C‐reactive protein level as a predictor of difficult emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background: Studies focused on C‐reactive protein (CRP) as a marker of difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy are limited to small case series. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between preoperative CRP concentration and difficulty of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients admitted with a biliary emergency presentation. Methods: Patients with an emergency admission for biliary disease treated between 2012 and 2017 with a documented preoperative CRP level were analysed. Elective patients and those with other concurrent causes of increased CRP concentration were excluded. The intraoperative difficulty grade was based on the Nassar scale. Statistical analysis was conducted to determine the association of preoperative CRP level with difficulty grading, adjusted for the interval to surgery. Results: A total of 804 emergency patients were included. The mean preoperative peak CRP level was 64·7 mg/l for operative difficulty grade I, 69·6 mg/l for grade II, 98·2 mg/l for grade III, 217·5 mg/l for grade IV and 193·1 mg/l for grade V, indicating a significant association between CRP concentration and Nassar grade (P < 0·001). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed an area under the curve of 0·78 (95 per cent c.i. 0·75 to 0·82), differentiating patients with grade I–III from those with grade IV–V operative difficulty. ROC curve analysis found a cut‐off CRP value of 90 mg/l, with 71·5 per cent sensitivity and 70·5 per cent specificity in predicting operative difficulty of grade IV or V. Logistic regression analysis found preoperative peak CRP level to be predictive of Nassar grade I–III versus grade IV–V operative difficulty, also when adjusted for timing of surgery (odds ratio 5·90, 95 per cent c.i. 2·80 to 12·50). Conclusion: Raised preoperative CRP levels are associated with greater operative difficulty based on Nassar scale grading

Predicting the difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy: development and validation of a pre-operative risk score using an objective operative difficulty grading system

Background: The prediction of a difficult cholecystectomy has traditionally been based on certain pre-operative clinical and imaging factors. Most of the previous literature reported small patient cohorts and have not used an objective measure of operative difficulty. The aim of this study was to develop a pre-operative score to predict difficult cholecystectomy, as defined by a validated intra-operative difficulty grading scale. Method: Two cohorts from prospectively maintained databases of patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy were analysed: the CholeS Study (8755 patients) and a single surgeon series (4089 patients). Factors potentially predictive of difficulty were correlated to the Nassar intra-operative difficulty scale. A multivariable binary logistic regression analysis was then used to identify factors that were independently associated with difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy, defined as operative difficulty grades 3 to 5. The resulting model was then converted to a risk score, and validated on both internal and external datasets. Result: Increasing age and ASA classification, male gender, diagnosis of CBD stone or cholecystitis, thick-walled gallbladders, CBD dilation, use of pre-operative ERCP and non-elective operations were found to be significant independent predictors of difficult cases. A risk score based on these factors returned an area under the ROC curve of 0.789 (95% CI 0.773–0.806, p < 0.001) on external validation, with 11.0% versus 80.0% of patients classified as low versus high risk having difficult surgeries. Conclusion: We have developed and validated a pre-operative scoring system that uses easily available pre-operative variables to predict difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomies. This scoring system should assist in patient selection for day case surgery, optimising pre-operative surgical planning (e.g. allocation of the procedure to a suitably trained surgeon) and counselling patients during the consent process. The score could also be used to risk adjust outcomes in future research