Silje Welsh1, Ahmad H M Nassar2, Mahmoud Sallam1. 1. Laparoscopic Biliary Service, University Hospital Monklands, Monkscourt Avenue, Airdrie, Lanarkshire, ML6 0JS, Scotland, UK. 2. Laparoscopic Biliary Service, University Hospital Monklands, Monkscourt Avenue, Airdrie, Lanarkshire, ML6 0JS, Scotland, UK. Ahmad.nassar@glasgow.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for emergency biliary admissions remains inconsistent with national and international guidelines. The perception that LC is difficult in acute cholecystitis and the popularity of the two-session approach to pancreatitis and suspected choledocholithiasis result in delayed management. METHODS: Analysis of prospectively maintained data in a unit adopting a policy of "intention to treat" during the index admission. The aim was to study the incidence of previous biliary admissions and compare the operative difficulty, complications and postoperative outcomes with patients who underwent index admission LC. RESULTS: Of the 5750 LC performed, 20.8% had previous biliary episodes resulting in one admission in 93% and two or more in 7%. Most presented with biliary colic (39.6%) and acute cholecystitis (27.6%). A previous biliary history was associated with increased operative difficulty (p < 0.001), longer operating times (86.9 vs. 68.1 min, p < 0.001), more postoperative complications (7.8% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.002) and longer hospital stay (8.1 vs. 5.5 days, p < 0.001) and presentation to resolution intervals. However, conversion and mortality rates showed no significant differences. CONCLUSION: Index admission LC is superior to interval cholecystectomy and should be offered to all patients fit for general anaesthesia regardless of the presenting complaints. Subspecialisation should be encouraged as a major factor in optimising resource utilisation and postoperative outcomes of biliary emergencies.
BACKGROUND: The timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for emergency biliary admissions remains inconsistent with national and international guidelines. The perception that LC is difficult in acute cholecystitis and the popularity of the two-session approach to pancreatitis and suspected choledocholithiasis result in delayed management. METHODS: Analysis of prospectively maintained data in a unit adopting a policy of "intention to treat" during the index admission. The aim was to study the incidence of previous biliary admissions and compare the operative difficulty, complications and postoperative outcomes with patients who underwent index admission LC. RESULTS: Of the 5750 LC performed, 20.8% had previous biliary episodes resulting in one admission in 93% and two or more in 7%. Most presented with biliary colic (39.6%) and acute cholecystitis (27.6%). A previous biliary history was associated with increased operative difficulty (p < 0.001), longer operating times (86.9 vs. 68.1 min, p < 0.001), more postoperative complications (7.8% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.002) and longer hospital stay (8.1 vs. 5.5 days, p < 0.001) and presentation to resolution intervals. However, conversion and mortality rates showed no significant differences. CONCLUSION: Index admission LC is superior to interval cholecystectomy and should be offered to all patients fit for general anaesthesia regardless of the presenting complaints. Subspecialisation should be encouraged as a major factor in optimising resource utilisation and postoperative outcomes of biliary emergencies.