prediction models.MethodThe S.P.Ri.M.A.C.C. study is a World Society of Emergency Surgery prospective multicenter observational study. From 1st September 2021 to 1st September 2022, 1253 consecutive patients admitted in 79 centers were included. The inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of ACC and to be a candidate for EC. A Cochran-Armitage test of the trend was run to determine whether a linear correlation existed between the Chole-risk score and a complicated postoperative course. To assess the accuracy of the analyzed prediction models-POSSUM Physiological Score (PS), modified Frailty Index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, American Society of Anesthesiologist score (ASA), APACHE II score, and ACC severity grade-receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was used to compare the diagnostic abilities.ResultsA 30-day major morbidity of 6.6% and 30-day mortality of 1.1% were found. Chole-risk was validated, but POSSUM PS was the best risk prediction model for a complicated course after EC for ACC (in-hospital mortality: AUC 0.94, p < 0.001; 30-day mortality: AUC 0.94, p < 0.001; in-hospital major morbidity: AUC 0.73, p < 0.001; 30-day major morbidity: AUC 0.70, p < 0.001). POSSUM PS with a cutoff of 25 (defined in our study as a 'Chole-POSSUM' score) was then validated in a separate cohort of patients. It showed a 100% sensitivity and a 100% negative predictive value for mortality and a 96-97% negative predictive value for major complications.ConclusionsThe Chole-risk score was externally validated, but the CHOLE-POSSUM stands as a more accurate prediction model. CHOLE-POSSUM is a reliable tool to stratify patients with ACC into a low-risk group that may represent a safe EC candidate, and a high-risk group, where new minimally invasive endoscopic techniques may find the most useful field of action.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrial.gov NCT04995380