Antibiotic prophylaxis in laparotomic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Antibiotic prophylaxis in biliary surgery, when correctly used, has led to the minimisation of postoperative infections. Conventional cholecystectomy, and particularly laparoscopic cholecystectomy give rise to a very complicated issue concerning the use of antimicrobial prophylaxis, especially in relation to low-risk patients. The authors describe their experience with the use of short-term prophylaxis in biliary surgery based on a hundred consecutive laparoscopic cholecystectomies. In addition, the literature on this topic strengthens the authors' conviction that antimicrobial prophylaxis may be indicated in all surgical cholecystectomy procedures, also in view of the difficult management of postoperative infection risk factors.     

腹腔镜"一钩到底法"快速胆囊切除术的临床应用研究

目的观察在腹腔镜快速胆囊切除术(LC)中采用"一钩到底法"的临床效果,分析技术要点和优点。 方法回顾性分析2010年12月至2013年10月间收治的1 303例行LC术的患者,其中685例患者术中应用"一钩到底法"(试验组),618例患者行传统LC术(对照组)。观察两组所用的手术时间、中转开腹手术数、术中胆管损伤数、术后并发症发生情况。 结果试验组的手术操作时间少于对照组,差异有统计学意义(t=12.58,P<0.05);两组术后均无出血现象,试验组无胆漏发生,且切口感染率低于对照组,但差异无统计学意义(χ²=0.018,P=0.893)。试验组的胆管损伤率(0.29%)和中转开腹率(0.73%)均少于对照组(0.16%、0.32%),但差异无统计学意义。 结论LC术中应用"一钩到底法"可以缩短手术操作时间,减少并发症的发生率,值得在临床上推广使用。     

Haloperidol or droperidol with dexamethasone for antiemetic prophylaxis in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

OBJECTIVES: To compare haloperidol to droperidol, both with dexamethasone, for antiemetic prophylaxis in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective, randomized double-blind trial enrolling 75 ASA 1-2 patients who received anesthesia with propofol and remifentanil. After induction, 8 mg of intravenous dexamethasone was administered. After surgery, depending on group assignment, patients received 10 microg x kg(-1) of intravenous haloperidol (n = 25), 10 microg x kg(-1) of droperidol (n = 25), or physiologic saline solution (n = 25). Outcomes recorded were episodes of nausea or vomiting in the postoperative period (first 6 hours and/or 6-24 hours), requirement for antiemetic agents, morphine consumption, pain assessed on a visual analog scale, level of sedation, and adverse effects. RESULTS: Five patients in the haloperidol group, 6 in the droperidol group, and 13 in the control group experienced an episode of nausea or vomiting in the 24-hour postoperative period (P < .05 between the active treatment groups and the control group). One patient in the haloperidol group, 6 in the droperidol group, and 8 in the control group reported nausea in the first 6 hours (P < .05). Three patients in the haloperidol group, 1 in the droperidol group, and 8 in the control group reported nausea in the later postoperative period (6-24 hours) (P < .05, droperidol vs control). Three patients in the haloperidol group, 1 in the droperidol group, and 7 in the control group experienced late vomiting (P < .05, droperidol vs control). CONCLUSIONS: Either haloperidol or droperidol in combination with dexamethasone is more effective than dexamethasone alone for antiemetic prophylaxis after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术中胆管损伤及对策

目的:探讨腹腔镜胆囊切除术中胆管损伤的原因及预防措施。方法:回顾分析4929例腹腔镜胆囊切除术中17例胆管损伤的原因,治疗及预防方法。结果:术者对腹腔镜胆囊切除术的危险缺乏认识、缺乏经验及应变力、不能辩认异常,过于自信,操作粗糙及使用器械不当是发生损伤的根本原因。结论:重视正规训练,积累并借鉴成功的传统手术经验、技巧。分离解剖应从明确的胆囊或与胆囊管交界部开始,不刻意解剖,明确三管关系,禁止在Calot三角内电灼是预防损伤的关键。对可能或已发生的损伤应予以合理处理,以免病情复杂化。     

Feasibility of day case laparoscopic cholecystectomy in unselected patients

The feasibility of clay ease laparoscopic cholecystectomy was assessed in unselected patients using a standard anaesthetic protocol. Postoperative pain and nausea were assessed at 6 and 24 h postoperatively (visual analogue scale, range 0-10). Thirty-two patients were studied (23 female. 9 male, mean age 49.6 years). The mean duration of surgery was 68 mitt. At 6 h after surgery, 10 patients (31%) had no pain at rest. For the group as a whole, the median pain score was 3 at rest (range 0-6), 4 on movement (0 9), and 5 on coughing (0 9) and eight patients (25%) were nauseated. At 24 It, 15 (46.9%) had no pain at rest. For the group as a whole, the median pain score was I at rest (0-7), 3 (0-6) on movement and 3 on coughing (0 9). The same eight patients were nauseated. Ten patients (31.3%) were judged fit for discharge at 6h, and 28 (87.5%) by 24h. There was no statistical difference in mean age or duration of surgery in those judged fit for early discharge compared to the study group as a whole. Nausea was an important factor in those unfit for discharge at 24 It. Selection criteria might improve these figures. Front the results of our study, 24 h admission is a more realistic goal and will be suitable for most patients requiring laparoscopic cholecystectomy.     

A national audit of antibiotic prophylaxis in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Introduction

Laparoscopic surgeons in Great Britain and Ireland were surveyed to assess their use of antibiotic prophylaxis in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This followed a Cochrane review that found no evidence to support the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in routine cases.

Methods

Data were collected on routine use of antibiotics in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and how that was influenced by factors such as bile spillage, patient co-morbidities and surgeons’ experience. An online questionnaire was sent to 450 laparoscopic surgeons in December 2011.

Results

Data were received from 111 surgeons (87 consultants) representing over 7,000 cases per year. In routine cases without bile spillage, 64% of respondents gave no antibiotics and 36% gave a single dose. In cases with bile spillage, 11% gave no antibiotics. However, 80% gave one dose and 7% gave three doses. Co-amoxiclav was used by 75% of surgeons. Surgeons are more likely to give antibiotics when patients have risk factors for infective endocarditis.

Conclusions

This study suggests over 20,000 doses of antibiotics and over £100,000 could be saved annually if surgeons modified their practice to follow current guidelines.     

Coagulation activation after laparoscopic cholecystectomy in spite of thromboembolism prophylaxis

Background: The aim of this study was to determine whether laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), in spite of its minimally invasive nature, causes coagulation activation. Methods: Sixty-four patients undergoing LC were included prospectively. All received either dextran or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Blood samples taken the morning of the operation and the following morning were analyzed for TAT, FM, fragment 1+2, tPA, PAI-1, vWf, D-dimer, Hb, hematocrit, and APC resistance. Results: Significant increases in TAT, FM, fragment 1+2, and D-dimer were seen, whereas APC resistance, Hb, and hematocrit decreased significantly. Dextran led to a decrease in vWf and no change in tPA, whereas LMWH led to an increase in both these parameters. Conclusions: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy causes coagulation activation. There are differences in the response between patients receiving dextran and LMWH as thromboembolism prophylaxis. Since most patients are discharged the day after the operation, there could be practical as well as theoretical advantages to using dextran. Received: 29 November 1999/Accepted: 17 January 2000/Online publication: 12 July 2000     

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy in children: a retrospective comparison with traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Purpose

The natural progression of minimal access surgery is to perform the same technical operation with minimal or no evidence of scarring. In children, small case series of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy suggests that the operation is feasible; however, no comparison has been made to traditional, multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patient safety, outcomes, and cost.

Methods

A retrospective review of consecutive single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomies in children was performed from January 2009 to November 2010. Demographics and outcome measures were recorded, including operative time, operative costs, length of stay, need for intravenous analgesia, and operative complications. A concurrent group of pediatric patients undergoing traditional, multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy was used for comparison.

Results

A total of 69 pediatric laparoscopic cholecystectomies were performed from January 2009 to October 2010. Forty-two patients with a mean age of 14.7 years (range, 5.9-18.9 years) underwent attempted single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and 27 patients with a mean age of 15 years (range, 2.8-19.4 years) underwent multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Mean operative time (68 vs 64.5 minutes; P, not significant [NS]), length of stay (1.45 vs 1.19 days; P, NS), and doses of intravenous analgesia (1.7 vs 2; P, NS) were not significantly different for patients undergoing single-incision or multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy, respectively. Two patients (5%) undergoing the single-incision approach required 1 additional port be placed to complete the operation. In addition, there was no significant difference in operative costs between the single-incision and multiport approach ($7766 vs $8383; P, NS).

Conclusion

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is safe and effective in the pediatric population. It can be performed with the same technical exposure and outcomes as multiport laparoscopy, with the added benefit of little to no scarring and no increase in cost.     

Relaxation of the criteria for day surgery laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND: For day case laparoscopic cholecystectomy programmes, studies suggest that overnight admission may be predicted by the following factors: gall bladder wall thickness, patient age over 55 years and previous sphincterotomy. This study investigated the effect of relaxing selection for a day surgery laparoscopic cholecystectomy programme, by removing these factors from the exclusion criteria. METHODS: Between September 2002 and April 2003, patients for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were considered for day surgery subject to standard criteria. For the initial part of the programme, patients were additionally excluded according to the risk factors mentioned above. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients underwent intended day case procedures. The first 16 were selected according to the more rigorous criteria. The latter 17 were significantly older, with a significantly higher incidence of gall bladder wall thickening. There were seven admissions, three in the former part of the study and four in the latter. CONCLUSION: The exclusion criteria described are not necessary for a good same-day discharge rate.     

Zeus手术机器人胆囊切除术与常规腹腔镜胆囊切除术的对比研究

目的探讨Zeus手术机器人用于胆囊切除术的价值。方法将40例择期胆囊切除术患者分为Zeus手术机器人胆囊切除组(A组)和腹腔镜胆囊切除组(B组),每组20例。结果A组擦镜次数(1.1±1.0)次和调整术野时间(2.2±0.7)min显著少于B组(4.5±1.5)次,(7.5±1.2)min。A组解剖动作次数(337±86)次和操作失误率(10%)少于B组(389±94)次,(25%)。A组手术时间(104.9±20.5)min和系统建立时间(29.5±9.8)min显著长于B组(78.6±17.1)min,(12.6±2.5)min。两组术中出血量(35.6±25.2)ml∶(31.8±16.4)ml和术后住院天数(2.8±0.8)d:(2.8±0.7)d相近,均无术后并发症,各有1例中转开腹手术。结论手术机器人胆囊切除术与腹腔镜手术相比,手术时间长,但术野控制能力好,动作精确性和稳定性更大。     

“一勾到底法”在腹腔镜胆囊切除术中预防并发症的应用体会(附173771例报告)

目的:探讨腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)中应用电剥离钩"一勾到底法"的应用价值。方法:回顾分析1992年2月至2012年2月为173 771例患者行LC的临床资料,其中133 606例术中采用以电剥离钩为主的"一勾到底法"(观察组),应用"勾、打、压、推、撕、割、挑"操作技巧。同期为40 165例患者行常规LC(对照组),观察"一勾到底法"在减少手术并发症、缩短手术时间等方面的效果。结果:观察组36例(0.0269%)发生手术并发症,175例(0.131%)中转开腹,无一例死亡;胆囊分离切除时间一般为5 min,术后住院3～5 d。对照组60例(0.149%)发生并发症,431例(1.073%)中转开腹,3例死亡。两组患者并发症发生率、中转开腹率差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论:LC术中应用"一勾到底法"可明显减少手术并发症,缩短手术时间、麻醉时间,减少出血量,减轻患者痛苦,术后康复快,在胆囊切除与胆道外科领域充分发挥了微创手术的优势,值得推广。     

Outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a one year experience on unselected patients

This study reviews our experience with outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CCA) to evaluate the benefits of this approach to routine clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of 217 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy over a one-year period (2002-2003) at our university medical center, 151 were selected for same day surgery and discharge according to the following selection criteria: non-urgent surgery, no major co-morbidities, domicile within one hour of the hospital. Patients were typically discharged the afternoon of their surgery if their clinical condition was stable. RESULTS: Of 151 planned outpatient CCA's, 122 (81%) were discharged on the day of surgery. Of these, 16 had a post-operative complication and three required readmission; no patient required reoperation. Univariate analysis revealed three factors predictive of failure of the outpatient strategy: age >65 (p=0.015), operative duration (p<0.0001), and surgical start time after 11 am (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be routinely accomplished in unselected patients in an academic center. The low rate of in-patient admission is acceptable. The out-patient strategy for laparascopic cholecystectomy allows for a reduction in waiting time at our institution.     

Current use of thromboembolism prophylaxis for laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients in Sweden

Background The need for thromboembolism (TE) prophylaxis during laparoscopic surgery is not well established. The aim of this study was to investigate current TE prophylaxis in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in Sweden.Methods Mail questionnaire to all Surgical Departments in Sweden about the current use of thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Results The response rate was 78 of 80 departments of surgery (98%). Seventy reported performing LC. Thirty-six percent used thromboembolism prophylaxis in all patients, 17% in most, 9% in half their patients and 39% only rarely. The current use of thromboembolism prophylaxis ranged from low-molecular-weight heparin for 7 days + stockings in all patients to no prophylaxis at all in the majority of patients.Conclusions The use of thromboembolism prophylaxis in LC patients is highly variable, even in the small and homogenous country of Sweden. Further studies concerning the risk of TE complications after laparoscopic surgery are warranted.     

困难腹腔镜胆囊切除术100例分析

目的探讨腹腔镜下完成困难胆囊切除术的可行性。方法腹腔镜下进行困难胆囊切除术100例（男53例,女47例）。其中急性化脓性胆囊炎52例（52％）,上腹部手术史导致胆囊三角区严重粘连者18例（18％）,萎缩性胆囊炎合并充满型胆囊结石17例（17％）,胆囊结石合并门脉高压症7例（7％）,Mirizzi综合征6例（6％）。结果95例在腹腔镜下成功完成胆囊切除术,另外5例中转开腹手术,中转率为5％。中转原因包括：腹腔镜下无法控制的出血2例,难以辨认肝外胆管的位置3例。平均手术时间（82．1±18．5）min。所有患者均痊愈出院,平均住院时间（7．2±2．3）d。手术后并发症有：胆瘘2例,切口感染2例,肺部感染1例。结论在技术成熟的前提下,腹腔镜下完成困难的胆囊切除术是可行和相对安全的。     

Risk of bleeding associated with use of systemic thromboembolic prophylaxis during laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background: The extent to which systemic perioperative thromboembolic prophylaxis affects peroperative and postoperative bleeding during cholecystectomy is not known. This article reports on risk of bleeding in a national cohort of cholecystectomies. Methods: All cholecystectomies registered in the Swedish Register of Gallstone Surgery and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (GallRiks) between 2005 and 2010 were reviewed. Peroperative bleeding was defined as bleeding that could not be controlled by standard surgical techniques, necessitated conversion to an open procedure or required peroperative blood transfusion. Postoperative bleeding was defined as bleeding that necessitated reoperation, transfusion or a prolonged hospital stay. Risk estimates were performed using univariable and multiple logistic regression, and reported as odds ratios (ORs). Results: A total of 51 621 procedures were registered in GallRiks. Some 48 010 patients were included in the analyses, of whom 21 259 (44·3 per cent) received thromboembolic prophylaxis. Peroperative bleeding complications occurred in 400 (1·9 per cent) and postoperative bleeding in 296 (1·4 per cent) given thromboembolic prophylaxis, compared with 189 (0·7 per cent) and 195 (0·7 per cent) respectively without thromboprophylaxis. After adjusting for age, sex, indication for surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, mode of admission, operative approach, duration of surgery and hospital volume, the OR for peroperative or postoperative bleeding complications in the group receiving prophylaxis was 1·35 (95 per cent confidence interval 1·17 to 1·55). However, in a subgroup analysis the risk was increased in laparoscopic surgery only. At 30‐day follow‐up, a total of 74 patients (0·2 per cent) had developed postoperative thromboembolism, 43 (0·2 per cent) of those who received thromboembolic prophylaxis compared with 31 (0·1 per cent) of those who did not. Conclusion: Thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy increased the risk of bleeding, but the occurrence of thromboembolic events was not significantly reduced. Identification of high‐ and low‐risk patients is needed to guide clinical decisions regarding medical thromboprophylaxis. Copyright © 2012 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

腹腔镜医源性胆管损伤的原因及处理

目的 :分析腹腔镜胆囊切除术医源性胆管损伤的原因 ,探讨防治措施。方法 :回顾分析 2 0 0 2 2例腹腔镜胆囊切除术中 2 9例胆管损伤的临床资料。结果 :2 0例行胆管端端吻合、T管支撑引流术 ,4例行胆-肠吻合术 ,3例行T管切开支撑引流术 ,2例行钛夹取出术 ,均获满意疗效。结论 :胆道损伤是腹腔镜胆囊切除术的主要严重并发症 ,正确操作可避免损伤 ,胆道损伤术中及术后适时正确处理 ,一般预后良好。