Search

Background: Concomitant cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis are common. Standard treatments are endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) followed by cholecystectomy or laparoendoscopic rendezvous. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography has drawbacks, such as post-ERC pancreatitis or bleeding, and potentially more than one intervention is required to address common bile duct (CBD) stones. Safety and feasibility of an intraoperative antegrade transcystic single-stage approach during cholecystectomy with balloon sphincteroplasty and pushing of stones to the duodenum has not been evaluated prospectively. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate this procedure regarding safety, feasibility, and stone clearance rate., Methods: Prospective single-center intervention study (SUPER Reporting-Guideline). Main inclusion criterion was confirmed choledocholithiasis (stones ≤6 mm) at intraoperative cholangiography. Success of the procedure was defined as CBD stone clearance at intraoperative control cholangiography, absence of symptoms and no elevated cholestasis parameters at 6 weeks follow-up. Simon's two-stage design was used to determine sample size., Results: From January 2021 to April 2022, a total of 57 patients fulfilled the final inclusion criteria and were included. Mild pancreatitis or cholangitis were present upon admission in 15 (26%) and 15 (26%) patients, respectively. Median number of CBD-stones was 1 (1-6). Median stone diameter was 4 mm (0.1-6 mm). Common bile duct stone clearance was achieved in 54 patients (94%). The main reason for failed CBD clearance was the inability to push the guidewire along the biliary stone into the duodenum. Median intervention time was 28 minutes (14-129 minutes). While there was no postoperative pancreatitis, two patients (3.5%) had asymptomatic hyperlipasemia 4 hours postoperatively., Conclusion: Intraoperative CBD stone clearance by antegrade balloon sphincteroplasty appears to be safe and highly feasible. Its overall superiority to the current standards warrants evaluation by a randomized controlled trial., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic/Care Management, Level V., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Sepsis is a highly prevalent condition and is associated with a reported in-hospital mortality rate up to 40% in patients with abdominal sepsis requiring emergency general surgery (EGS). The quick sequential organ failure assessment score (qSOFA) has not been studied for EGS patients., Methods: Retrospective cohort study in adult patients undergoing abdominal EGS at a university tertiary care center from 2016 to 2018. The primary outcome was mortality. The effect of clinical variables on outcomes was assessed in univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses. Based on these results, the qSOFA score was modified. The performance of scores was assessed using receiver operating characteristics., Results: Five hundred seventy-eight patients undergoing abdominal EGS were included. In-hospital mortality was 4.8% (28/578). Independent predictors for mortality were mesenteric ischemia (odds ratio [OR] 15.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.2-48.6; p < 0.001), gastrointestinal tract perforation (OR 4.9; 95% CI 1.7-14.0; p = 0.003), 65 years or older (OR 4.1; 95% CI 1.5-11.4; p = 0.008), and increasing qSOFA (OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.2-2.8; p = 0.007). The modified qSOFA (qadSOFA) was developed. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the qSOFA and qadSOFA for mortality was 0.715 and 0.859, respectively. Optimal cutoff value was identified as qadSOFA ≥ 3 (Youden Index 64.1%)., Conclusion: This is the first study investigating the qSOFA as a predictor for clinical outcomes in EGS. Compared with the qSOFA, the new qadSOFA revealed an excellent predictive power for clinical outcomes. Further validation of qadSOFA is warranted., Level of Evidence: Diagnostic test/criteria; Level II., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: After the successful implementation in trauma, damage-control surgery (DCS) is being increasingly used in patients with nontraumatic emergencies. However, the role of DCS in the nontrauma setting is not well defined. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of DCS on mortality in patients with nontraumatic abdominal emergencies., Methods: Systematic literature search was done using PubMed. Original articles addressing nontrauma DCS were included. Two meta-analyses were performed, comparing (1) mortality in patients undergoing nontrauma DCS versus conventional surgery (CS) and (2) the observed versus expected mortality rate in the DCS group. Expected mortality was derived from Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation, Simplified Acute Physiology Score, and Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for enUmeration of Mortality and Morbidity scores., Results: A total of five nonrandomized prospective and 16 retrospective studies were included. Nontrauma DCS was performed in 1,238 and nontrauma CS in 936 patients. Frequent indications for surgery in the DCS group were (weighted proportions) hollow viscus perforation (28.5%), mesenteric ischemia (26.5%), anastomotic leak and postoperative peritonitis (19.6%), nontraumatic hemorrhage (18.4%), abdominal compartment syndrome (17.8%), bowel obstruction (15.5%), and pancreatitis (12.9%). In meta-analysis 1, including eight studies, mortality was not significantly different between the nontrauma DCS and CS group (risk difference, 0.09; 95% confidence interval, -0.06 to 0.24). Meta-analysis 2, including 14 studies, revealed a significantly lower observed than expected mortality rate in patients undergoing nontrauma DCS (risk difference, -0.18; 95% confidence interval, -0.29 to -0.06)., Conclusion: This meta-analysis revealed no significantly different mortality in patients undergoing nontrauma DCS versus CS. However, observed mortality was significantly lower than the expected mortality rate in the DCS group, suggesting a benefit of the DCS approach. Based on these two findings, the effect of DCS on mortality in patients with nontraumatic abdominal emergencies remains unclear. Further prospective investigation into this topic is warranted., Level of Evidence: Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Massive bleeding is a major cause of death both in trauma and nontrauma patients. In trauma patients, the implementation of massive transfusion protocols (MTP) led to improved outcomes. However, the majority of patients with massive bleeding are nontrauma patients., Objectives: To assess if the implementation of MTP in nontrauma patients with massive bleeding leads to improved survival., Data Sources: National Library of Medicine's Medline database (PubMed)., Study Eligibility Criteria: Original research articles in English language investigating MTP in nontrauma patients., Participants: Nontrauma patients with massive bleeding 18 years or older., Intervention: Transfusion according to MTP versus off-protocol., Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods: Systematic literature review using PubMed. Outcomes assessed were mortality and transfused blood products. Studies that compared mortality of MTP and non-MTP groups were included in meta-analysis using Mantel-Haenszel random effect models., Results: A total of 252 abstracts were screened. Of these, 12 studies published 2007 to 2017 were found to be relevant to the topic, including 2,475 patients. All studies were retrospective and comprised different patient populations. Most frequent indications for massive transfusion were perioperative, obstetrical and gastrointestinal bleeding, as well as vascular emergencies. Four of the five studies that compared the number of transfused blood products in MTP and non-MTP groups revealed no significant difference. Meta-analysis revealed no significant effect of MTP on the 24-hour mortality (odds ratio 0.42; 95% confidence interval 0.01-16.62; p = 0.65) and a trend toward lower 1-month mortality (odds ratio 0.56; 95% confidence interval 0.30-1.07; p = 0.08)., Limitations: Heterogeneous patient populations and MTP in the studies included., Conclusion: There is limited evidence that the implementation of MTP may be associated with decreased mortality in nontrauma patients. However, patient characteristics, as well as the indication and definition of MTP were highly heterogeneous in the available studies. Further prospective investigation into this topic is warranted., Level of Evidence: Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III.

Background: The ideal prehospital management of patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) including the impact of endotracheal intubation (ETI) and physicians on scene is unclear. Prehospital management differs substantially in Switzerland and the United States: in Switzerland, there is usually a physician on scene who may provide ETI and other advanced life support procedures, whereas in the United States, prehospital management (including ETI) is performed by paramedics., Methods: This is a retrospective cohort-matched study of patients with isolated blunt severe TBI (head Abbreviated Injury Scale [AIS] score, 4-5) and no major extracranial injuries, using Bern University Hospital data from the Swiss PEBITA [Patient-relevant Endpoints after Brain Injury from Traumatic Accidents] (TBI-specific) database and the US National Trauma Data Bank from 2009 to 2010. A 1:4 cohort matching of Bern and US patients was performed. Matching criteria were sex, age (±10 years), exact field Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, exact head AIS score, and injury type (subdural hematoma, epidural hematoma, intraparenchymal hemorrhage, intraventricular hemorrhage, brain edema/swelling, brain stem injury). The matched cohorts were compared with univariable analysis (Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whitney U-test)., Results: Matching of the Bern (n = 128) and US (n = 86,375) cohort resulted in 355 matched cases (71 Bern and 284 US patients). Bern patients had significantly longer scene times (median, 23.0 minutes vs. 9.0 minutes, p < 0.001) and more frequent prehospital ETI (31.0% vs. 18.7%, p = 0.034) and air transportation (39.4% vs. 19.4%, p < 0.001). No significant difference in procedures (craniotomy/craniectomy, intracranial pressure monitoring, tracheotomy), intensive care unit and total hospital lengths of stay, ventilator days, and in-hospital mortality (14.1% vs. 15.8%, p = 0.855) was found between the two cohorts., Conclusion: When taking into account the limitation that patient- and injury-related factors, but not in-hospital treatment variables, were matched, the more frequent prehospital ETI and presence of a physician on scene in the Swiss cohort compared with the US cohort had no significant effect on outcomes, including intensive care unit and total hospital lengths of stay, ventilator days, and in-hospital mortality., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic study, level IV.