Feasibility of Prospectively Comparing Opioid Analgesia With Opioid-Free Analgesia After Outpatient General Surgery: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The overprescription of opioids to surgical patients is recognized as an important factor contributing to the opioid crisis. However, the value of prescribing opioid analgesia (OA) vs opioid-free analgesia (OFA) after postoperative discharge remains uncertain. Objective: To investigate the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomized clinical trial (RCT) to assess the comparative effectiveness of OA vs OFA after outpatient general surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel, 2-group, assessor-blind, pragmatic pilot RCT was conducted from January 29 to September 3, 2020 (last follow-up on October 2, 2020). at 2 university-affiliated hospitals in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Participants were adult patients (aged ≥18 years) undergoing outpatient abdominal (ie, cholecystectomy, appendectomy, or hernia repair) or breast (ie, partial or total mastectomy) general surgical procedures. Exclusion criteria were contraindications to drugs used in the trial, preoperative opioid use, conditions that could affect assessment of outcomes, and intraoperative or early complications requiring hospitalization. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive OA (around-the-clock nonopioids and opioids for breakthrough pain) or OFA (around-the-clock nonopioids with increasing doses and/or addition of nonopioid medications for breakthrough pain) after postoperative discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were a priori RCT feasibility criteria (ie, rates of surgeon agreement, patient eligibility, patient consent, treatment adherence, loss to follow-up, and missing follow-up data). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity and interference, analgesic intake, 30-day unplanned health care use, and adverse events. Between-group comparison of outcomes followed the intention-to-treat principle. Results: A total of 15 surgeons were approached; all (100%; 95% CI, 78%-100%) agreed to have patients recruited and adhered to the study procedures. Rates of patient eligibility and consent were 73% (95% CI, 66%-78%) and 57% (95% CI, 49%-65%), respectively. Seventy-six patients were randomized (39 [51%] to OA and 37 [49%] to OFA) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis (mean [SD] age, 55.5 [14.5] years; 50 [66%] female); 40 (53%) underwent abdominal surgery, and 36 (47%) underwent breast surgery. Seventy-five patients (99%; 95% CI, 93%-100%) adhered to the allocated treatment; 1 patient randomly assigned to OFA received an opioid prescription. Seventeen patients (44%) randomly assigned to OA consumed opioids after discharge. Seventy-three patients (96%; 95% CI, 89%-99%) completed the 30-day follow-up. The rate of missing questionnaires was 37 of 3724 (1%; 95% CI, 0.7%-1.4%). All the a priori RCT feasibility criteria were fulfilled. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this pilot RCT support the feasibility of conducting a robust, full-scale RCT to inform evidence-based prescribing of analgesia after outpatient general surgery. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04254679.

Evidence-based Reviews in Surgery: Early Cholecystectomy for Cholecystitis.

QUESTION: What are the clinical outcomes of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in acute cholecystitis with more than 72 hours of symptoms? DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Single center at the University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland. PATIENTS: Eighty-six patients were enrolled in the study that had symptoms of acute cholecystitis lasting more than 72 hours before admission. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to early LC or delayed LC. MAIN OUTCOME: Primary outcome was overall morbidity following initial diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included total length of stay, duration of antibiotic used, cost, and surgical outcome. RESULTS: Overall morbidity was lower in early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC) [6 (14%) vs 17 (39%) patients, P = 0.015]. Median total length of stay (4 vs 7 days, P < 0.001) and duration of antibiotic therapy (2 vs 10 days, P < 0.001) were shorter in the ELC group. Total hospital costs were lower in ELC (9349&OV0556; vs 12,361&OV0556;, P = 0.018). Operative time and postoperative complications were similar (91 vs 88 minutes; P = 0.910) and (15% vs 17%; P = 1.000), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ELC for acute cholecystitis even beyond 72 hours of symptoms is safe and associated with less overall morbidity, shorter total hospital stay, and duration of antibiotic therapy, as well as reduced cost compared with delayed cholecystectomy.

Novel two-step resection for lesions between the middle hepatic vein and vena cava which allows the middle hepatic vein to be preserved.

Patients with bilobar colorectal cancer metastases to the liver present a unique problem in terms of resection. They sometimes require a staged approach to resection that takes advantage of the liver's ability to regenerate, as well as the newer chemotherapeutic agents (e.g., oxaloplatin, irinotecan (CPT-11), and bevacizumab) that have become available. In cases of multiple bilobar metastases, if segment IV is clear of tumor, a left lateral segmentectomy (LLS) can be performed, followed several months later by a formal right hepatectomy. The remnant liver composed of the hypertrophied segment IV is drained by the middle hepatic vein (MHV). In this context, patients with lesions between the origin of the MHV and the inferior vena cava (IVC) present a particularly difficult problem. Conventional excision would require an extended hepatectomy and division of the MHV along with either the right or left hepatic veins (RHV, LHV). This would make it impossible to continue with a formal resection of the remaining lesions in the contralateral liver without sacrificing the sole remaining hepatic vein. We present a novel two-step hepatectomy for lesions between the MHV and the IVC that allows the MHV to be preserved and all lesions to be resected.

Antithymocyte globulin induction therapy in hepatitis C-positive liver transplant recipients.

It is unclear whether antithymocyte globulin (ATG) induction therapy in hepatitis C-positive (HCV-positive) liver transplant recipients influences the risk of developing recurrent HCV disease. Multiple acute rejection episodes and high-dose steroids and/or OKT3 used to treat acute rejection increase the risk of graft loss from HCV. We studied the impact of ATG induction on graft and patient survival in HCV-positive liver transplants performed since 1990. Recipients who died or lost their grafts within 1 month of transplantation were excluded. Second, third, and fourth grafts were excluded, as were patients with stage III or IV hepatocellular carcinoma. There were 443 cadaveric liver transplants in adult recipients, of whom 142 (32%) were HCV positive. The incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection was less in patients who received ATG induction, 34.2% (ATG induction) versus 66.6% (no ATG induction) (P