Evaluación del uso adecuado de la laparoscopia hepatobiliar en la colelitiasis sintomática / Assessing the appropriate use of hepatobiliary laparoscopy in symptomatic chol elithiasis

ANTECEDENTES. La colelitiasis es una de las patologías más frecuentes del tubo digestivo. A pesar de los ensayos clínicos realizados que comparan las técnicas de colecistectomía abierta o laparoscópica, falta una lista de indicaciones para los diferentes perfiles de pacientes. Desde la introducción de la cirugía laparoscópica se ha abierto un amplio abanico de indicaciones para este procedimiento. El objetivo de este estudio fue desarrollar estándares de uso adecuado de la cirugía laparoscópica en pacientes con colelitiasis. MÉTODO. Se siguió el método RAND para elaborar criterios de uso adecuado de la laparoscopia hepatobiliar en la colelitiasis sintomática. Un panel de 7 expertos puntuó el grado de uso adecuado de cada indicación en una escala de 1 (muy inadecuado) a 9 (muy adecuado). Las puntuaciones se realizaron dos veces, en la primera ronda, de forma independiente por cada experto, y en la segunda ronda, durante una reunión presencial. Según la mediana de las puntuaciones de los panelistas y su nivel de acuerdo, cada indicación se clasificó como adecuada, dudosa o inadecuada. RESULTADOS. Los expertos señalaron que para la cirugía laparotómica, 2 indicaciones (12,5%) fueron consideradas adecuadas, 12 (75%) dudosas y 2 (12,5%) inadecuadas; mientras que para la cirugía laparoscópica, 9 indicaciones (56,25%) fueron consideradas adecuadas, 3 (18,75%) dudosas y 4 (25%) inadecuadas. CONCLUSIONES. Todavía hay incertidumbre con respecto a la gestión de la colelitiasis, mostrando la necesidad de una mayor investigación. La metodología RAM ayuda a dilucidar la adecuación de las diferentes opciones de tratamiento en situaciones clínicas específicas (AU)

BACKGROUND. Cholelithiasis is one of the most common diseases of the digestive tract. Despite clinical trials comparing the techniques of laparotomy or laparoscopic cholecystectomy, there is a lack of a list of indications for different patient profiles. Since the introduction of laparoscopic surgery, a wide range of indications for this procedure have been started. The aim ofthis study was to develop standards for the appropriate use of laparoscopic surgery in patients with cholelithiasis. METHOD. We conducted a study following the RAND appropriateness method (RAM) to develop criteria for hepatobiliary laparoscopy in symptomatic cholelithiasis. A panel comprised of 7 experts rated the appropriateness of a set of indications, from 1 (very inappropriate) to 9 (very appropriate). The panelists performed ratings in 2 rounds. The first round was performed independently by every expert. The second round took place during a face-to-face meeting. According to the median ratings and agreement criteria, every indication was classified as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate. RESULTS. The experts indicated that for the laparotomy surgery, 2 (12.5%) indications were judged as appropriate, 12 (75%) as uncertain, and 2 (12.5%) as inappropriate; while for laparoscopic surgery, 9 indications (56.25%) were considered as appropriate, 3 (18.75%) as uncertain, and 4 (25%) as inappropriate CONCLUSIONS. There is still uncertainty with respect to the management of cholelithiasis, showing the necessity of further investigation. The RAM helps to elucidate appropriateness for the different treatment options in specific clinical settings (AU)

Assessing the appropriate use of laparoscopic surgery for hepatobiliary diseases.

BACKGROUND: The range of indications for laparoscopic surgery has widened since it was first introduced. The aim of the present study was to develop standards for the appropriate use of laparoscopic surgery in patients with choledocholithiasis or cholelithiasis. METHOD: We conducted a study following the RAND appropriateness method (RAM) to develop criteria for hepatobiliary laparoscopy. A panel comprised of 7 experts rated the appropriateness of a set of indications, from 1 (very inappropriate) to 9 (very appropriate). The panelists performed ratings in 2 rounds. The first round was performed independently by every expert. The second round took place during a face-to-face meeting. According to the median of panelists' ratings and agreement criteria, every indication was classified as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate. RESULTS: In the first round, 112 (46.7%) indications were judged as appropriate, 102 (42.5%) as uncertain, and 26 (10.8%) as inappropriate. In the second round, 99 indications (48.5%) were considered as appropriate, 81 (39.7%) as uncertain, and 24 (11.8%) as inappropriate. Disagreement between panelists decreased in the second round compared with the first round. Thirteen indications were rated as disagreement (6.4%), 125 as uncertain (61.3%), and 66 as agreement (32.3%), while in the first round, the results and proportions were 44 (18.3%), 132 (55.0%), and 64 (26.7%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: By using RAM, the panel was able to develop detailed explicit appropriateness criteria for the proper application of hepatobiliary laparoscopy. The criteria may be used prospectively to help in making clinical decisions or retrospectively to assess the overuse of clinical procedures.