The laparoscopy in emergency general surgery (LEGS) study: a questionnaire survey of UK practice

Comparative Analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Procedures in Specific General Surgical Interventions

Laparoscopic and open surgeries are two distinct surgical approaches with significantly different procedures and outcomes. Minimally invasive surgery, also known as laparoscopic surgery, utilizes small incisions and specialized instruments like the laparoscope to perform procedures. This contrasts with open surgery, which requires larger incisions to directly access the surgical site. Open surgery was the preferred approach for any invasive procedure until the introduction of new technological advances in the form of laparoscopy. While laparoscopy is still evolving, preliminary results demonstrate promise for various operations. Open surgery provides the healthcare professional with more liberty in the form of increased visualization, but it also increases tissue damage and hospital stays. Laparoscopic and open procedures are both valuable surgical methods with advantages and disadvantages. While open surgery is favored for difficult patients, laparoscopic surgery offers a quicker recovery and fewer scars. The choice between the two approaches depends on the patient's condition, surgical demands, and the surgeon's skills. As these methods develop, they become increasingly important for offering safe and efficient surgical treatments across a range of medical specialties.

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.

Consensus Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Emergency Laparotomy Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations Part 2-Emergency Laparotomy: Intra- and Postoperative Care

BACKGROUND

This is Part 2 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy (EL) using an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses intra- and postoperative aspects of care.

METHODS

Experts in aspects of management of high-risk and emergency general surgical patients were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Medline database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and large cohort studies and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. Some ERAS® components covered in other guideline papers are outlined only briefly, with the bulk of the text focusing on key areas pertaining specifically to EL.

RESULTS

Twenty-three components of intraoperative and postoperative care were defined. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi Process.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines are based on best available evidence for an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing EL. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

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.

Laparoscopy in high-risk emergency general surgery reduces intensive care stay, length of stay and mortality

PURPOSE

Emergency general surgery patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery are at reduced risk of mortality and may require reduced length of critical care stay. This study investigated the effect of laparoscopy on high-risk patients' post-operative care requirements.

METHODS

Data were retrieved for all patients entered into the NELA database between 2013 and 2018. Only high-risk surgical patients (P-POSSUM predicted mortality risk of ≥ 5%) were included. Patients undergoing laparoscopic and open emergency general surgical procedures were compared using a propensity score weighting approach. Outcome measures included total length of critical care (level 3) stay, overall length of stay and inpatient mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 66,517 high-risk patients received emergency major abdominal surgery. A laparoscopic procedure was attempted in 6998 (10.5%); of these, the procedure was competed laparoscopically in 3492 (49.9%) and converted to open in 3506 (50.1%). Following inverse probability treatment weighting adjustment for patient disease and treatment characteristics, high-risk patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery had a shorter median ICU stay (1 day vs 2 days p < 0.001), overall hospital length of stay (11 days vs 14 days p < 0.001) and a lower inpatient mortality (16.0% vs 18.8%, p < 0.001). They were also less likely to have a prolonged ICU stay with an OR of 0.78 (95% CI 0.74-0.83, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that in patients at high risk of post-operative mortality, laparoscopic emergency bowel surgery leads to a reduced length of critical care stay, overall length of stay and inpatient mortality compared to traditional laparotomy.

Distant free air is not a contraindication for definitive laparoscopic treatment of acute perforated diverticulitis: a multi-center experience

The paradigm of emergency laparotomy with sigmoid resection and protective stoma has been challenged for perforated diverticular disease (PDD) with free extraluminal air. Early clinical stabilization could lead to interval laparoscopic resection without stoma within 2 weeks from perforation. Patients admitted for acute diverticulitis underwent abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan. When free air was seen, endoluminal enema was administred. All patients underwent assessement of clinical stability. In unstable patients, upfront emergency surgery was performed. Stable patients underwent a conservative management consisting in fasting, central line intravenous fluids, antibiotic therapy, pain management, O₂ therapy and percutaneous radiological drainage when indicated. In successful conservative management early interval surgery was planned within 15 days. Early delayed definitive laparoscopic treatment (EDDLT) was defined as laparoscopic resection of the affected colon without ostomy. A total of 235 patients were admitted to the emergency department for PDD. Among these, 142 had pericolic free air and were excluded from the study. Ninety-three had distant free air. Thirty-seven were hemodynamically unstable and underwent upfront surgery. Fifty-six patients showed a clinical stability and started on EDDLT. EDDLT was successfully performed in 36 patients (64.3%). In 20 patients (35.7%) EDDLT was unsuccessful. At multivariate analysis, distant CT extravasation of endoluminal contrast was independently associated with unsuccessful EDDLT (OR 2.1, CI 0.94-5.32). Patients with distant extraluminal free air after PDD may be treated with early delayed surgery after intensive medical therapy. Distant spread of endoluminal contrast at CT was a risk factor for unsuccessful EDDLT often indicating fecal peritonitis.

Outcomes of emergency laparoscopy in the elderly

INTRODUCTION

This paper assessed the association between operative approach and postoperative in-hospital mortality in elderly patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Patients undergoing emergency laparotomy have high morbidity and mortality rates. One-third of patients requiring emergency surgery are over 75 years old, and their in-hospital mortality rate exceeds 17%. Fewer than 20% of emergency abdominal operations in the UK are attempted laparoscopically, and only 10% are completed laparoscopically. Little is known about how laparoscopic emergency surgery in the elderly might affect outcomes.

METHODS

An observational UK study was performed using the prospectively maintained National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) database. Operative approach, NELA risk-prediction score and in-hospital mortality were recorded. The effect of operative approach on in-hospital mortality was analysed, both on a national basis and in a high-volume laparoscopic centre.

RESULTS

A total of 47,667 patients were included in the study, of whom 15,068 were over 75 years of age. Nationally, surgery was completed by the laparoscopic approach in 7.8% of patients aged over 75; both crude mortality (9.2%) and risk-adjusted mortality (7.1%) were significantly reduced (p<0.0001). In our unit, surgery was completed laparoscopically in 48.4% of patients aged over 75; both crude mortality (6.6%) and risk-adjusted mortality (3.3%) were significantly reduced (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy in emergency surgery has been shown in this study to significantly reduce in-hospital mortality in elderly patients and should be embraced in every centre dealing with emergency abdominal surgery.

Comparison of Omental Patch Closure Versus Simple Closure for Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AIMS

To evaluate comparative outcomes of laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer with omental patch versus without omental patch.

METHODS

A systematic search of multiple electronic data sources was conducted, and all studies comparing laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) with and without omental patch were included. Operative time, postoperative complications, re-operation and mortality were the evaluated outcome parameters for the meta-analysis. Revman 5.3 was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Four observational studies reporting a total number of 438 patients who underwent laparoscopic repair of PPU with (n = 268) or without (n = 170) omental patch were included. Operative time was significantly shorter in no-omental patch group (NOP) when compared to omental patch group (P = .02). There was no significant difference in the risk of postoperative ileus (Odd ratio (OR) .76, P = .61), leakage (OR 1.17, P = .80), wound infection (OR 1.89, P = .34), intra-abdominal abscess (OR 1.17, P = .87), re-operation (OR .00, P = .94) and mortality (OR .55, P = .48). Moreover, length of hospital stay was comparable between the two groups (P = .81).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic repair of PPU with or without omental patch have comparable postoperative complications and mortality rate. However, considering the shorter operative time, no-omental patch approach is an attractive and more favourable choice. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to investigate this comparison.

P-POSSUM and the NELA Score Overpredict Mortality for Laparoscopic Emergency Bowel Surgery: An Analysis of the NELA Database

BACKGROUND

Risk stratification has become a key part of the care processes for patients having emergency bowel surgery. This study aimed to determine if operative approach influences risk-model performance, and risk-adjusted mortality rates in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

A prospectively planned analysis was conducted using National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) data from December 2013 to November 2018. The risk-models investigated were P-POSSUM and the NELA Score, with model performance assessed in terms of discrimination and calibration. Risk-adjusted mortality was assessed using Standardised Mortality Ratios (SMR). Analysis was performed for the total cohort, and cases performed open, laparoscopically and converted to open. Sub-analysis was performed for cases with ≤ 20% predicted mortality.

RESULTS

Data were available for 116 396 patients with P-POSSUM predicted mortality, and 46 935 patients with the NELA score. Both models displayed excellent discrimination with little variation between operative approaches (c-statistic: P-POSSUM 0.801-0.836; NELA Score 0.811-0.862). The NELA score was well calibrated across all deciles of risk, but P-POSSUM over-predicted risk beyond 20% mortality. Calibration plots for operative approach demonstrated that both models increasingly over-predicted mortality for laparoscopy, relative to open and converted to open surgery. SMRs calculated using both models consistently demonstrated that risk-adjusted mortality with laparoscopy was a third lower than open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Risk-adjusted mortality for emergency bowel surgery is lower for laparoscopy than open surgery, with P-POSSUM and NELA score both over-predicting mortality for laparoscopy. Operative approach should be considered in the development of future risk-models that rely on operative data.