Search

Background: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is considered nowadays as the standard management of acute cholecystitis (AC). However, results from multicentric studies in the general surgical community are still lacking.Methods: A prospective multicenter survey of surgical management of AC patients was conducted over a 2-year period in Belgium. Operative features and patients' clinical outcome were recorded. The impact of independent predictive factors on the choice of surgical approach, the risk of conversion, and the occurrence of postoperative complications was studied by multivariate logistic regression analysis.Results: Fifty-three surgeons consecutively and anonymously included 1,089 patients in this prospective study. A primary open approach was chosen in 74 patients (6.8%), whereas a laparoscopic approach was the first option in 1,015 patients (93.2%). Independent predictive factors for a primary open approach were previous history of upper abdominal surgery [odds ratio (OR) 4.13, p < 0.001], patient age greater than 70 years (OR 2.41, p < 0.05), surgeon with more than 10 years' experience (OR 2.08, p = 0.005), and gangrenous cholecystitis (OR 1.71, p < 0.05). In the laparoscopy group, 116 patients (11.4%) required conversion to laparotomy. Overall, 38 patients (3.5%) presented biliary complications and 49 had other local complications (4.5%). Incidence of bile duct injury was 1.2% in the whole series, 2.7% in the open group, and 1.1% in the laparoscopy group. Sixty patients had general complications (5.5%). The overall mortality rate was 0.8%. All patients who died were in poor general condition [American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) III or IV].Conclusions: Although laparoscopic cholecystectomy is currently considered as the standard treatment for acute cholecystitis, an open approach is still a valid option in more advanced disease. However, overall mortality and incidence of bile duct injury remain high. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Emergency laparoscopic exploration can be used to identify the causative pathology of acute abdominal pain. Laparoscopic surgery also allows treatment of many intraabdominal disorders. This report was prepared to describe the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery compared to laparotomy or nonoperative treatment.Methods: A panel of European experts in abdominal and gynecological surgery was assembled and participated in a consensus conference using Delphi methods. The aim was to develop evidence-based recommendations for the most common diseases that may cause acute abdominal pain.Recommendations: Laparoscopic surgery was found to be clearly superior for patients with a presumable diagnosis of perforated peptic ulcer, acute cholecystitis, appendicitis, or pelvic inflammatory disease. In the emergency setting, laparoscopy is of unclear or limited value if adhesive bowel obstruction, acute diverticulitis, nonbiliary pancreatitis, hernia incarceration, or mesenteric ischemia are suspected. In stable patients with acute abdominal pain, noninvasive diagnostics should be fully exhausted before considering explorative surgery. However, diagnostic laparoscopy may be useful if no diagnosis can be found by conventional diagnostics. More clinical data are needed on the use of laparoscopy after blunt or penetrating trauma of the abdomen.Conclusions: Due to diagnostic and therapeutic advantages, laparoscopic surgery is useful for the majority of conditions underlying acute abdominal pain, but noninvasive diagnostic aids should be exhausted first. Depending on symptom severity, laparoscopy should be advocated if routine diagnostic procedures have failed to yield results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A multicentric study was performed to evaluate the clinical results after laparoscopic treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts (PP). Methods: We collected the data of 17 patients presenting with PP and operated on by laparoscopy between 1996 and 2001. There were nine men and eight women with a median age of 42 years (range 30–72). In 15 patients the PP developed after acute pancreatitis and the median delay between the acute onset and surgery was 7 months (range: 2–24). In two patients the PP was associated with chronic pancreatitis. All the patients had a single PP with a median diameter of 9 cm (range: 5–20). Results: According to the location of the PP, a cystogastrostomy was performed in 10 patients and a cystojejunostomy in seven patients. The median operative time was 100 min (range: 80–300). Laparoscopic PP surgery was completed successfully in 16 patients and the median size of the cystoenterostomy was 3 cm (range: 2–5). Necrotic debris was present within the PP in 11 patients. The median postoperative hospital stay was 6 days (range: 4–24). No mortality and no immediate morbidity were recorded. However, two patients were readmitted within the first 3 postoperative weeks because of secondary PP infection. The first patient had an early closure of cystogastrostomy and was treated by endoscopic placement of a stent. The second represented with a right retrocolic abscess after cystojejunostomy and was treated by percutaneous drainage. One patient was lost for follow-up 2 months after surgery. The others had regular clinical and radiological controls. With a median follow-up of 12 months (range: 6–36), no recurrence of PP was observed. Conclusions: The laparoscopic treatment of PP was associated with a low postoperative complication rate and an effective permanent result. That approach avoided some difficulties, particularly bleeding that is classically linked with endoscopic internal drainage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]