ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Dense inflammation obscuring the hepatocystic anatomy can hinder the ability to perform a safe standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy in severe cholecystitis, requiring use of a bailout procedure. We compared clinical outcomes of laparoscopic and open subtotal cholecystectomy against the traditional standard of open total cholecystectomy to identify the optimal bailout strategy for the difficult gallbladder. METHODS: A multicenter, multinational retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent bailout procedures for severe cholecystitis. Procedures were compared using one-way analysis of variance/Kruskal-Wallis tests and χ2 tests with multiple pairwise comparisons, maintaining a family-wise error rate at 0.05. Multiple multivariate linear/logistical regression models were created. RESULTS: In 11 centers, 727 bailout procedures were conducted: 317 laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomies, 172 open subtotal cholecystectomies, and 238 open cholecystectomies. Baseline characteristics were similar among subgroups. Bile leak was common in laparoscopic and open fenestrating subtotal cholecystectomies, with increased intraoperative drain placements and postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(P < .05). In contrast, intraoperative bleeding (odds ratio = 3.71 [1.9, 7.22]), surgical site infection (odds ratio = 2.41 [1.09, 5.3]), intensive care unit admission (odds ratio = 2.65 [1.51, 4.63]), and length of stay (Δ = 2 days, P < .001) were higher in open procedures. Reoperation rates were higher for open reconstituting subtotal cholecystectomies (odds ratio = 3.43 [1.03, 11.44]) than other subtypes. The overall rate of bile duct injury was 1.1% and was not statistically different between groups. Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy had a bile duct injury rate of 0.63%. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy is a feasible surgical bailout procedure in cases of severe cholecystitis where standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy may carry undue risk of bile duct injury. Open cholecystectomy remains a reasonable option.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Emergency general surgery (EGS) represents a diverse set of operations performed on acutely ill patients. Those undergoing EGS are at higher likelihood of complications, readmission, and death, but the effect of primary language on EGS outcomes has not been evaluated. We aimed to evaluate the association of non-English primary language on outcomes after EGS operations. METHODS: The New Jersey Statewide Inpatient Database from 2009 to 2014 was used to evaluate cases representing 80% of the national burden of EGS. Cases were restricted to ages ≥18 y, emergency department admissions, noted to be emergent or urgent, and performed between 0 and 2 d after admission. We evaluated Spanish speakers and non-English, non-Spanish (NENS) speakers compared with English. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, 7-d readmission, and hospital length of stay (LOS). Logistic and negative binomial regression was used, and generalized linear mixed models were used to account for hierarchy in the data. RESULTS: There were 105,171 patients included. English speakers were majority white and with private insurance; Spanish speakers were younger and with fewer comorbidities. Where differences between Spanish and NENS speakers existed, NENS were more like the English-speaking group. Adjusted results indicate that Spanish speakers had reduced LOS after appendectomy (IRR: 0.92 [0.89-0.95]) and lysis of adhesion [0.93 (0.88-0.97)]. Spanish speakers had an increased LOS after higher risk operations (IRR: 1.14 [1.10-1.20]). NENS speakers had a reduced LOS after adhesiolysis (IRR: 0.94 [0.89-0.99]). There was no difference in mortality or short-term readmission CONCLUSIONS: These data from a large database suggest that the effect of primary language on LOS after EGS depends on the type of operation. Future studies should focus on long-term outcomes and determining if the lack of association we observed is generalizable to other regions of the United States.
