Is fundus first laparoscopic cholecystectomy a better option than conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy for difficult cholecystectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Current use of artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis

INTRODUCTION

Acute appendicitis is a common and time-sensitive surgical emergency, requiring rapid and accurate diagnosis and management to prevent complications. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative tool in healthcare, offering significant potential to improve the diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis. This review provides an overview of the evolving role of AI in the diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis, highlighting its benefits, challenges, and future perspectives.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We performed a literature search on articles published from 2018 to September 2023. We included only original articles.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Overall, 121 studies were examined. We included 32 studies: 23 studies addressed the diagnosis, five the differentiation between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis, and 4 studies the management of acute appendicitis.

CONCLUSIONS

AI is poised to revolutionize the diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis by improving accuracy, speed and consistency. It could potentially reduce healthcare costs. As AI technologies continue to evolve, further research and collaboration are needed to fully realize their potential in the diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis.

Safety of cholecystectomy performed by surgeons who prefer fundus first versus surgeons who prefer a standard laparoscopic approach

Background

An alternative method to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) is the "fundus first" method (FFLC). Concerns have been raised that FFLC can lead to misinterpretation of important anatomical structures, thus causing complications of a more serious kind than SLC. Comparisons between the methods are complicated by the fact that FFLC is often used as a rescue procedure in complicated cases. To avoid confounding related to this we conducted a population-based study with comparisons on the surgeon level.

Method

In GallRiks, the Swedish registry for Gallbladder surgery, we stratified all cholecystectomies performed 2006-2020 in three groups: surgeries carried out by surgeons that uses FFLC in <20 % of the cases (N = 150,119), in 20-79 % of the cases (N = 10,212) and in 80 % or more of the cases (N = 3176). We compared the groups with logistic regression, adjusting for sex, age, surgical experience, year of surgery and history of acute cholecystitis. All surgical complications (bleeding, gallbladder perforation, visceral perforation, infection, and bile duct injury) were included as outcome. A separate analysis was done with regards to operation time.

Results

No difference in incidence of all surgical complications or bile duct injury were seen between groups. The rates of bleeding (OR 0.34 [0.14-0.86]) and gallbladder perforation (OR 0.61 [0.45-0.82]) were significantly lower in the "fundus first > 80% group" and the operative time was shorter (OR 0.76 [0.69-0.83]).

Conclusion

In this study including >160,000 cholecystectomies, both methods was found to be equally safe.

Key message

During laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the standard method of dissection and fundus first dissection are equally safe surgical techniques. Surgeons need to learn both methods to be able to use the one most appropriate for each individual case.

Systematic Review of Utilized Ports in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Pushing the Boundaries

Introduction

Surgical procedures have undergone a paradigm shift in the last 3 decades, with minimally invasive surgery becoming standard of care for a number of surgeries, including the treatment of benign gallbladder diseases. By providing a thorough and impartial summary of the earlier published systematic reviews, the current systematic review is the first to present comparison results. This review illustrates the data of intraoperative and postoperative results of each laparoscopic cholecystectomy technique.

Materials and Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was meticulously followed to conduct the present systematic review. MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science were searched for eligible publications, and a total of 14 systematic reviews were included. A newly developed extraction table was utilized to obtain the predefined parameters from eligible systematic reviews, including operative time, conversion rate, estimated blood loss, bile leak, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, and cosmetic results. All statistical analyses were conducted using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software, version 26.0. The analysis of dichotomous results was summarized using relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), and continuous results were summarized using mean differences and 95% CIs. The proportions were compared using a single proportion z-test.

Results

The analysis of our primary and secondary outcomes revealed a statistically significant improvement in aesthetic results after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) in comparison to the multiport approach of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This, however, is accompanied by extended operative timing and subsequently, prolonged exposure to anesthesia.

Conclusion

Patients should be carefully selected for SILC to minimize technical difficulties and prevent complications both intraoperatively and shortly after the procedure. This trial is registered with CRD42023392037.

Comparison of the effects of ampulla-guided realignment and conventional gallbladder triangle anatomy in difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of ampulla-guided realignment and conventional gallbladder triangle anatomy in difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy (DLC).

METHODS

From June 2021 to August 2022, data from 100 patients undergoing DLC at Nanjing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were divided into two groups: the experimental group (LC with the ampulla-guided realignment) and the control group (conventional LC with triangular gallbladder anatomy), with 50 patients per group. The intraoperative blood loss, operation time, postoperative drainage tube indwelling time, hospitalization time, bile duct injury rate, operation conversion rate, and incidence of postoperative complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. The pain response and daily activities of the patients in the two groups were evaluated 48 h after the operation.

RESULTS

The amount of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage tube indwelling time, hospital stay, operation conversion rate, pain degree at 24 and 48 h after operation, bile duct injury incidence, and total postoperative complication rate were shorter or lower in the experimental group than those in the control group (p < 0.05). The Barthel index scores of both groups were higher 48 h after the operation than before the operation, and the experimental group was higher than the control group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The ampulla-guided alignment in DLC surgery was more beneficial in promoting postoperative recovery, reducing postoperative pain response, reducing the incidence of postoperative complications, and reducing bile duct injury.

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.