Surgical management of acute cholecystitis: results of a 2-year prospective multicenter survey in Belgium.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is considered nowadays as the standard management of acute cholecystitis (AC). However, results from multicentric studies in the general surgical community are still lacking. METHODS: A prospective multicenter survey of surgical management of AC patients was conducted over a 2-year period in Belgium. Operative features and patients' clinical outcome were recorded. The impact of independent predictive factors on the choice of surgical approach, the risk of conversion, and the occurrence of postoperative complications was studied by multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-three surgeons consecutively and anonymously included 1,089 patients in this prospective study. A primary open approach was chosen in 74 patients (6.8%), whereas a laparoscopic approach was the first option in 1,015 patients (93.2%). Independent predictive factors for a primary open approach were previous history of upper abdominal surgery [odds ratio (OR) 4.13, p < 0.001], patient age greater than 70 years (OR 2.41, p < 0.05), surgeon with more than 10 years' experience (OR 2.08, p = 0.005), and gangrenous cholecystitis (OR 1.71, p < 0.05). In the laparoscopy group, 116 patients (11.4%) required conversion to laparotomy. Overall, 38 patients (3.5%) presented biliary complications and 49 had other local complications (4.5%). Incidence of bile duct injury was 1.2% in the whole series, 2.7% in the open group, and 1.1% in the laparoscopy group. Sixty patients had general complications (5.5%). The overall mortality rate was 0.8%. All patients who died were in poor general condition [American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) III or IV]. CONCLUSIONS: Although laparoscopic cholecystectomy is currently considered as the standard treatment for acute cholecystitis, an open approach is still a valid option in more advanced disease. However, overall mortality and incidence of bile duct injury remain high.

Intravenous lidocaine infusion facilitates acute rehabilitation after laparoscopic colectomy.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous infusion of lidocaine decreases postoperative pain and speeds the return of bowel function. The authors therefore tested the hypothesis that perioperative lidocaine infusion facilitates acute rehabilitation protocol in patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy. METHODS: Forty patients scheduled to undergo laparoscopic colectomy were randomly allocated to receive intravenous lidocaine (bolus injection of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine at induction of anesthesia, then a continuous infusion of 2 mg.kg.h intraoperatively and 1.33 mg.kg.h for 24 h postoperatively) or an equal volume of saline. All patients received similar intensive postoperative rehabilitation. Postoperative pain scores, opioid consumption, and fatigue scores were measured. Times to first flatus, defecation, and hospital discharge were recorded. Postoperative endocrine (cortisol and catecholamines) and metabolic (leukocytes, C-reactive protein, and glucose) responses were measured for 48 h. Data (presented as median [25-75% interquartile range], lidocaine vs. saline groups) were analyzed using Mann-Whitney tests. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Patient demographics were similar in the two groups. Times to first flatus (17 [11-24] vs. 28 [25-33] h; P<0.001), defecation (28 [24-37] vs. 51 [41-70] h; P=0.001), and hospital discharge (2 [2-3] vs. 3 [3-4] days; P=0.001) were significantly shorter in patients who received lidocaine. Lidocaine significantly reduced opioid consumption (8 [5-18] vs. 22 [14-36] mg; P=0.005) and postoperative pain and fatigue scores. In contrast, endocrine and metabolic responses were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous lidocaine improves postoperative analgesia, fatigue, and bowel function after laparoscopic colectomy. These benefits are associated with a significant reduction in hospital stay.

Carcinoid tumor of the appendix: a consecutive series from 1237 appendectomies.

AIM: To report the experience of the CHU Sart Tilman, University of Liege, Belgium, in the management of appendiceal carinoid tumor. METHODS: A retrospective review of 1237 appendectomies performed in one single centre from January 2000 to May 2004, was undertaken. Analysis of demographic data, clinical presentation, histopathology, operative reports and outcome was presented. RESULTS: Among the 1237 appendectomies, 5 appendiceal carcinoid tumors were identified (0.4%) in 4 male and 1 female patients, with a mean age of 29.2 years (range: 6-82 years). Acute appendicitis was the clinical presentation for all patients. Four patients underwent open appendectomy and one a laparoscopic procedure. One patient was reoperated to complete the excision of mesoappendix. All tumors were located at the tip of the appendix with a mean diameter of 0.6 cm (range: 0.3-1.0 cm). No adjuvant therapy was performed. All patients were alive and disease-free during a mean follow-up of 33 mo. CONCLUSION: Appendiceal carcinoid tumor most often presents as appendicitis. In most cases, it is found incidentally during appendectomies and its diagnosis is rarely suspected before histological examination. Appendiceal carcinoid tumor can be managed by simple appendectomy and resection of the mesoappendix, if its size is