Patients over 65 years with Acute Complicated Calculous Biliary Disease are Treated Differently-Results and Insights from the ESTES Snapshot Audit

Prophylactic cholecystectomy offers best outcomes following ERCP clearance of common bile duct stones: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Symptomatic calculus biliary disease is common with associated morbidity and occasional mortality, further confounded when there is concomitant common bile duct (CBD) stones. Choledocholithiasis and clearance of the duct reduces recurrent cholangitis, but the question is whether after clearance of the CBD if there is a need to perform a cholecystectomy. This meta-analysis evaluated outcomes in patients undergoing ERCP with or without sphincterotomy to determine if cholecystectomy post-ERCP clearance offers optimal outcomes over a wait-and-see approach.

METHODS

A Prospero registered meta-analysis of the literature using PRISMA guidelines incorporating articles related to ERCP, choledocholithiasis, cholangitis and cholecystectomy was undertaken for papers published between 1st January 1991 and 31st May 2021. Existing research that demonstrates outcomes of ERCP with no cholecystectomy versus ERCP and cholecystectomy was reviewed to determine the related key events, complications and mortality of leaving the gallbladder in situ and removing it. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated using Review Manager Version 5.4 and meta-analyses performed using OR using fixed-effect (or random-effect) models, depending on the heterogeneity of studies.

RESULTS

13 studies (n = 2598), published between 2002 and 2019, were included in this meta-analysis, 6 retrospective, 2 propensity score-matched retrospective studies, 3 prospective studies and 2 randomised control trials from a total of 11 countries. There were 1433 in the no cholecystectomy cohort (55.2%) and 1165 in the prophylactic cholecystectomy (44.8%) cohort. Cholecystectomy resulted in a decreased risk of cholecystitis (OR = 0.15; CI 0.07-0.36; p < 0.0001), cholangitis (OR = 0.51; CI 0.26-1.00; p = 0.05) and mortality (OR = 0.38; CI 0.16-0.9; p = 0.03). In addition, prophylactic cholecystectomy resulted in a significant reduction in biliary events, biliary pain and pancreatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing CBD clearance, consideration should be given to performing prophylactic cholecystectomy to optimise outcomes.

The snapshot audit methodology: design, implementation and analysis of prospective observational cohort studies in surgery

PURPOSE

For some surgical conditionns and scientific questions, the "real world" effectiveness of surgical patient care may be better explored using a multi-institutional time-bound observational cohort assessment approach (termed a "snapshot audit") than by retrospective review of administrative datasets or by prospective randomized control trials. We discuss when this might be the case, and present the key features of developing, deploying, and assessing snapshot audit outcomes data.

METHODS

A narrative review of snapshot audit methodology was generated using the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA) guideline. Manuscripts were selected from domains including: audit design and deployment, statistical analysis, surgical therapy and technique, surgical outcomes, diagnostic testing, critical care management, concomitant non-surgical disease, implementation science, and guideline compliance.

RESULTS

Snapshot audits all conform to a similar structure: being time-bound, non-interventional, and multi-institutional. A successful diverse steering committee will leverage expertise that includes clinical care and data science, coupled with librarian services. Pre-published protocols (with specified aims and analyses) greatly helps site recruitment. Mentored trainee involvement at collaborating sites should be encouraged through manuscript contributorship. Current funding principally flows from medical professional organizations.

CONCLUSION

The snapshot audit approach to assessing current care provides insights into care delivery, outcomes, and guideline compliance while generating testable hypotheses.

Techniques for mesoappendix transection and appendix resection: insights from the ESTES SnapAppy study

INTRODUCTION

Surgically managed appendicitis exhibits great heterogeneity in techniques for mesoappendix transection and appendix amputation from its base. It is unclear whether a particular surgical technique provides outcome benefit or reduces complications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We undertook a pre-specified subgroup analysis of all patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy at index admission during SnapAppy (ClinicalTrials.gov Registration: NCT04365491). We collected routine, anonymized observational data regarding surgical technique, patient demographics and indices of disease severity, without change to clinical care pathway or usual surgeon preference. Outcome measures of interest were the incidence of complications, unplanned reoperation, readmission, admission to the ICU, death, hospital length of stay, and procedure duration. We used Poisson regression models with robust standard errors to calculate incident rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Three-thousand seven hundred sixty-eight consecutive adult patients, included from 71 centers in 14 countries, were followed up from date of admission for 90 days. The mesoappendix was divided hemostatically using electrocautery in 1564(69.4%) and an energy device in 688(30.5%). The appendix was amputated by division of its base between looped ligatures in 1379(37.0%), with a stapler in 1421(38.1%) and between clips in 929(24.9%). The technique for securely dividing the appendix at its base in acutely inflamed (AAST Grade 1) appendicitis was equally divided between division between looped ligatures, clips and stapled transection. However, the technique used differed in complicated appendicitis (AAST Grade 2 +) compared with uncomplicated (Grade 1), with a shift toward transection of the appendix base by stapler (58% vs. 38%; p < 0.001). While no statistical difference in outcomes could be detected between different techniques for division of appendix base, decreased risk of any [adjusted IRR (95% CI): 0.58 (0.41-0.82), p = 0.002] and severe [adjusted IRR (95% CI): 0.33 (0.11-0.96), p = 0.045] complications could be detected when using energy devices.

CONCLUSIONS

Safe mesoappendix transection and appendix resection are accomplished using heterogeneous techniques. Technique selection for both mesoappendix transection and appendix resection correlates with AAST grade. Higher grade led to more ultrasonic tissue transection and stapled appendix resection. Higher AAST appendicitis grade also correlated with infection-related complication occurrence. Despite the overall well-tolerated heterogeneity of approaches to acute appendicitis, increasing disease acuity or complexity appears to encourage homogeneity of intraoperative surgical technique toward advanced adjuncts.

Common bile duct stones management: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Timely management is critical for treating symptomatic common bile duct (CBD) stones; however, a single optimal management strategy has yet to be defined in the acute care setting. Consequently, this systematic review and network meta-analysis, comparing one-stage (CBD exploration or intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography [ERCP] with simultaneous cholecystectomy) and two-stage (precholecystectomy or postcholecystectomy ERCP) procedures, was undertaken with the main outcomes of interest being postprocedural complications and hospital length of stay (LOS).

METHODS

PubMed, SCOPUS, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were methodically queried for articles from 2010 to 2021. The search terms were a combination of medical subject headings terms and the subsequent terms: gallstone; common bile duct (stone); choledocholithiasis; cholecystitis; endoscopic retrograde cholangiography/ERCP; common bile duct exploration; intraoperative, preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography; stone extraction; and one-stage and two-stage procedure. Studies that compared two procedures or more were included, whereas studies not recording complications (bile leak, hemorrhage, pancreatitis, perforation, intra-abdominal infections, and other infections) or LOS were excluded. A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the four different approaches for managing CBD stones.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies (8,644 participants) addressing the LOS and 41 studies (19,756 participants) addressing postprocedural complications were included in the analysis. The one-stage approaches were associated with a decrease in LOS compared with the two-stage approaches. Common bile duct exploration demonstrated a lower overall risk of complications compared with preoperative ERCP, but there were no differences in the overall risk of complications in the remaining comparisons. However, differences in specific postprocedural complications were detected between the four different approaches managing CBD stones.

CONCLUSION

This network meta-analysis suggests that both laparoscopic CBD exploration and intraoperative ERCP have equally good outcomes and provide a preferable single-anesthesia patient pathway with a shorter overall length of hospital stay compared with the two-stage approaches.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic Review/Meta Analysis; Level III.