Borakati Aditya, Hughes S Frances, Kocher Hemant M, Malik Humza, Malik Humza
Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, Pond Street, London, NW3 2QG, UK.
Barts Health NHS Trust, Whitechapel Road, London, E1 2ES, UK.
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2025 Jan 7;410(1):27. doi: 10.1007/s00423-024-03567-7.
International guidelines for management of acute biliary pathology recommend emergency cholecystectomy (EmC), citing improved outcomes compared to elective cholecystectomy (ElC) based on trials which may not reflect the capacity constraints in clinical practice, nor selection based on multiple prior attendances with emergency biliary pathology or attendances following a decision for ElC. We therefore conducted a longitudinal retrospective study evaluating all attendances with biliary pathology prior to cholecystectomy with the aim of assessing whether EmC is justified in this context.
Data was collected on patients undergoing cholecystectomy between 2016 and 2021 at four centres. Patients who had an emergency presentation with a biliary pathology prior to cholecystectomy up to 2010 were included. Patients were divided into EmC and ElC groups, EmC was defined as cholecystectomy occurring during an emergency admission with biliary pathology. Multilevel regression modelling was used to identify independent predictors for time to surgery from index presentation, number of re-attendances and length of stay (LoS).
2,056 patients were included: 1,786 (86.9%) had ElC and 270 (13.1%) EmC. EmC was independently associated with a reduction in time to surgery (-112.32 days [95% CI -140.22 to -84.42]). However, there was a significant increase in both post-operative and overall LoS (+ 3.34 days [95% CI 1.81-4.86]) across all admissions with EmC. EmC did not significantly reduce rates of emergency re-attendance prior to surgery overall.
Although EmC reduces time to surgery, it does not reduce the number of emergency re-attendances and increases LoS. In the context of limited emergency theatre capacity, it may be beneficial to prioritise those who benefit most from EmC.
急性胆道疾病管理的国际指南推荐急诊胆囊切除术(EmC),基于一些试验表明其与择期胆囊切除术(ElC)相比能改善预后,但这些试验可能未反映临床实践中的能力限制,也未考虑基于多次急诊胆道疾病就诊或择期胆囊切除术决定后的就诊情况进行的选择。因此,我们进行了一项纵向回顾性研究,评估胆囊切除术前行胆道疾病就诊的所有情况,目的是评估在此背景下急诊胆囊切除术是否合理。
收集了2016年至2021年期间四个中心接受胆囊切除术患者的数据。纳入了2010年之前胆囊切除术前因胆道疾病急诊就诊的患者。患者分为急诊胆囊切除术组和择期胆囊切除术组,急诊胆囊切除术定义为在因胆道疾病急诊入院期间进行的胆囊切除术。采用多水平回归模型确定从首次就诊到手术时间、再次就诊次数和住院时间(LoS)的独立预测因素。
纳入2056例患者:1786例(86.9%)接受择期胆囊切除术,270例(13.1%)接受急诊胆囊切除术。急诊胆囊切除术与手术时间缩短独立相关(-112.32天[95%CI -140.22至-84.42])。然而,所有急诊胆囊切除术入院患者的术后住院时间和总住院时间均显著增加(+3.34天[95%CI 1.81 - 4.86])。急诊胆囊切除术总体上并未显著降低术前急诊再次就诊率。
虽然急诊胆囊切除术可缩短手术时间,但并未减少急诊再次就诊次数,且增加了住院时间。在急诊手术能力有限的情况下,优先考虑那些从急诊胆囊切除术中获益最大的患者可能是有益的。