Open Versus Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease: A Propensity-matched Study of the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit

ASGBI trauma committee position statement: a national audit of trauma laparotomy in the UK - an unmet need

Patients who undergo laparotomy for major trauma are amongst the most critically unwell patients, and they have high morbidity and mortality rates. Despite 20 yr of improvements in resuscitation practices, those who present with hypotension continue to have mortality rates of up to 50%. Currently there is no mechanism for capturing national audit data on these patients, leading to their exclusion from potential quality improvement initiatives. We argue that there is an unmet need for quality assurance in this patient cohort and outline possible mechanisms to address this.

Laparoscopic Treatment of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Interrupted Stitches Repair versus Knotless Barbed Suture

Background: Peptic ulcers result from imbalanced acid production, and in recent decades, proton pump inhibitors have proven effective in treating them. However, perforated peptic ulcers (PPU) continue to occur with a persistent high mortality rate when not managed properly. The advantages of the laparoscopic approach have been widely acknowledged. Nevertheless, concerning certain technical aspects of this method, such as the best gastrorrhaphy technique, the consensus remains elusive. Consequently, the choice tends to rely on individual surgical experiences. Our study aimed to compare interrupted stitches versus running barbed suture for laparoscopic PPU repair. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study utilizing propensity score matching analysis on patients who underwent laparoscopic PPU repair. Patients were categorised into two groups: Interrupted Stitches Suture (IStiS) and Knotless Suture (KnotS). We then compared the clinical and pathological characteristics of patients in both groups. Results: A total of 265 patients underwent laparoscopic PPU repair: 198 patients with interrupted stitches technique and 67 with barbed knotless suture. Following propensity score matching, each group (IStiS and KnotS) comprised 56 patients. The analysis revealed that operative time did not differ between groups: 87.9 ± 39.7 vs. 92.8 ± 42.6 min (p = 0.537). Postoperative morbidity (24.0% vs. 32.7%, p = 0.331) and Clavien-Dindo III (10.7% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.489) were more frequently observed in the KnotS group, without any significant difference. In contrast, we found a slightly higher mortality rate in the IStiS group (10.7% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.742). Concerning leaks, no differences emerged between groups (3.6% vs. 5.4%, p = 1.000). Conclusions: Laparoscopic PPU repair with knotless barbed sutures is a non-inferior alternative to interrupted stitches repair. Nevertheless, further research such as randomised trials, with a standardised treatment protocol according to ulcer size, are required to identify the best gastrorraphy technique.

Comparison of major abdominal emergency surgery outcomes across organizational models of emergency surgical care: Analysis of the UK NELA national database

BACKGROUND

Emergency general surgery (EGS) admissions account for a large proportion of surgical care and represent the majority of surgical patients who suffer in-hospital mortality. Health care systems continue to experience growing demand for emergency services: one way in which this is being increasingly addressed is dedicated subspecialty teams for emergency surgical admissions, most commonly termed "emergency general surgery" in the United Kingdom. This study aims to understand the impact of the emergency general surgery model of care on outcomes from emergency laparotomies.

METHODS

Data was obtained from the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit database. Patients were dichotomized into EGS hospital or non-EGS hospital. Emergency general surgery hospital is defined as a hospital where >50% of in-hours emergency laparotomy operating is performed by an emergency general surgeon. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were intensive therapy unit (ITU) length of stay and duration of hospital stay. A propensity score weighting approach was used to reduce confounding and selection bias.

RESULTS

There were 115,509 patients from 175 hospitals included in the final analysis. The EGS hospital care group included 5,789 patients versus 109,720 patients in the non-EGS group. Following propensity score weighting, mean standardized mean difference reduced from 0.055 to <0.001. In-hospital mortality was similar (10.8% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.094), with mean length of stay (16.7 days vs. 16.1 days, p < 0.001) and ITU stay (2.8 days vs. 2.6 days, p < 0.001) persistently longer in patients treated in EGS systems.

CONCLUSION

No significant association between the emergency surgery hospital model of care and in-hospital mortality in emergency laparotomy patients was seen. There is a significant association between the emergency surgery hospital model of care and an increased length of ITU stay and overall hospital stay. Further studies are required to examine the impact of changing models of EGS delivery in the United Kingdom.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is widely adopted across nearly all surgical subspecialties in the elective setting. Initially finding indication in minor abdominal emergencies, it has gradually become the standard approach in the majority of elective general surgery procedures. Despite many technological advances and increasing acceptance, the laparoscopic approach remains underutilized in emergency general surgery and in abdominal trauma. Emergency laparotomy continues to carry a high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been a growing interest from emergency and trauma surgeons in adopting minimally invasive surgery approaches in the acute surgical setting. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a review of the literature to reach a consensus on the indications and benefits of a laparoscopic-first approach in patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies or abdominal trauma.

METHODS

This position paper was developed according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee performed the literature review and drafted the position paper. An international panel of 54 experts then critically revised the manuscript and discussed it in detail, to develop a consensus on a position statement.

RESULTS

A total of 323 studies (systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized clinical trial, retrospective comparative cohort studies, case series) have been selected from an initial pool of 7409 studies. Evidence demonstrates several benefits of the laparoscopic approach in stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgical emergencies or abdominal trauma. The selection of a stable patient seems to be of paramount importance for a safe adoption of a laparoscopic approach. In hemodynamically stable patients, the laparoscopic approach was found to be safe, feasible and effective as a therapeutic tool or helpful to identify further management steps and needs, resulting in improved outcomes, regardless of conversion. Appropriate patient selection, surgeon experience and rigorous minimally invasive surgical training, remain crucial factors to increase the adoption of laparoscopy in emergency general surgery and abdominal trauma.

CONCLUSIONS

The WSES expert panel suggests laparoscopy as the first approach for stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.

Propensity score matching analysis of laparoscopic surgery vs. open approach in 4 297 adult patients with acute appendicitis, acute cholecystitis or gastrointestinal tract perforation: a prospective multicentre study of nationwide outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Previous studies indicated that laparoscopic surgery could improve postoperative outcomes in acute appendicitis, acute cholecystitis, perforated gastroduodenal ulcer, or acute diverticulitis, but some reported opposite results or differences in the magnitude of improvement. A contemporary analysis using propensity score matching that compares outcomes is lacking.

METHODS

Over a 6-month period, 38 centres (5% of all public hospitals) attending emergency general surgery patients on a 24 h, 7 days a week basis, enroled all consecutive adult patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery or open approach.

RESULTS

The study included 2 645 patients with acute appendicitis [32 years (22-51), 44.3% women], 1 182 with acute cholecystitis [65 years (48-76); 46.7% women], and 470 with gastrointestinal tract perforation [65 years (50-76); 34% women]. After propensity score matching, hospital stays decreased in acute appendicitis [open, 2 days (2-4); lap, 2 days (1-4); P <0.001], acute cholecystitis [open, 7 days (4-12); lap, 4 days (3-6); P <0.001], and gastrointestinal tract perforation [open, 11 days (7-17); lap, 6 days (5-8.5); P <0.001]. A decrease in 30-day morbidity was observed in acute appendicitis (open, 15.7%; lap, 9.7%; P <0.001), acute cholecystitis (open, 41%; lap, 21.7%; P <0.001), and gastrointestinal tract perforation (open, 45.2%; lap, 23.5%; P <0.001). A decrease in 30-day mortality was found in acute cholecystitis (open, 8.8%; lap, 2.8%; P =0.013) and gastrointestinal tract perforation (open, 10.4%; lap, 1.7%; P =0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

This clinically based, multicentre study suggests that an initial laparoscopic approach could be considered not only in patients with acute appendicitis or acute cholecystitis but also in patients with a perforation of the gastrointestinal tract.

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) treatment: an Italian nationwide propensity score-matched cohort study investigating laparoscopic vs open approach

BACKGROUND

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) remain a surgical emergency accounting for 37% of all peptic ulcer-related deaths. Surgery remains the standard of care. The benefits of laparoscopic approach have been well-established even in the elderly. However, because of inconsistent results with specific regard to some technical aspects of such technique surgeons questioned the adoption of laparoscopic approach. This leads to choose the type of approach based on personal experience. The aim of our study was to critically appraise the use of the laparoscopic approach in PPU treatment comparing it with open procedure.

METHODS

A retrospective study with propensity score matching analysis of patients underwent surgical procedure for PPU was performed. Patients undergoing PPU repair were divided into: Laparoscopic approach (LapA) and Open approach (OpenA) groups and clinical-pathological features of patients in the both groups were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 453 patients underwent PPU simple repair. Among these, a LapA was adopted in 49% (222/453 patients). After propensity score matching, 172 patients were included in each group (the LapA and the OpenA). Analysis demonstrated increased operative times in the OpenA [OpenA: 96.4 ± 37.2 vs LapA 88.47 ± 33 min, p = 0.035], with shorter overall length of stay in the LapA group [OpenA 13 ± 12 vs LapA 10.3 ± 11.4 days p = 0.038]. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality [OpenA 26 (15.1%) vs LapA 18 (10.5%), p = 0.258]. Focusing on morbidity, the overall rate of 30-day postoperative morbidity was significantly lower in the LapA group [OpenA 67 patients (39.0%) vs LapA 37 patients (21.5%) p = 0.002]. When stratified using the Clavien-Dindo classification, the severity of postoperative complications was statistically different only for C-D 1-2.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the present study, we can support that laparoscopic suturing of perforated peptic ulcers, apart from being a safe technique, could provide significant advantages in terms of postoperative complications and hospital stay.

Feasibility of laparoscopy and factors associated with conversion to open in minimally invasive emergency major abdominal surgery: population database analysis

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence regarding the overall feasibility and success rates of the laparoscopic approach in major emergency surgery, despite its potential to improve outcomes. This study aims to investigate the association between patient, procedural, and surgical factors and likelihood of successful laparoscopic completion in emergency major surgery and derive a predictive model to aid clinical decision-making.

METHOD

All patients recorded in the NELA emergency laparotomy database 1 December 2013-31 November 2018 who underwent laparoscopically attempted surgery were included. A retrospective cohort multivariable regression analysis was conducted for the outcome of conversion to open surgery. A predictive model was developed and internally validated.

RESULTS

Of 118,355 patients, 17,040 (7.7%) underwent attempted laparoscopic surgery, of which 7.915 (46.4%) were converted to open surgery. Procedure type was the strongest predictor of conversion (compared to washout as reference, small bowel resection OR 25.93 (95% CI 20.42-32.94), right colectomy OR 6.92 (5.5-8.71)). Diagnostic [free pus, blood, or blood OR 3.67 (3.29-4.1)] and surgeon [subspecialist surgeon OR 0.56 (0.52-0.61)] factors were also significant, whereas age, gender, and pre-operative mortality risk were not. A derived predictive model had high internal validity, C-index 0.758 (95% CI 0.748-0.768), and is available for free-use online.

CONCLUSION

Surgical, patient, and diagnostic variables can be used to predict likelihood of laparoscopic success with a high degree of accuracy. This information can be used to inform peri-operative decision-making and patient selection.

A national propensity score-matched analysis of emergency laparoscopic versus open abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy has been widely adopted in elective abdominal surgery but is still sparsely used in emergency settings. The study investigated the effect of laparoscopic emergency surgery using a population database.

METHODS

Data for all patients from December 2013 to November 2018 were retrieved from the NELA national database of emergency laparotomy for England and Wales. Laparoscopically attempted cases were matched 2 : 1 with open cases for propensity score derived from a logistic regression model for surgical approach; included co-variates were age, gender, predicted mortality risk, and diagnostic, procedural and surgeon variables. Groups were compared for mortality. Secondary endpoints were blood loss and duration of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Of 116 920 patients considered, 17 040 underwent laparoscopic surgery. The most common procedures were colectomy, adhesiolysis, washout and perforated ulcer repair. Of these, 11 753 were matched exactly to 23 506 patients who had open surgery. Laparoscopically attempted surgery was associated with lower mortality (6.0 versus 9.1 per cent, P < 0.001), blood loss (less than 100 ml, 64.4 versus 52.0 per cent, P < 0.001), and duration of hospital stay (median 8 (i.q.r. 5-14) versus 10 (7-18) days, P < 0.001). Similar trends were seen when comparing only successful laparoscopic cases with open surgery, and also when comparing cases converted to open surgery with open surgery.

CONCLUSION

In appropriately selected patients, laparoscopy is associated with superior outcomes compared with open emergency surgery.

Closed Facebook groups and COVID-19: an evaluation of utilization prior to and during the pandemic

Background

Surgical education was limited during the COVID-19 pandemic due to redeployment, limited clinical activity, and cancelation of elective procedures and educational conferences. Closed Facebook groups became a tool for surgical education while upholding social distancing guidelines. We aim to evaluate the use of Online Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) closed Facebook groups, during and prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

Institutional Review Board evaluation and written consent was not indicated as the data does not pertain to any human subjects. Data files pertaining to new membership activity, posts, comments and reactions of eight closed Facebook groups. The pandemic group was defined as March 19th to April 30, 2020. The pre-pandemic group was defined as February 6th, to March 18th, 2020. The percentage increase of new memberships, posts, comments and reactions were calculated for each period. A two-tailed t-test, using a significance level of 0.05 was used to evaluate significance.

Results

A statistically significant increase in membership during the pandemic period was noted for each group. In regards to posts, the Flex Endo, Acute Care, Colorectal, Foregut, and Bariatric groups were noted to have a statistically significant increase in the pandemic period. Colorectal and Bariatric groups were the only two groups that were noted to have a significant increase in comments in the pandemic period. For reactions, Flex Endo, Colorectal, Foregut, and Bariatric groups were noted to have experienced a significant increase during the pandemic.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic halted surgical education at all levels. The membership and utilization of closed Facebook groups increased significantly in many instances, demonstrating the importance of internet-based surgical education now and into the future. Further development of internet-based curriculums is warranted.