Which differences do elderly patients present in single-stage treatment for cholecysto-choledocholithiasis?

AbstractPatients with symptomatic gallstones present common bile duct stones in approximately 10% of cases. It is possible to resolve both gallbladder and bile duct stones with a single procedure. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a single stage procedure for gallbladder and bile duct stones in the elderly patients and to expose the differences between the various techniques. From January 2008 to December 2013, we treated 1540 patients with gallbladder stones. In 152 cases, we also found bile duct stones. 150 of these were treated in a single stage procedure. We divided our patients into 2 groups: Group A was younger than 65 (104 patients); Group B was 65 or older (46 patients). We retrospectively compared sex, ASA score, conversion rate, success rate, post-operative complications, hospital stay, and treatment method. We had no intra-operative mortality. 1 patient in Group B, heart condition (ASA 4), died with multiple organ failure (MOF) 10 days after his operation. ASA score: 3.5 ± 0.5 in A vs 2 ± 0.9 in B (P 0.001), post-operative complications 6% in A vs 18.1% in B (P 0.0325) and hospital stay 4.1 ± 2.3 in A vs 9.5 ± 5.5 in B (P 0.0001) were significantly higher in Group B. No differences were found in term of success rate: 94% in A vs 90% in B (P 0.4944). The procedure used to obtain the clearance of the bile duct showed a different success rate across the two groups: for the patients under 65 years old, trans-cystic clearance (TC-CBDE) was successful in 90% of cases, and only 51% for those older than 65, where we had to recall 49% for laparo-endoscopic rendez-vous (RV-IOERC) (P 0.0014). In conclusion, single stage treatment is safe and effective also to elderly patients. The methods used in patients being younger than 65 years old is what appeared to be significantly different

Framework for the Synthesis of Non-Randomised Studies and Randomised Controlled Trials: A Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for Healthcare Decision Making

Introduction: High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable evidence on the comparative efficacy of new medicines. However, non-randomised studies (NRS) are increasingly recognised as a source of insights into the real-world performance of novel therapeutic products, particularly when traditional RCTs are impractical or lack generalisability. This means there is a growing need for synthesising evidence from RCTs and NRS in healthcare decision making, particularly given recent developments such as innovative study designs, digital technologies and linked databases across countries. Crucially, however, no formal framework exists to guide the integration of these data types. Objectives and Methods: To address this gap, we used a mixed methods approach (review of existing guidance, methodological papers, Delphi survey) to develop guidance for researchers and healthcare decision-makers on when and how to best combine evidence from NRS and RCTs to improve transparency and build confidence in the resulting summary effect estimates. Results: Our framework comprises seven steps on guiding the integration and interpretation of evidence from NRS and RCTs and we offer recommendations on the most appropriate statistical approaches based on three main analytical scenarios in healthcare decision making (specifically, ‘high-bar evidence’ when RCTs are the preferred source of evidence, ‘medium,’ and ‘low’ when NRS is the main source of inference). Conclusion: Our framework augments existing guidance on assessing the quality of NRS and their compatibility with RCTs for evidence synthesis, while also highlighting potential challenges in implementing it. This manuscript received endorsement from the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology

Intraperitoneal drain placement and outcomes after elective colorectal surgery: international matched, prospective, cohort study

Despite current guidelines, intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery remains widespread. Drains were not associated with earlier detection of intraperitoneal collections, but were associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased risk of surgical-site infections.Background Many surgeons routinely place intraperitoneal drains after elective colorectal surgery. However, enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines recommend against their routine use owing to a lack of clear clinical benefit. This study aimed to describe international variation in intraperitoneal drain placement and the safety of this practice. Methods COMPASS (COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery) was a prospective, international, cohort study which enrolled consecutive adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery (February to March 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of intraperitoneal drain placement. Secondary outcomes included: rate and time to diagnosis of postoperative intraperitoneal collections; rate of surgical site infections (SSIs); time to discharge; and 30-day major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade at least III). After propensity score matching, multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to estimate the independent association of the secondary outcomes with drain placement. Results Overall, 1805 patients from 22 countries were included (798 women, 44.2 per cent; median age 67.0 years). The drain insertion rate was 51.9 per cent (937 patients). After matching, drains were not associated with reduced rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.33, 95 per cent c.i. 0.79 to 2.23; P = 0.287) or earlier detection (hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 0.33 to 2.31; P = 0.780) of collections. Although not associated with worse major postoperative complications (OR 1.09, 0.68 to 1.75; P = 0.709), drains were associated with delayed hospital discharge (HR 0.58, 0.52 to 0.66; P < 0.001) and an increased risk of SSIs (OR 2.47, 1.50 to 4.05; P < 0.001). Conclusion Intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery is not associated with earlier detection of postoperative collections, but prolongs hospital stay and increases SSI risk

Global disparities in surgeons’ workloads, academic engagement and rest periods: the on-calL shIft fOr geNEral SurgeonS (LIONESS) study

: The workload of general surgeons is multifaceted, encompassing not only surgical procedures but also a myriad of other responsibilities. From April to May 2023, we conducted a CHERRIES-compliant internet-based survey analyzing clinical practice, academic engagement, and post-on-call rest. The questionnaire featured six sections with 35 questions. Statistical analysis used Chi-square tests, ANOVA, and logistic regression (SPSS® v. 28). The survey received a total of 1.046 responses (65.4%). Over 78.0% of responders came from Europe, 65.1% came from a general surgery unit; 92.8% of European and 87.5% of North American respondents were involved in research, compared to 71.7% in Africa. Europe led in publishing research studies (6.6 ± 8.6 yearly). Teaching involvement was high in North America (100%) and Africa (91.7%). Surgeons reported an average of 6.7 ± 4.9 on-call shifts per month, with European and North American surgeons experiencing 6.5 ± 4.9 and 7.8 ± 4.1 on-calls monthly, respectively. African surgeons had the highest on-call frequency (8.7 ± 6.1). Post-on-call, only 35.1% of respondents received a day off. Europeans were most likely (40%) to have a day off, while African surgeons were least likely (6.7%). On the adjusted multivariable analysis HDI (Human Development Index) (aOR 1.993) hospital capacity > 400 beds (aOR 2.423), working in a specialty surgery unit (aOR 2.087), and making the on-call in-house (aOR 5.446), significantly predicted the likelihood of having a day off after an on-call shift. Our study revealed critical insights into the disparities in workload, access to research, and professional opportunities for surgeons across different continents, underscored by the HDI

Rapid identification of Acremonium lolii and Acremonium coenophialum endophytes through arbitrarily primed PCR

D. Liu , R. van Heeswijck, G. Latch, T. Leonforte d, M. Panaccio, C. Langford, P. Cunningham, K. Ree