Approach to the Diagnostic Workup and Management of Small Bowel Lesions at a Tertiary Care Center.

BACKGROUND: Small bowel lesions (SBL) are rare, representing diagnostic and management challenges. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate diagnostic modalities used and management practices of patients with SBL at an advanced endoscopic referral center. METHODS: We analyzed patients undergoing surgical management for SBL from 2005 to 2015 at a single tertiary care center. Patients were stratified into gastrointestinal bleed/anemia (GIBA) or obstruction/pain (OP). RESULTS: One hundred and twelve patients underwent surgery after presenting with either GIBA (n = 67) or OP (n = 45). The mean age of our study population was 61.8 years and 45% were women. Patients with GIBA were more likely to have chronic or acute-on-chronic symptoms (100% vs 67%) and more often referred from outside hospitals (82 vs. 44%) (p < 0.01). The most common preoperative imaging modalities were video capsule endoscopy (VCE) (96%) for GIBA and computer tomography CT (78%) for OP. Findings on VCE and CT were most frequently concordant with operative findings in GIBA (67%) and OP (54%) patients, respectively. Intraoperatively, visual inspection or palpation of the bowel successfully identified lesions in 71% of patients. When performed in GIBA (n = 26), intraoperative enteroscopy (IE) confirmed or identified lesions in 69% of patients. Almost all (90%) GIBA patients underwent small bowel resections; most were laparoscopic-assisted (93%). Among patients with OP, 58% had a small bowel resection and the majority (81%) were laparoscopic-assisted. Surgical exploration failed to identify lesions in 10% of GIBA patients and 24% of OP patients. Among patients who underwent resections, 20% of GIBA patients had recurrent symptoms compared with 13% of OP patients. CONCLUSION: Management and identification of SBL is governed by presenting symptomatology. Optimal management includes VCE and IE for GIBA and CT scans for OP patients. Comprehensive evaluation may require referral to specialized centers.

Cholecystostomy Treatment in an ICU Population: Complications and Risks.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous cholecystostomy tube placement has widely been used as an alternative treatment to cholecystectomy, especially in advanced disease or critically ill patients. Reported postprocedural complication rates have varied significantly over the last decade. The goal of this study is to evaluate the safety of percutaneous cholecystostomy tube treatment in critically ill patients. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective chart analysis of 96 critically ill patients who underwent cholecystostomy tube placement during an intensive care unit (ICU) stay between 2005 and 2010 in a tertiary care center in central Massachusetts. Complications within 72 hours of cholecystostomy tube placement and any morbidity or mortality relating to presence of cholecystostomy tube were considered. RESULTS: A total of 65 male and 31 female patients with a mean age of 67.4 years underwent percutaneous cholecystostomy tube placement during an ICU stay. Sixty-six patients experienced a total of 121 complications, resulting in an overall complication rate of 69%. Fifty-four of these complications resulted from the actual procedure or the presence of the cholecystostomy tube; the other 67 complications occurred within 72 hours of the cholecystostomy procedure. Ten patients died. Tube dislodgment was the most common complication with a total of 34 episodes. CONCLUSIONS: Cholecystostomy tube placement is associated with frequent complications, the most common of which is tube dislodgment. Severe complications may contribute to serious morbidity and death in an ICU population. Complication rates may be underreported in the medical literature. The potential impact of cholecystostomy tube placement in critically ill patients should not be underestimated.

Timing and choice of intervention influences outcome in acute cholecystitis: a prospective study.

PURPOSE: Determine which management strategy is ideal for patients with acute cholecystitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective enrollment between August 2009 and March 2011. Large academic center. Patients with acute cholecystitis. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, intravenous antibiotics followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy or percutaneous cholecystostomy. Primary endpoints were postoperative complications and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 162 patients were enrolled, 53 (33%) with simple acute cholecystitis and 109 (67%) with complex acute cholecystitis. Of the 109 patients with complex cholecystitis, 77 (70.6%) underwent successful laparoscopic cholecystectomy during the same hospital admission and 6 patients (5.5%) had an unsuccessful laparoscopic cholecystectomy requiring conversion to cholecystostomy. Radiology performed cholecystostomy in 19 (11.7%) patients with complex acute cholecystitis and 4 (2.5%) patients with simple acute cholecystitis for a total 23 patients of the 162 patients in the study. Nine of the 23 patients had dislodged tubes (39.1%). Two of the 23 patients (8.7%) had significant bile leaks resulting in either sepsis or emergency surgery. One patient (4.3%) had a wound infection. Overall, patients with complex acute cholecystitis had a higher morbidity rate (31.2%) compared with patients with simple acute cholecystitis (26.4%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A high complication rate seen with radiology placed percutaneous cholecystostomy tubes prompted our center to reevaluate the treatment algorithm used to treat patients with complex acute cholecystitis. Although laparoscopic cholecystectomy is considered to be the gold standard in the treatment of acute cholecystitis, if laparoscopic cholecystectomy is not felt to be safe due to gallbladder wall thickening or symptoms of >72 hours' duration, we now encourage the use of intravenous antibiotics to "cool" patients down followed by interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy approximately 6 to 8 weeks later. Patients who do not respond to antibiotics should undergo attempted laparoscopic cholecystectomy and if unable to be performed safely, a laparoscopic cholecystostomy tube can be placed under direct visualization for decompression followed by interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy at a later date.