Bailout Surgery for Difficult Gallbladders: Surgical Approach and Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Inflammation in acute cholecystitis may cause a cholecystectomy to be more challenging. Due to the difficult dissection, conversion to subtotal cholecystectomy via laparoscopic or open procedure may be required. This is done to reduce the risk of bile duct injury and hemorrhage. We sought to describe the incidence and risk factors, safety, morbidity, and outcomes associated with bailout procedures. METHODS: A single academic center, retrospective review of laparoscopic cholecystectomies that resulted in bailout procedures performed between January 2015 and December 2020. Data collected from the chart review included demographics, comorbidities, length of presenting symptoms, vital signs, laboratory and imaging, intraoperative findings, length of surgery, and outcome. RESULTS: A total of 1892 cholecystectomies were performed with 147 bailout procedures. For bailout 92 (63.4%) were converted to open, with 66% resulting in complete cholecystectomy. Hypertension and diabetes were the most common comorbidities. The median duration of symptoms was 4 days. Difficult anatomy in the hepatocystic triangle (66%) and dense adhesions (31%) were the most common reasons for bailout. The mean duration of surgery was 145.76 (SD 102.94) minutes. There were 2 bile duct injuries, both in open total cholecystectomy subgroup. Bile leak occurred in 23.8% with majority in subtotal cholecystectomy group. There was no difference in hospital length of stay, surgical site infection, or mortality among different bailout procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Subtotal cholecystectomy represents a safe alternative to total cholecystectomy during challenging cases to avoid damaging surrounding structures. The choice of laparoscopic or open subtotal approach is dependent on the surgeons' expertise.

Contemporary management and outcomes of penetrating colon injuries: Validation of the 2020 AAST Colon Organ Injury Scale.

INTRODUCTION: The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Colon Organ Injury Scale (OIS) was updated in 2020 to include a separate OIS for penetrating colon injuries and included imaging criteria. In this multicenter study, we describe the contemporary management and outcomes of penetrating colon injuries and hypothesize that the 2020 OIS system correlates with operative management, complications, and outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients presenting to 12 Level 1 trauma centers between 2016 and 2020 with penetrating colon injuries and Abbreviated Injury Scale score of <3 in other body regions. We assessed the association of the new OIS with surgical management and clinical outcomes and the association of OIS imaging criteria with operative criteria. Bivariate analysis was done with χ 2 , analysis of variance, and Kruskal-Wallis, where appropriate. Multivariable models were constructed in a stepwise selection fashion. RESULTS: We identified 573 patients with penetrating colon injuries. Patients were young and predominantly male; 79% suffered a gunshot injury, 11% had a grade V destructive injury, 19% required ≥6 U of transfusion, 24% had an Injury Severity Score of >15, and 42% had moderate-to-large contamination. Higher OIS was independently associated with a lower likelihood of primary repair, higher likelihood of resection with anastomosis and/or diversion, need for damage-control laparotomy, and higher incidence of abscess, wound infection, extra-abdominal infections, acute kidney injury, and lung injury. Damage control was independently associated with diversion and intra-abdominal and extra-abdominal infections. Preoperative imaging in 152 (27%) cases had a low correlation with operative findings ( κ coefficient, 0.13). CONCLUSION: This is the largest study to date of penetrating colon injuries and the first multicenter validation of the new OIS specific to these injuries. While imaging criteria alone lacked strong predictive value, operative American Association for the Surgery of Trauma OIS colon grade strongly predicted type of interventions and outcomes, supporting use of this grading scale for research and clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.