Improving early cholecystectomy rate in acute cholecystitis with an evidence-based local multidisciplinary protocol and a surgical audit: single-center experience through an Acute Care Surgery Division.

PURPOSE: To analyze if, after implementation of an evidence-based local multidisciplinary protocol for acute cholecystitis (AC), an intermediate surgical audit could improve early cholecystectomy (EC) rate and other therapeutic indicators. METHODS: Longitudinal cohort study at a tertiary center. The local protocol, promoted, created, and periodically revised by the Acute Care Surgery Unit (ACSu) was updated and approved on March 2019. A specific registry was prospectively fulfilled with demographics, comorbidity, type of presentation, diagnostic items, therapeutic decision, and clinical course, considering both non-operative management (NOM) or cholecystectomy, early and delayed (EC and DC). Phase 1: April 2019-April 2021. A critical analysis and a surgical audit with the participation of all the involved Departments were then performed, especially focusing on improving global EC rate, considered primary outcome. Phase 2: May 2021-May 2023. Software SPSS 23.0 was used to compare data between phases. RESULTS: Initial EC rate was significantly higher on Phase 2 (39.3%vs52.5%, p < 0.004), as a significantly inferior rate of patients were initially bailed out from EC to NOM because of comorbidity (14.4%vs8%, p < 0.02) and grade II with severe inflammatory signs (7%vs3%, p < 0.04). A higher percentage of patients was recovered for EC after an initial decision of NOM on Phase 2, but without reaching statistical significance (21.8%vs29.2%, n.s.). Global EC rate significantly increased between phases (52.5%vs66.3%, p < 0.002) without increasing morbidity and mortality. A significant minor percentage of elective cholecystectomies after AC episodes had to be performed on Phase 2 (14%vs6.7%, p < 0.009). Complex EC and those indicated after readmission or NOM failure were usually performed by the ACSu staff. CONCLUSION: To adequately follow up the implementation of a local protocol for AC healthcare, registering and periodically analyzing data allow to perform intermediate surgical audits, useful to improve therapeutic indicators, especially EC rate. AC constitutes an ideal model to work with an ACSu.

Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of interval colectomy performed by acute care surgeons after stenting as a bridge to surgery for left-sided malignant colonic obstruction are non-inferior to the outcomes of colorectal surgeons in the elective setting: single center experience.

PURPOSE: To analyze if perioperative and oncologic outcomes with stenting as a bridge to surgery (SEMS-BS) and interval colectomy performed by acute care surgeons for left-sided occlusive colonic neoplasms (LSCON) are non-inferior to those obtained by colorectal surgeons for non-occlusive tumors of the same location in the full-elective context. METHODS: From January 2011 to January 2021, patients with LSCON at University Regional Hospital in Málaga (Spain) were directed to a SEMS-BS strategy with an interval colectomy performed by acute care surgeons and included in the study group (SEMS-BS). The control group was formed with patients from the Colorectal Division elective surgical activity dataset, matching by ASA, stage, location and year of surgery on a ratio 1:2. Stages IV or palliative stenting were excluded. Software SPSS 23.0 was used to analyze perioperative and oncologic (defined by overall -OS- and disease free -DFS-survival) outcomes. RESULTS: SEMS-BS and control group included 56 and 98 patients, respectively. In SEMS-BS group, rates of technical/clinical failure and perforation were 5.35% (3/56), 3.57% (2/56) and 3.57% (2/56). Surgery was performed with a median interval time of 11 days (9-16). No differences between groups were observed in perioperative outcomes (laparoscopic approach, primary anastomosis rate, morbidity or mortality). As well, no statistically significant differences were observed in OS and DFS between groups, both compared globally (OS:p < 0.94; DFS:p < 0.67, respectively) or by stages I-II (OS:p < 0.78; DFS:p < 0.17) and III (OS:p < 0.86; DFS:p < 0.70). CONCLUSION: Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of a strategy with SEMS-BS for LSCON are non-inferior to those obtained in the elective setting for non-occlusive neoplasms in the same location. Technical and oncologic safety of interval colectomy performed on a semi-scheduled situation by acute care surgeons is absolutely warranted.

Is liver transplantation without abdominal drainage safe?

UNLABELLED: This observational, analytical cohort consisted of 35 consecutive liver transplant (OLT) patients with no intra-abdominal drain and a control cohort of 35 subjects operated immediately before the former who had placement of an intra-abdominal drain. We sought to assess the impact of abdominal drainage on the diagnosis and prevention of early postoperative complications: hemoperitoneum, reinterventions, biliary leaks, or percutaneous drainage. We assessed variables related to the recipient (age, indication, pretransplant ascites, body mass index, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score and rejection), the donor (age, steatosis, ischemia time) and intra- and postoperative factors (surgery time, blood product use, and coagulopathy). The end point was defined as the need for a reintervention, paracentesis, appearance, and drainage of collections as well as lengths of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stays. The postoperative ICU and in-hospital stays were similar between groups (3.7 vs 3.9 days and 12 vs 14 days, respectively). Two patients in the group with drainage were reoperated due to hemoperitoneum, whereas we did not reoperate any patients in the group without drainage. No patient from either group developed a biliary fistula or required drainage of an intra-abdominal collections. The need for paracentesis was greater among the group without drainage (23% vs 5.7%; P < .04) and among those with a prior history of severe ascites. Patients with drainage displayed a greater incidence of perihepatic hematomas by ultrasound (53% vs 21%; P < .08) and required more postoperative blood products, especially platelets (P > .04) and plasma (P < .01). CONCLUSION: OLT without intra-abdominal drainage is safe, not increasing morbidity. It seems likely that drainage may be responsible for intra-abdominal hematomas and greater consumption of blood products.