BACKGROUND: Acute cholecystitis (AC) is a common surgical emergency. The Tokyo Guidelines 2018 (TG18) provides a reliable algorithm for the treatment of AC patients to achieve optimal outcomes. However, the economic benefits have not been validated. We hypothesize that good outcomes and cost savings can both be achieved if patients are treated according to the TG18. METHOD: This retrospective study included 275 patients who underwent cholecystectomy in a 15-month span. Patients were divided into three groups (group 1: mild AC; group 2: moderate AC with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status class ≤ 2 and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score ≤ 5; and group 3: moderate AC with ASA class ≥ 3, CCI score ≥ 6, or severe AC). Each group was further divided into two subgroups according to management (followed or deviated from the TG18). Patient demographics, clinical outcomes, and hospital costs were compared. RESULTS: For group 1 patients, 77 (81%) were treated according to the TG18 and had a significantly higher successful laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) rate (100%), lower hospital cost ($1896 vs $2388), and shorter hospital stay (2.9 vs 8 days) than those whose treatment deviated from the TG18. For group 2 patients, 50 (67%) were treated according to the TG18 and had a significantly lower hospital cost ($1926 vs $2856), shorter hospital stay (3.9 vs 9.9 days), and lower complication rate (0% vs 12.5%). For group 3 patients, 62 (58%) were treated according to the TG18 and had a significantly lower intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate (9.7% vs 25%), but a longer hospital stay (12.6 vs 7.8 days). However, their hospital costs were similar. Early LC in group 3 patients did not have economic benefits over gallbladder drainage and delayed LC. CONCLUSION: The TG18 are the state-of-the-art guidelines for the treatment of AC, achieving both satisfactory outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
BACKGROUND: Acute cholecystitis (AC) is a common surgical emergency. The Tokyo Guidelines 2018 (TG18) provides a reliable algorithm for the treatment of AC patients to achieve optimal outcomes. However, the economic benefits have not been validated. We hypothesize that good outcomes and cost savings can both be achieved if patients are treated according to the TG18. METHOD: This retrospective study included 275 patients who underwent cholecystectomy in a 15-month span. Patients were divided into three groups (group 1: mild AC; group 2: moderate AC with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status class ≤ 2 and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score ≤ 5; and group 3: moderate AC with ASA class ≥ 3, CCI score ≥ 6, or severe AC). Each group was further divided into two subgroups according to management (followed or deviated from the TG18). Patient demographics, clinical outcomes, and hospital costs were compared. RESULTS: For group 1 patients, 77 (81%) were treated according to the TG18 and had a significantly higher successful laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) rate (100%), lower hospital cost ($1896 vs $2388), and shorter hospital stay (2.9 vs 8 days) than those whose treatment deviated from the TG18. For group 2 patients, 50 (67%) were treated according to the TG18 and had a significantly lower hospital cost ($1926 vs $2856), shorter hospital stay (3.9 vs 9.9 days), and lower complication rate (0% vs 12.5%). For group 3 patients, 62 (58%) were treated according to the TG18 and had a significantly lower intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate (9.7% vs 25%), but a longer hospital stay (12.6 vs 7.8 days). However, their hospital costs were similar. Early LC in group 3 patients did not have economic benefits over gallbladder drainage and delayed LC. CONCLUSION: The TG18 are the state-of-the-art guidelines for the treatment of AC, achieving both satisfactory outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
Authors: V Minutolo; A Licciardello; M Arena; A Nicosia; B Di Stefano; G Calì; G Arena Journal: Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 3.507
Authors: Saad Ullah Khan; Jun Yi Soh; Nazli Muhibullah; Aikaterini Peleki; Muhammad Abdullah; Peter William Waterland Journal: J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad Date: 2019 Jan-Mar
Authors: Yong Zhu He; Kun He; Rui Qin Huang; Li Wen Liu; Shao Wei Ye; Jun Lin Qian; Peng Peng; Qi Jie Luo; Ze Liang Wang; Ze Min Hu Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-04-15 Impact factor: 4.379