Predicting the difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy: development and validation of a pre-operative risk score using an objective operative difficulty grading system.

BACKGROUND: The prediction of a difficult cholecystectomy has traditionally been based on certain pre-operative clinical and imaging factors. Most of the previous literature reported small patient cohorts and have not used an objective measure of operative difficulty. The aim of this study was to develop a pre-operative score to predict difficult cholecystectomy, as defined by a validated intra-operative difficulty grading scale. METHOD: Two cohorts from prospectively maintained databases of patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy were analysed: the CholeS Study (8755 patients) and a single surgeon series (4089 patients). Factors potentially predictive of difficulty were correlated to the Nassar intra-operative difficulty scale. A multivariable binary logistic regression analysis was then used to identify factors that were independently associated with difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy, defined as operative difficulty grades 3 to 5. The resulting model was then converted to a risk score, and validated on both internal and external datasets. RESULT: Increasing age and ASA classification, male gender, diagnosis of CBD stone or cholecystitis, thick-walled gallbladders, CBD dilation, use of pre-operative ERCP and non-elective operations were found to be significant independent predictors of difficult cases. A risk score based on these factors returned an area under the ROC curve of 0.789 (95% CI 0.773-0.806, p < 0.001) on external validation, with 11.0% versus 80.0% of patients classified as low versus high risk having difficult surgeries. CONCLUSION: We have developed and validated a pre-operative scoring system that uses easily available pre-operative variables to predict difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomies. This scoring system should assist in patient selection for day case surgery, optimising pre-operative surgical planning (e.g. allocation of the procedure to a suitably trained surgeon) and counselling patients during the consent process. The score could also be used to risk adjust outcomes in future research.

A modified Delphi process to establish future research priorities in malignant oesophagogastric surgery.

BACKGROUND: With rapid advancement in the genomics of oesophagogastric (OG) cancer and raised expectations in clinical outcomes from patients and clinicians alike there is a clear need to determine the current research priorities in OG cancer surgery. The aim of our study was to use a modified Delphi process to determine the research priorities among OG cancer surgeons in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Delphi methodology may be utilised to develop consensus opinion amongst a group of experts. Members of the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland were invited to submit individual research questions via an online survey (phase I). Two rounds of prioritisation by multidisciplinary expert healthcare professionals (phase II and III) were completed to determine a final list of high priority research questions. All questions submitted and subsequently ranked were analysed on an anonymised basis. RESULTS: In total, 427 questions were submitted in phase I and 75 with an OG cancer focus were taken forward for prioritisation in phase II. Phase III produced a final list of 12 high priority questions with an emphasis on tailored or personalised treatment strategies in OG cancer surgery. CONCLUSION: A modified Delphi process produced a list of 12 high priority research questions in OG cancer surgery. Future studies and awards from funding bodies should reflect this consensus list of prioritised questions in the interest of improving patient care and encouraging collaborative research across multiple centres.

Utilisation of an operative difficulty grading scale for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: A reliable system for grading operative difficulty of laparoscopic cholecystectomy would standardise description of findings and reporting of outcomes. The aim of this study was to validate a difficulty grading system (Nassar scale), testing its applicability and consistency in two large prospective datasets. METHODS: Patient and disease-related variables and 30-day outcomes were identified in two prospective cholecystectomy databases: the multi-centre prospective cohort of 8820 patients from the recent CholeS Study and the single-surgeon series containing 4089 patients. Operative data and patient outcomes were correlated with Nassar operative difficultly scale, using Kendall's tau for dichotomous variables, or Jonckheere-Terpstra tests for continuous variables. A ROC curve analysis was performed, to quantify the predictive accuracy of the scale for each outcome, with continuous outcomes dichotomised, prior to analysis. RESULTS: A higher operative difficulty grade was consistently associated with worse outcomes for the patients in both the reference and CholeS cohorts. The median length of stay increased from 0 to 4 days, and the 30-day complication rate from 7.6 to 24.4% as the difficulty grade increased from 1 to 4/5 (both p < 0.001). In the CholeS cohort, a higher difficulty grade was found to be most strongly associated with conversion to open and 30-day mortality (AUROC = 0.903, 0.822, respectively). On multivariable analysis, the Nassar operative difficultly scale was found to be a significant independent predictor of operative duration, conversion to open surgery, 30-day complications and 30-day reintervention (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: We have shown that an operative difficulty scale can standardise the description of operative findings by multiple grades of surgeons to facilitate audit, training assessment and research. It provides a tool for reporting operative findings, disease severity and technical difficulty and can be utilised in future research to reliably compare outcomes according to case mix and intra-operative difficulty.

Correction to: Utilisation of an operative difficulty grading scale for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

The list of the CholeS management group, Collaborators and Data Validators were omitted from the Acknowledgments.

Preoperative risk factors for conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy: a validated risk score derived from a prospective U.K. database of 8820 patients.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is commonly performed, and several factors increase the risk of open conversion, prolonging operating time and hospital stay. Preoperative stratification would improve consent, scheduling and identify appropriate training cases. The aim of this study was to develop a validated risk score for conversion for use in clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Preoperative patient and disease-related variables were identified from a prospective cholecystectomy database (CholeS) of 8820 patients, divided into main and validation sets. Preoperative predictors of conversion were identified by multivariable binary logistic regression. A risk score was developed and validated using a forward stepwise approach. RESULTS: Some 297 procedures (3.4%) were converted. The risk score was derived from six significant predictors: age (p = 0.005), sex (p < 0.001), indication for surgery (p < 0.001), ASA (p < 0.001), thick-walled gallbladder (p = 0.040) and CBD diameter (p = 0.004). Testing the score on the validation set yielded an AUROC = 0.766 (p < 0.001), and a score >6 identified patients at high risk of conversion (7.1% vs. 1.2%). CONCLUSION: This validated risk score allows preoperative identification of patients at six-fold increased risk of conversion to open cholecystectomy.

Protocol for LAsting Symptoms after Oesophageal Resectional Surgery (LASORS): multicentre validation cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Surgery is the primary curative treatment for oesophageal cancer, with considerable recent improvements in long-term survival. However, surgery has a long-lasting impact on patient's health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Through a multicentre European study, our research group was able to identify key symptoms that affect patient's HRQOL. These symptoms were combined to produce a tool to identify poor HRQOL following oesophagectomy (LAsting Symptoms after Oesophageal Resection (LASOR) tool). The objective of this multicentre study is to validate a six-symptom clinical tool to identify patients with poor HRQOL for use in everyday clinical practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Included patients will: (1) be aged 18 years or older, (2) have undergone an oesophagectomy for cancer between 2015 and 2019, and (3) be at least 12 months after the completion of adjuvant oncological treatments. Patients will be given the previously created LASOR questionnaire. Each symptom from the LASOR questionnaire will be graded according to impact on quality of life and frequency of the symptom, with a composite score from 0 to 5. The previously developed LASOR symptom tool will be validated against HRQOL as measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQC30 and OG25. SAMPLE SIZE: With a predicted prevalence of poor HRQOL of 45%, based on the previously generated LASOR clinical symptom tool, to validate this tool with a sensitivity and specificity of 80%, respectively, a minimum of 640 patients will need to be recruited to the study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: NHS Health Research Authority (North East-York Research Ethics Committee) approval was gained 8 November 2019 (REC reference 19/NE/0352). Multiple platforms will be used for the dissemination of the research data, including international clinical and patient group presentations and publication of research outputs in a high impact clinical journal.