ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate morbidity and mortality in patients taken to conversion to open procedure (CO) and subtotal laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) as bailout procedures when performing difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHOD: This observational cohort study retrospectively analyzed patients taken to SLC or CO as bailout surgery during difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy between 2014 and 2022. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify prognostic factors for morbimortality. RESULTS: A total of 675 patients were included. Of the 675 patients (mean [SD] age 63.85 ± 16.00 years; 390 [57.7%] male) included in the analysis, 452 (67%) underwent CO and 223 (33%) underwent SLC. Overall, neither procedure had an increased risk of major complications (89 [19.69%] vs 35 [15.69%] P.207). However, CO had an increased risk of bile duct injury (18 [3.98] vs 1 [0.44] P.009), bleeding (mean [SD] 165.43 ± 368.57 vs 43.25 ± 123.42 P < .001), intestinal injury (20 [4.42%] vs 0 [0.00] P.001), and wound infection (18 [3.98%] vs 2 [0.89%] P.026), while SLC had a higher risk of bile leak (15 [3.31] vs 16 [7.17] P.024). On the multivariable analysis, Charlson comorbidity index (odds ratio [OR], 1.20; CI95%, 1.01-1.42), use of anticoagulant agents (OR, 2.56; CI95%, 1.21-5.44), classification of severity of cholecystitis grade III (OR, 2.96; CI95%, 1.48-5.94), and emergency admission (OR, 6.07; CI95%, 1.33-27.74) were associated with presenting major complications. CONCLUSIONS: SLC was less associated with complications; however, there is scant evidence on its long-term outcomes. Further research is needed on SLC to establish if it is the safest in the long-term as a bailout procedure.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This study aims to identify which risk factors are associated with the appearance of an incisional hernia in a stoma site after its closure. This in the sake of identifying which patients would benefit from a preventative intervention and thus start implementing a cost-effective protocol for prophylactic mesh placement in high-risk patients. METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane library, and ScienceDirect was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting incidence, risk factors, and follow-up time for appearance of incisional hernia after stoma site closure were included. A fixed-effects and random effects models were used to calculate odds ratios' estimates and standardized mean values with their respective grouped 95% confidence interval. This to evaluate the association between possible risk factors and the appearance of incisional hernia after stoma site closure. RESULTS: Seventeen studies totaling 2899 patients were included. Incidence proportion between included studies was of 16.76% (CI95% 12.82; 21.62). Out of the evaluated factors higher BMI (p = 0.0001), presence of parastomal hernia (p = 0.0023), colostomy (p = 0,001), and end stoma (p = 0.0405) were associated with the appearance of incisional hernia in stoma site after stoma closure, while malignant disease (p = 0.0084) and rectum anterior resection (p = 0.0011) were found to be protective factors. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic mesh placement should be considered as an effective preventative intervention in high-risk patients (obese patients, patients with parastomal hernia, colostomy, and end stoma patients) with the goal of reducing incisional hernia rates in stoma site after closure while remaining cost-effective.
