Impact on infectious outcomes during laparoscopic cholecystectomy with the use of home-made vs commercial gallbladder retrieval bag: a retrospective comparative study in a high-volume center.
Surg Endosc 2023;
37:587-591. [PMID:
35672501 DOI:
10.1007/s00464-022-09362-z]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2021] [Accepted: 05/22/2022] [Indexed: 01/18/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is one of the most commonly performed emergency procedures, with approximately 600,000 patients undergoing the procedure every year in the United States. Although LC is associated with fewer complications when compared with open cholecystectomy, the risk for infectious complications, including surgical site infection and intra-abdominal abscess, remains a significant source of postoperative morbidity. The goal of this study is to determine whether the gallbladder retrieval technique during LC affects risk of infectious complications.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
We conducted a retrospective comparative study in a minimally invasive surgery high-volume center in Bogota, Colombia. Patients who underwent LC in 2018 to 2020 were identified. The patients were divided into three groups. One group of LC performed using home-made gallbladder retrieval bag (HMGRB), and another group of LC performed using commercial gallbladder retrieval bag (CGRB). The primary outcomes were infectious complications of superficial site infection and intra-abdominal abscess.
RESULTS
A total of 68 (7.58%) patients underwent LC using an HMGRB, and 828 (92.41%) using a CGRB. There was no significant difference in preoperative sepsis, or sex distribution between patient groups. Using t test, we found differences on age distribution among groups (p < 0.01), surgical times (p < 0.01), and length of stay (p = 0.01). When using Chi square, we found differences in Tokyo and Parkland Grading Scale severity (p < 0.01), use of postoperative antibiotics (p < 0.01), and drain use (p < 0.01). Nonetheless, there was no difference in the rate of superficial surgical site infection (p = 0.92).
CONCLUSION
HMGRB are not associated with increased risk of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess or superficial surgical site infection in comparison with CGRB but imply longer surgical times and length of stay. The use of HMGRB is safe, feasible, and has lower cost during LC.
Collapse