[Prospective study on patients outcome following laparoscopic vs. open cholecystectomy]

[Modified McPeek score in multiple trauma patients. Prospective evaluation of a points system for recording follow-up factors]

BACKGROUND

Many commonly available trauma scores predict mortality, but to evaluate the success of a certain therapy or for difficult scientific and epidemiological purposes this may be insufficient in the face of improved survival rates. For outcome analysis of multiple trauma patients, the extent of medical resources needed could be an additional outcome measurement. McPeek et al. developed a potential scoring system for elective surgery patients, which was recently modified for multiple trauma patients.

AIM

The current study investigated if the McPeek score could be prospectively used in multiple trauma patients and whether it could become an additional helpful tool in outcome assessment. Applicability was assessed by practical examples.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this prospective single-centre study at the University Hospital of Innsbruck, Austria, between December 2008 and November 2010 multiple trauma patients (≥ 18 years) with an injury severity score (ISS) ≥ 17 were enrolled. Besides demographic data, prehospital vital parameters and diagnoses, all diagnoses from the trauma, mortality, length of stay in the intensive care unit and the hospital were recorded. The commonly used trauma scores ISS, revised trauma score (RTS), a severity characterization of trauma (ASCOT) and trauma and injury severity score (TRISS) were applied and an observed McPeek score was allocated following end of hospitalization. The McPeek scoring system was used according to the latest modifications. A correlation between trauma scores and the McPeek score was performed. The McPeek score was then predicted by a common trauma score using ordinal regression with the polytomous universal model (PLUM method). By subtracting the predicted from the observed McPeek scores the residual McPeek value was calculated and used for practical examples of outcome analysis with the McPeek scoring system.

RESULTS

Out of 406 identified multiple trauma patients during the study phase, 183 had to be excluded due to missing data (mainly prehospital or following transfer). A total of 223 patients (mean ISS 31.2, mean age 47.2 years) were enrolled and assigned to the population-based observed McPeek score (median 4.0). Correlation coefficients were Glasgow coma scale (GCS) 0.59, ISS 0.62, RTS 0.65, TRISS 0.74 and ASCOT 0.77 (p < 0.0001). The TRISS predicted the McPeek score best in ordinal regression (pseudo-R(2) = 0.944, p < 0.0001). The residual McPeek score (observed minus predicted) was used to illustrate the influence of the blood glucose level on admission and the influence of head injury on outcome of multiple injury patients in detail.

CONCLUSION

The modified McPeek score is applicable to multiple trauma patients to assess outcome for scientific or epidemiological purposes. Its main advantage is that it quantifies outcome independently of regional or national circumstances.

Evaluation of the McPeek postoperative outcome score in three trials

BACKGROUND

Postoperative outcome of patients is determined by recovery characteristics and self-reported quality of life. The first can be assessed with the McPeek score which values three aspects of recovery: mortality, postoperative critical care and duration of hospitalization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We calculated the McPeek score of 669 patients in three trials: (1) colorectal cancer surgery, (2) antihistamine/volume loading in various operations, and (3) cholecystectomy. Beforehand, the average of intensive care unit treatment and duration of hospitalization were determined for the different operations to define McPeek score points. The score was tested on reliability, validity, and sensitivity. In addition, clinical applicability was assessed in a survey.

RESULTS

The score was reliable with similarly distributed score points in the three trials at different institutions. Inter-rater reliability was high (97% overlap). Validity was proven by moderate high correlation to convergent criteria such as complications (trial I to III r=0.43, r=0.38, r=0.60), preoperative American Society of Anesthesiologists class (ASA) (r=0.24, r=0.28, r=0.57), and age (r=0.23, r=0.32, r=0.31). The score was different between patients with and without neoplasms (P<0.001, trial II) and between elective or emergency patients (P<0.001, trial III). In a survey, investigators reported that the score was easy to assess and more comprehensive than four other scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The McPeek score values the postoperative outcome on a nonlinear scale. A priori, the average duration of hospitalization and critical care for a specific operation has to be defined. Our validation suggests that it is a reliable, valid, sensitive, and practical instrument for outcome analysis after anesthesia and surgery.

Evaluation of quality of life after laparoscopic surgery: evidence-based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Measuring health-related quality of life (QoL) after surgery is essential for decision making by patients, surgeons, and payers. The aim of this consensus conference was twofold. First, it was to determine for which diseases endoscopic surgery results in better postoperative QoL than open surgery. Second, it was to recommend QoL instruments for clinical research.

METHODS

An expert panel selected 12 conditions in which QoL and endoscopic surgery are important. For each condition, studies comparing endoscopic and open surgery in terms of QoL were identified. The expert panel reached consensus on the relative benefits of endoscopic surgery and recommended generic and disease-specific QoL instruments for use in clinical research.

RESULTS

Randomized trials indicate that QoL improves earlier after endoscopic than open surgery for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), cholecystolithiasis, colorectal cancer, inguinal hernia, obesity (gastric bypass), and uterine disorders that require hysterectomy. For spleen, prostate, malignant kidney, benign colorectal, and benign non-GERD esophageal diseases, evidence from nonrandomized trials supports the use of laparoscopic surgery. However, many studies failed to collect long-term results, used nonvalidated questionnaires, or measured QoL components only incompletely. The following QoL instruments can be recommended: for benign esophageal and gallbladder disease, the GIQLI or the QOLRAD together with SF-36 or the PGWB; for obesity surgery, the IWQOL-Lite with the SF-36; for colorectal cancer, the FACT-C or the EORTC QLQ-C30/CR38; for inguinal and renal surgery, the VAS for pain with the SF-36 (or the EORTC QLQ-C30 in case of malignancy); and after hysterectomy, the SF-36 together with an evaluation of urinary and sexual function.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery provides better postoperative QoL in many clinical situations. Researchers would improve the quality of future studies by using validated QoL instruments such as those recommended here.

Psychological factors influencing results of cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Cholecystectomy is a surgical gold-standard procedure for gallbladder diseases, among which gallstones are the most frequent. Despite the introduction of minimally invasive surgery and broad access to ultrasound examination there is a group of patients in whom the surgery ailments persist. Those vague ailments can be perceived from a psychological point of view as somatization or even somatoform disorders.

METHODS

The aim of the study, designed as a case-control study, was to evaluate psychological characteristics that may accompany the incidence of so-called post-cholecystectomy pain syndrome (PCPS). The study focused on 367 patients treated for gallstones in the Dept. of General, Gastroenterological and Endocrinological Surgery, Medical University of Gdańsk, Poland. At about a year after the operation, the patients received a questionnaire that included a structured interview and psychological assessment of social support and rumination. Those who revealed symptoms of PCPS were invited to the department for further medical and psychological evaluations. Psychosocial scores of PCPS and non-PCPS patients were compared.

RESULTS

The PCPS patients did not present any dysfunction at the physical examination or in gastroduodenoscopy or sonography. However, they differed from the remaining. asymptomatic group in terms of lacking social support, as well as increased rumination.

CONCLUSION

It is concluded that psychological variables may play an important role in the onset of subjective symptoms in at least a subgroup of the PCPS patients as a form of somatization. Psychological supportive and explanatory activities (cognitive and behavioural approach) may provide sufficient help.

Quality-of-life outcomes with laparoscopic vs open cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Few studies have assessed the health outcomes of patients who underwent cholecystectomy. The goal of this study was to evaluate the health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) improvement of patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was performed of consecutive patients on waiting lists to undergo cholecystectomy for nonmalignant disease in six hospitals. Patients were asked to complete two questionnaires that measure (HRQoL)-the SF-36 and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI)-before the intervention and 3 months later.

RESULTS

Improvement after surgery, measured by the SF-36 and GIQLI, was similar for both surgical techniques. The SF-health transition item showed a perception of worse health, compared to 1 year previously, for those who underwent open surgery and complications were also higher.

CONCLUSIONS

HRQoL improvement at 3 months was relevant and similar for both surgical techniques, although the health transition perception was worse for those who underwent open surgery.