ABSTRACT
Background: The ideal way to show treatment effectiveness is through randomized controlled trials the 'gold standard' in evidence-based surgery. Indeed, not all surgical studies can be designed as randomized trials, sometimes for ethical and otherwise, for practical reasons. This article aimed to compare laparoscopic cholecystectomy to open cholecystectomy, according to data from an administrative database, managed by a propensity matched analysis
Methods: Were included all patients with cholelithiasis admitted in Department B between June 1st, 2008 and December 31st, 2009. In this study, the propensity score represented the probability that a patient would be treated by a procedure based on variables that were known or suspected to influence group assignment and was developed using multivariable logistic regression used here to match patients who had laparoscopic cholecystectomy to a control patient who had open cholecystectomy. The main outcome measure was morbidity. This was expressed as the number of patients with 1 or more complications occurring during the hospital stay or within 30 days following discharge
Results:According to intention to treat, 535 patients had a laparoscopic approach [LC group] and 60 patients had a traditional open approach [OC group] regarding associated cardiac disease, previous laparotomy or when choledocholithiasis was suspected, however intra operative cholangiography showed that there was no choledocolithiasis. According to the propensity score, 28 patients in OC were matched with 58 in LC. Comparison between OC and LC before and after propensity matched analysis showed that OC was associated with a higher rate of Extra Surgical Site morbidity [p= 0.010], a longer median duration of intervention, post-operative stay and overall hospital stay [p= 0. 0001]
Conclusion: LC should be considered as first-line therapy to treat cholelithiasis surgically even if it becomes necessary to convert to OC because of intra operative findings
ABSTRACT
Gastrointestinal stromal tumors [GIST] are the most common digestive sarcomas. They develop in most cases in the stomach and small intestine, more rarely rectum, colon, esophagus or mesentery. These tumors typically express the phenotype CD117/KIT + and CD34 +.To evaluate epidemiologic, clinical, pathologic, therapeutic, characteristics and evaluative pattern of gastrointestinal tumor treated in our surgical department. We collected 24 cases of GIST [confirmed by the positivity of CD 117 and/or CD 33] treated between 1997 and 2010 in the department of surgery B of Charles Nicolle's Hospital. We analyzed demographic characteristics, clinic pattern, investigations treatment and therapeutic variables of our patients. We calculated the survival rate and identified prognostic predictive factors of survival. Our retrospective study interested, during 13 years, 24 patients presenting GIST with a median age of 66 years and a sex ratio of 0.8. The median time for diagnosis was two months [3 days to 24 months]. Abdominal pain, gastrointestinal bleeding and vomiting were the most common symptoms. The endoscopic appearance was tumor arising from muscular layer found in the stomach [13/24 cases; 54%], small bowel in four cases [16.5%] and duodenal or rectum three patients [12,5%]. Twenty three within 24 patients underwent surgical resection with R0 in 20/23 cases. Three patients were treated with neoadjuvant imatinib for an average of 12 months, one patient had adjuvant treatment and four patients in locoregional evolutive tumor and / or metastatic. The overall survival was 70% at one year and 65% at two years with a pejorative impact, in univariate analysis of abdominal pain, asthenia, anorexia, weight loss, cytonuclear atypia, tumor size >/= 10 cm and a mitotic index >/= 5/50. Multivariate analysis showed that tumor size [Hazard Ratio = 6 if size >/= 10 cm 95% CI [1,539-24,017]] and weight loss [Hazard Ratio = 7 95% CI [1,664-29,100]] were influential factors on overall survival and recurrence-free survival. The prognostic predictive factors identified were the size of tumor >/= 10cm and the mitotic index
ABSTRACT
Administrative database, used previously for control of cost, patient flow and invoicing, offer to researchers a large sample of patients representative of population providing interesting informations in the field of descriptive and analytic epidemiology with less cost. To assess the usefulness of administrative database for quality of care and research. It was a prospective study concerning 4690 hospitalisations in Department B of General Surgery of hôpital Charles Nicolle during a period of 18 months, between June 1st, 2008 and December 31st, 2009. A descriptive analysis followed by a pronostic study with a univariate and multivariate analysis was performed. Our study showed the usefulness of an administrative database in assessing the quality of care, it allowed us to determine postoperative mortality rate [2.7%], deep morbidity [2.5%], parietal morbidity [1.2%], medical complications [6%], nosocomial infections [3.6%] and re intervention [2.7%], with independent predictive factors of these events. To reduce the incidence of these events we should reduce length of pre-operative stay, prevent intra operative accidents, avoid intra operative bleeding in order to reduce intra operative transfusions and avoid as far as possible the stay in ICU Independent predictors of post trauma death are multiple trauma [OR: 6.14, 95% [from 1.68 to 16.94], p = 0.002], a traumatized patient in distress on arrival [OR: 8.74, 95% [3.59 -27.77], p = 0.000] and overall medical complications [OR: 13.18, 95% [from 4.01 to 31.25], p=0.000]. The ISS is a good discriminative indice to assess the severity and life-threatening risk. Administrative databases provide information on the efficiency of care, it helps to realise observational studies on large samples representative of the population at low cost. They are very useful in the research, despite the lack of clinical data
ABSTRACT
Administrative database, used previously for control of cost, patient flow and invoicing, offer to researchers a large sample of patients representative of population providing interesting information's in the field of descriptive and analytic epidemiology with less cost. To compare spinal to general anesthesia for inguinal hernia repair concerning a population extracted from administrative database after propensity matched analysis. Prospective study concerning 4690 hospitalizations in Department B of General Surgery of Charles Nicolle hospital during a period of 18 months, between June 1st, 2008 and December 31st, 2009. A descriptive analysis followed by a comparison between spinal and general anesthesia according propensity matched analysis were performed. 595 inguinal hernias were operated on. Mean age was 55 +/- 15.We mentioned a male predominance: 326 men [84.2%] and 61 women [15.8%]. 137 patients had previous medical diseases [35.4%]. 47[12.1%] patients were operated on in emergent situation on the other hand 340[87.9%] had elective surgery. 264[68.2%] were ASA I, 110[28.4%] ASA II, 13[3.4%] ASA III. Post operative course were uneventful in 96.1% [372] and complicated in 11 patients [2.9%].Four deaths were observed [1%]. Comparison before and after propensity matched analysis showed a statistical difference regarding postoperative stay and all hospital stay in favor of spinal anesthesia [p=0.007]. Postoperative stay is significantly shorter in the group of spinal anesthesia [p=0.007]. A randomized clinical trial comparing spinal anesthesia to general anesthesia is needed
ABSTRACT
The value of laparoscopic surgery in appendicitis is not established. Studies suffer from many controversies. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and benefits of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in patients with clinically non complicated acute appendicitis. One hundred thirty nine patients wore analyzed retrospectively following either laparoscopic or open appendectomy. We excluded peritonitis, appendicular abscesses and patients with history of digestive surgery. The main outcome measures wore operative duration, postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. There was no mortality. The overall complication rate was similar in both groups [13,9%versus 7,4%in the laparoscopic and open groups respectively p=0,22]. Operating duration was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group [62 minutes versus 40 minutes p=0,001] while there was no difference in length of stay. Laparoscopic appendectomy did not offer a significant advantage over open appendectomy in acute non complicated appendicitis. The choice of the procedure should be based on surgeon or patient preferences