IntroductionLaparoscopic cholecystectomy, the gold-standard approach for cholecystectomy, has surprisingly variable outcomes and conversion rates. Only recently has operative grading been reported to define disease severity and few have been validated. This multicentre, multinational study assessed an operative scoring system to assess its ability to predict the need for conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy.MethodsA prospective, web-based, ethically approved study was established by WSES with a 10-point gallbladder operative scoring system; enrolling patients undergoing elective or emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy between January 2016 and December 2017. Gallbladder surgery was considered easy if the G10 score < 2, moderate (2 ≦ 4), difficult (5 ≦ 7) and extreme (8 ≦ 10). Demographics about the patients, surgeons and operative procedures, use of cholangiography and conversion rates were recorded.ResultsFive hundred four patients, mean age 53.5 (range 18–89), were enrolled by 55 surgeons in 16 countries. Surgery was performed by consultants in 70% and was elective in (56%) with a mean operative time of 78.7 min (range 15-400). The mean G10 score was 3.21, with 22% deemed to have difficult or extreme surgical gallbladders, and 71/504 patients were converted. The G10 score was 2.98 in those completed laparoscopically and 4.65 in the 71/504 (14%) converted. (p < 0.0001; AUC 0.772 (CI 0.719–0.825). The optimal cut-off point of 0.067 (score of 3) was identified in G10 vs conversion to open cholecystectomy. Conversion occurred in 33% of patients with G10 scores of ≥ 5. The four variables statistically predictive of conversion were GB appearance—completely buried GB, impacted stone, bile or pus outside GB and fistula.ConclusionThe G10 operative scores provide simple grading of operative cholecystectomy and are predictive of the need to convert to open cholecystectomy. Broader adaptation and validation may provide a benchmark to understand and improve care and afford more standardisation in global comparisons of care for cholecystectomy.
Background: Cancer outcomes are complex, involving prevention, early detection and optimal multidisciplinary care. Postoperative infection and surgical site-infection (SSI) are not only uncomfortable for patients and costly, but may also be associated with poor oncological outcomes. A meta-analysis was undertaken to assess the oncological effects of SSI in patients with colorectal cancer. Methods: An ethically approved PROSPERO-registered meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched for studies published between 2007 and 2017 reporting the effects of postoperative infective complications on oncological survival in colorectal cancer. Results were separated into those for SSI and those concerning anastomotic leakage. Articles with a Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies score of at least 18 were included. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95 per cent confidence intervals were computed for risk factors using an observed to expected and variance fixed-effect model. Results: Of 5027 articles were reviewed, 43 met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 154 981 patients. Infective complications had significant negative effects on overall survival (HR 1⋅37, 95 per cent c.i. 1⋅28 to 1⋅46) and cancer-specific survival (HR 2⋅58, 2⋅15 to 3⋅10). Anastomotic leakage occurred in 7⋅4 per cent and had a significant negative impact on disease-free survival (HR 1⋅14, 1⋅09 to 1⋅20), overall survival (HR 1⋅34, 1⋅28 to 1⋅39), cancer-specific survival (HR 1⋅43, 1⋅31 to 1⋅55), local recurrence (HR 1⋅18, 1⋅06 to 1⋅32) and overall recurrence (HR 1⋅46, 1⋅27 to 1⋅68). Conclusion: This meta-analysis identified a significant negative impact of postoperative infective complications on overall and cancer-specific survival in patients undergoing colorectal surgery.
BackgroundThe consequences of subclinical coeliac disease (CD) in Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) remain unclear. We looked at growth, anthropometry and disease management in children with dual diagnosis (T1DM + CD) before and after CD diagnosis.MethodsAnthropometry, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and IgA tissue transglutaminase (tTg) were collected prior to, and following CD diagnosis in 23 children with T1DM + CD. This group was matched for demographics, T1DM duration, age at CD diagnosis and at T1DM onset with 23 CD and 44 T1DM controls.ResultsNo differences in growth or anthropometry were found between children with T1DM + CD and controls at any time point. Children with T1DM + CD, had higher BMI z-score two years prior to, than at CD diagnosis (p < 0.001). BMI z-score change one year prior to CD diagnosis was lower in the T1DM + CD than the T1DM group (p = 0.009). At two years, height velocity and change in BMI z-scores were similar in all groups. No differences were observed in HbA1c between the T1DM + CD and T1DM groups before or after CD diagnosis. More children with T1DM + CD had raised tTg levels one year after CD diagnosis than CD controls (CDx to CDx + 1 yr; T1DM + CD: 100% to 71%, p = 0.180 and CD: 100% to 45%, p < 0.001); by two years there was no difference.ConclusionsNo major nutrition or growth deficits were observed in children with T1DM + CD. CD diagnosis does not impact on T1DM glycaemic control. CD specific serology was comparable to children with single CD, but those with dual diagnosis may need more time to adjust to gluten free diet.
Biliary disease and cholecystitis remain one of the most significant surgical challenges. Over 1,000,000 cholecystectomies are performed in the US every year [1, 2], and over 50,000 in the UK [3]. While minimally invasive laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has afforded great advantages over open cholecystectomy, reducing variability and improving outcomes remains a challenge [4, 5]. It is only recently that operative classifications and grading of cholecystitis have been published [6]. LC related peri-operative complications, while infrequent may
Background Despite some evidence of improved survival with intraoperative cholangiography during cholecystectomy, debate has raged about its benefit, in part because of its questionable benefit, time, and resources required to complete. Methods An International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews–registered (ID CRD42018102154) meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane library from 2003 to 2018 was undertaken including search strategy “intraoperative AND cholangiogra* AND cholecystectomy.” Articles scoring ≥ 16 for comparative and ≥ 10 for noncomparative using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria were included. A dichotomous random effects meta-analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method performed on Review Manager Version 5.3 was carried out. Results Of 2,059 articles reviewed, 62 met criteria for final analysis. The mean rate of intraoperative cholangiography was 38.8% (range 1.6%–96.4%).There was greater detection of bile duct stones during cholecystectomy with routine intraoperative cholangiography compared with selective intraoperative cholangiography (odds ratio = 3.28, confidence interval = 2.80–3.86, P value < .001). While bile duct injury during cholecystectomy was less with intraoperative cholangiography (0.39%) than without intraoperative cholangiography (0.43%), it was not statistically significant (odds ratio = 0.88, confidence interval = 0.65–1.19, P value = .41). Readmission following cholecystectomy with intraoperative cholangiography was 3.0% compared to 3.5% without intraoperative cholangiography (odds ratio = 0.91, confidence interval = 0.78–1.06, P value = .23). Conclusion The use of intraoperative cholangiography still has its place in cholecystectomy based on the detection of choledocholithiasis and the potential reduction of unfavorable outcomes associated with common bile duct stones. This meta-analysis, the first to review intraoperative cholangiography use, identified a marked variation in cholangiography use. Retrospective studies limit the ability to critically define association between intraoperative cholangiography use and bile duct injury.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.