Three decades later: investigating the rate of and risks for conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Recent data suggest a wide range of conversion (4.9-20%) from laparoscopic (LC) to open cholecystectomy (OC) despite increasing surgeon familiarity and superior equipment. Previously identified risk factors for conversion include increased age, male gender, diabetes, and emergent surgeries. Recent studies also suggest that formal minimally invasive surgical training (MIST) reduces conversion rates. We sought to determine conversion rates in our population, a rural academic medical center, and identify any significant risks for conversion. METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective review of 2810 cholecystectomies performed over a seven-year period (2009-2016). RESULTS: Our study included 837 (29.8%) males and 1973 (70.2%) females with a mean age of 49.2 years. Forty-two percent of cases were done by surgeons with MIST. A total of 139 (4.95%) cases were converted to OC. Univariate predictors of conversion to OC included male gender, age ≥65, urgent and emergent admissions, and MIST of the surgeon. In multivariate modeling, which included significant univariate predictors of conversion, independent predictors of conversion to OC included urgent or emergent admission, male gender, and age ≥65. MIST status was no longer a significant predictor. CONCLUSION: Our conversion rate from LC to OC falls within the lower range of recently published rates. This is likely multifactorial, and reflects increasing familiarity of the laparoscopic technique, improved quality of laparoscopic equipment, and/or prior knowledge of preoperative risk factors for conversion. Our results, consistent with previous literature, show a reduced conversion rate among surgeons with MIST. This finding, albeit not significant on multivariate analysis, may offer insight into a potential alterable preoperative risk factor for conversion and warrants further research. Further knowledge about the impact MIST has on conversion may provide a feasible preoperative approach to reducing conversion to OC, thereby reducing costs and overall patient morbidity.

Cost Analysis and Supply Utilization of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is one of the highest volume surgeries performed annually. We hypothesized that there is a statistically significant intradepartmental cost variance with supply utilization variability amongst surgeons of different subspecialty. This study sought to describe laparoscopic cholecystectomy cost of care among three subspecialties of surgeons. This retrospective observational cohort study captured 372 laparoscopic cholecystectomy cases performed between June 2015 and June 2016 by 12 surgeons divided into three subspecialties: 2 in bariatric surgery (BS), 5 in acute care surgery (ACS), and 5 in general surgery (GS). The study utilized a third-party software, Surgical Profitability Compass Procedure Cost Manager and Crimson System (SPCMCS) (The Advisory Board Company, Washington, DC), to stratify case volume, supply cost, case duration, case severity level, and patient length of stay intradepartmentally. Statistical methods included the Kruskal-Wallis test. Average composite supply cost per case was $569 and median supply cost per case was $554. The case volume was 133 (BS), 109 (ACS), and 130 (GS). The median intradepartmental total supply cost was $674.5 (BS), $534 (ACS), and $564 (GS) (P<0.005). ACS and GS presented with a higher standard deviation of cost, $98 (ACS) and $110 (GS) versus $26 (BS). The median case duration was 70 min (BS), 107 min (ACS), and 78 min (GS) (P<0.02). The average patient length of stay was 1.15 (BS), 3.10 (ACS), and 1.17 (GS) (P<0.005). Overall, there was a statistically significant difference in median supply cost (highest in BS; lowest in ACS and GS). However, the higher supply costs may be attenuated by decreased operative time and patient length of stay. Strategies to reduce total supply cost per case include mandating exchange of expensive items, standardization of supply sets, increased price transparency, and education to surgeons.

Histopathological examination of specimen following cholecystectomy: Are we accepting resect and discard?

BACKGROUND: Cholecystectomy is one of the most commonly performed general surgery procedures in the USA. It is most frequently performed for benign biliary disease such as biliary colic or cholecystitis; however, resected specimens are frequently sent for histopathological analysis due to the perceived risk of incidental gallbladder carcinoma (iGBC). The principle aim of this study is to review the pathology results from gallbladder specimens sent for routine pathology, determine the incidence of iGBC in our population, and determine whether surgeons need to send specimens for further analysis if no preoperative or intraoperative suspicion for malignancy is present. METHODS: We performed a large single-center case-controlled retrospective study of all gallbladder specimens sent for routine histopathological analysis between 2009 and 2014. The results were tabulated, including both common and rare findings. We then analyzed patient outcomes and survival for the case group of iGBC patients and determined value in life years (LY) gained per dollar spent on pathological screening. RESULTS: A total of 2153 pathology reports were reviewed. After exclusion criteria, a total of 1984 were included in data analysis. The incidence of iGBC was 0.25 % (95 % CI 0.08, 0.59), and dysplasia was 0.70 % (0.39, 1.20). The most common pathological findings included chronic cholecystitis in 89 % (87.4, 90.3) and cholelithiasis in 81 % (79.1, 82.6) of specimens. Total charges for pathological screening were $65,404 per LY to date; however, two patients have ongoing disease-free survival and this figure is expected to decrease. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of significant pathology necessitating change in clinical management is extremely low in our population. Despite this, the cost per LY gained from routine pathological analysis appears to be of sufficient value to continue with current practice. Alternatively, selective screening based on risk factors, intraoperative findings, and on-table examination of specimen may be a more cost-effective approach.

Reasons and outcomes of laparoscopic revisional surgery after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding for morbid obesity.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is a purely restrictive procedure that has been proved to be an effective tool in achieving weight loss. The low operative morbidity and reversibility are often seen as advantages of this procedure compared with other bariatric approaches. We have attempted to define the reasons for revisional surgery after LAGB and the outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed from February 2001 to October 2008 at a center of excellence after institutional review board approval. The patients who had undergone revisional surgery after primary LAGB were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 343 patients who had undergone primary LAGB, 60 subsequently underwent a revisional procedure. In addition, 28 revisional procedures were performed on patients who had undergone primary LAGB at an outside institution. These procedures included 39 (44.3%) band removals alone, 12 (13.6%) band removals with conversion to sleeve gastrectomy, 13 (14.8%) band removals with conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, 9 (10.2%) band repositioning, and 2 (2.3%) band replacements. In addition, 13 (14.8%) port-related procedures (3 relocations, 6 reconnections, and 4 replacements/removals) were performed. CONCLUSION: Although reversible and efficacious, LAGB appears to have a high incidence of complications requiring revisional surgery and/or band removal. The results of our study have shown that laparoscopic revisional surgery after primary LAGB is safe and can be performed with minimal morbidity.

Sleeve gastrectomy: a new surgical approach for morbid obesity.

While obesity and morbid obesity have reached epidemic proportions worldwide, bariatric surgeons continue to develop safer and more efficacious procedures to battle this lethal disease. Sleeve gastrectomy, a relative new surgical approach, was initially conceived as a restrictive component of the biliopancreatic diversion and duodenal switch in the era of open bariatric surgery. With the advent of minimally invasive surgery in the late 1980s, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been proposed as a step procedure in high-risk patients, followed by a second step Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or biliopancreatic diversion and duodenal switch and, recently, as a standalone bariatric approach. This article reviews the literature and reports the results achieved with LSG performed either as the initial operation for high-risk, high body mass index patients followed by a definitive weight loss operation, or used as a final viable alternative to other well-established bariatric procedures. An extensive literature review was conducted and the information currently available surrounding LSG, such as history, indications and contraindications, mechanism of weight loss, technique and outcomes and controversial issues are discussed. LSG is an accepted procedure for the surgical management of morbid obesity. It is gaining popularity as a primary, staged and revisional operation for its proven safety and simplicity, as well as short-term and mid-term efficacy. Excess weight loss and remission of comorbidities have been reported to take place in a frequency comparable with other well-established procedures. Despite all of the above-mentioned factors, long-term results and larger series are pending.

Chyloperitoneum after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB).

A true chylous effusion is defined as the presence of ascitic fluid with high fat (triglyceride) content, usually higher than 110 mg/dl. We report a case of chyloperitoneum following laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) in a 40-year-old patient who was admitted for surgery on May 31, 2007. On August 2008 an abdominal CT with contrast was ordered for chronic abdominal pain showing diffuse ascites as well as mesenteric adenitis. On September 2008, the patient was admitted to the hospital. An elective diagnostic laparoscopy was scheduled. A large amount of chylous fluid was found. Microscopic analysis came back negative. The patient made an uneventful recovery after surgery. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of chylous ascites following LRYGB. Chyloperitoneum should be considered as a possible cause of ascites in patients with chronic small bowel obstruction following a LRYGB.