Early cholecystectomy for patients with acute cholecystitis is safe, cost effective, and leads to less time off work compared with delayed surgery. This study was designed to assess current practice in the management of acute cholecystitis in the UK. A postal questionnaire was sent to 440 consultant general surgeons to ascertain their current management of patients with acute cholecystitis. Replies were received from 308 consultants who were involved in treating patients with acute cholecystitis of whom 18 transferred these patients on to another team for further management the day after admission. Thirty two consultants (11%) routinely treated patients by early cholecystectomy, with limiting factors stated to be the availability of surgical staff, theatre space, and radiological investigations. The remaining consultants (n = 258) routinely manage their patients conservatively with intravenous antibiotics and allow the inflammation to resolve before undertaking cholecystectomy at a later date. Indications for undertaking early cholecystectomy during the first admission by this latter group included the presence of spreading peritonitis due to bile leak, empyema, and unexpected space on theatre list. The commonest method for both elective and early cholecystectomy is laparoscopic, but the percentage of consultants using an open method rises from 8% in the elective situation to 47% for urgent early cholecystectomy. Despite evidence which strongly advocates early cholecystectomy, this practice is routinely carried out by only 11% of consultants in the UK at present. O pinions among surgeons regarding the optimum management of acute cholecystitis remain divided. Some advocate early cholecystectomy during the initial admission, whereas others prefer to treat patients conservatively in the first instance with intravenous fluids and antibiotics and undertake delayed elective cholecystectomy. Two randomised controlled trials of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the management of acute cholecystitis have both shown early laparoscopic cholecystectomy to be safe and associated with lower rates of conversion and reduced total hospital stay compared with delayed surgery.1 2 In addition, the hazards of conservative management of acute cholecystitis in the UK, especially with regard to patient readmissions, have recently been highlighted.3 4 The aim of this study therefore was to assess current practice in the management of acute cholecystitis by general surgeons in the UK. METHODSA postal questionnaire was sent to 440 consultant general surgeons. They were asked to provide details of their on-call commitments, subspecialist interests, and the management of patients under their care with acute cholecystitis. In particular they were asked whether they routinely opted for early cholecystectomy during the first admission or preferred initial conservative management and delayed interval cholecystectomy. Surgeons opting for early cholecystectomy were asked which factors limited this practice, with those opting fo...
INTRODUCTION The objective of this study was to determine the safety and acceptability of the implementation of a day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) service in a large UK teaching hospital, and analyse factors influencing contact with primary care providers. Wide-spread introduction of day-case LC in the UK is a major target of healthcare providers. However, few centres have reported their experience. In the US, out-patient surgery for LC has been reported, though many groups have utilised 24-h observation units to facilitate discharge. Concerns remain amongst surgeons regarding the feasibility and acceptability of the introduction of day-case LC in the UK. PATIENTS AND METHODS Comprehensive care and operative data were prospectively collected on the first 106 consecutive day-case procedures in our hospital. Postoperative recovery was monitored by telephone questionnaire on days 2, 5 and 14, including complications, satisfaction and general practitioner consultation. RESULTS A total of 106 patients were admitted for day-case LC, of whom 84% were discharged on the day of surgery. Patient satisfaction rate was 94% in both the successful day-case and the admitted patients. Mean operation time was 62 min, with an average total stay on the day-care unit of 426 min. Training-grade surgeons performed 31% of operations. Both the re-admission rate after surgery and rate of conversion to open surgery were 2%. Advice from primary healthcare providers was sought by 33% of patients within the first 14 postoperative days. CONCLUSIONS Introduction of day-case LC in the UK is feasible and acceptable to patients. The potential burden to primary care providers needs further study.
MRI of the liver is a non-invasive technique with an extremely high degree of sensitivity in the detection of colorectal liver metastases and should be considered as the 'gold standard' in the pre-operative imaging of these patients.
AIMS: Several recent papers have advocated emergency cholecystectomy for patients with acute cholecystitis, stating that it is safe, cost effective and leads to less time off work. This study was designed to assess current practice in the management of acute cholecystitis in the UK. METHODS: A postal questionnaire was sent to 357 consultant surgeons who were thought to be involved in a general surgical on-call rota, to ascertain their current management of patients with acute cholecystitis. Replies were received from 250 consultants (70 per cent) of whom 242 (68 per cent) were involved in a general surgical take. Sixteen of these consultants, however, handed their patients with acute cholecystitis on to a different team the following day for further management. RESULTS: Twenty-seven consultants (12 per cent) routinely treat their patients by emergency cholecystectomy whenever possible, with 24 stating that they would do this within 72 h. Limiting factors to this practice were stated to be availability of surgical staff (15), theatre space (nine) and radiological investigations (four). The remaining consultants (n = 199) routinely manage their patients conservatively initially and providing they settle, either (1) book directly for cholecystectomy (n = 94, 47 per cent), (2) reassess as an outpatient (n = 65, 33 per cent), (3) either of above (n = 21; 11 per cent) or (4) refer on to a colleague (n = 19, 10 per cent). The commonest indications for acute cholecystectomy stated by consultants whose initial treatment policy is conservative are spreading peritonitis due to bile leak (93 per cent), empyema (89 per cent), unexpected space on a theatre list (28 per cent) and failure of an acute episode to settle (21 per cent). The laparoscopic method is the commonest for both elective and emergency cholecystectomy, but the percentage of consultants using an open method rises dramatically from 9 per cent in the elective situation to 48 per cent for emergency cholecystectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence to support the increased use of emergency cholecystectomy, this practice is routinely carried out by only 12 per cent of consultants. However, of the consultants who treat their patients conservatively, 28 per cent are prepared to undertake emergency cholecystectomy if an unexpected space appears on the theatre list.
Neurofibromas of the common bile duct are extremely rare. The lack of specific clinical or radiological features makes preoperative diagnosis in the absence of histology difficult. We report the case of a female patient who presented with obstructive jaundice and evidence of a common bile duct stricture on imaging. She underwent an exploratory laparotomy, and intraoperative frozen section confirmed clear margins and a benign lesion. Excision of the extrahepatic bile duct and A Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy was performed. We discuss the clinical features and management of neurofibromas of the bile duct in light of the literature.
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.