Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Br J Surg ; 108(11): 1351-1359, 2021 11 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34476484

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Uncomplicated acute appendicitis can be managed with non-operative (antibiotic) treatment, but laparoscopic appendicectomy remains the first-line management in the UK. During the COVID-19 pandemic the practice altered, with more patients offered antibiotics as treatment. A large-scale observational study was designed comparing operative and non-operative management of appendicitis. The aim of this study was to evaluate 90-day follow-up. METHODS: A prospective, cohort study at 97 sites in the UK and Republic of Ireland included adult patients with a clinical or radiological diagnosis of appendicitis that either had surgery or non-operative management. Propensity score matching was conducted using age, sex, BMI, frailty, co-morbidity, Adult Appendicitis Score and C-reactive protein. Outcomes were 90-day treatment failure in the non-operative group, and in the matched groups 30-day complications, length of hospital stay (LOS) and total healthcare costs associated with each treatment. RESULTS: A total of 3420 patients were recorded: 1402 (41 per cent) had initial antibiotic management and 2018 (59 per cent) had appendicectomy. At 90-day follow-up, antibiotics were successful in 80 per cent (1116) of cases. After propensity score matching (2444 patients), fewer overall complications (OR 0.36 (95 per cent c.i. 0.26 to 0.50)) and a shorter median LOS (2.5 versus 3 days, P < 0.001) were noted in the antibiotic management group. Accounting for interval appendicectomy rates, the mean total cost was €1034 lower per patient managed without surgery. CONCLUSION: This study found that antibiotics is an alternative first-line treatment for adult acute appendicitis and can lead to cost reductions.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Apendicite/terapia , Adulto , Apendicectomia/estatística & dados numéricos , Apendicite/economia , Estudos de Coortes , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Irlanda , Tempo de Internação/estatística & dados numéricos , Masculino , Análise por Pareamento , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Reino Unido
2.
Br J Surg ; 108(8): 892-897, 2021 08 19.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34297806

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery is an established treatment for severe obesity; however, fewer than 1 per cent of eligible patients undergo surgery. The perceived risk of surgery may contribute to the low uptake. The aim of this study was to determine perioperative mortality associated with bariatric surgery, comparing different operation types and data sources. METHODS: A literature search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted to identify studies published between 1 January 2014 and 31 July 2020. Inclusion criteria were studies of at least 1000 patients reporting short-term mortality after bariatric surgery. Data were collected on RCTs. Meta-analysis was performed to establish overall mortality rates across different study types. The primary outcome measure was perioperative mortality. Different operation types were compared, along with study type, in subgroup analyses. The study was registered at PROSPERO (2019: CRD 42019131632). RESULTS: Some 4356 articles were identified and 58 met the inclusion criteria. Data were available on over 3.6 million patients. There were 4707 deaths. Pooled analysis showed an overall mortality rate of 0.08 (95 per cent c.i. 0.06 to 0.10; 95 per cent prediction interval 0 to 0.21) per cent. In subgroup analysis, there was no statistically significant difference between overall, 30-day, 90-day or in-hospital mortality (P = 0.29). There was no significant difference in reported mortality for RCTs, large studies, national databases or registries (P = 0.60). The pooled mortality rates by procedure type in ascending order were: 0.03 per cent for gastric band, 0.05 per cent for sleeve gastrectomy, 0.09 per cent for one-anastomosis gastric bypass, 0.09 per cent for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, and 0.41 per cent for duodenal switch (P < 0.001 between operations). CONCLUSION: Bariatric surgery is safe, with low reported perioperative mortality rates.


Weight loss surgery helps patients with severe obesity. This study looked at the risk of dying after weight loss surgery in over 3.6 million patients. The risk was less than 1 in 1000 (0.08 per cent). The risk was lowest for gastric band and sleeve gastrectomy, then for gastric bypasses and highest for the duodenal switch operation. This shows that weight loss surgery is safe, with a low risk of dying similar to that of other common operations.


Assuntos
Cirurgia Bariátrica/mortalidade , Obesidade Mórbida/cirurgia , Cirurgia Bariátrica/métodos , Saúde Global , Humanos , Laparoscopia/mortalidade , Obesidade Mórbida/mortalidade , Obesidade Mórbida/fisiopatologia , Período Perioperatório , Taxa de Sobrevida/tendências , Redução de Peso/fisiologia
4.
Tech Coloproctol ; 25(4): 401-411, 2021 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32671661

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis (AA) is the most common general surgical emergency. Early laparoscopic appendicectomy is the gold-standard management. SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) brought concerns of increased perioperative mortality and spread of infection during aerosol generating procedures: as a consequence, conservative management was advised, and open appendicectomy recommended when surgery was unavoidable. This study describes the impact of the first weeks of the pandemic on the management of AA in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: Patients 18 years or older, diagnosed clinically and/or radiologically with AA were eligible for inclusion in this prospective, multicentre cohort study. Data was collected from 23rd March 2020 (beginning of the UK Government lockdown) to 1st May 2020 and included: patient demographics, COVID status; initial management (operative and conservative); length of stay; and 30-day complications. Analysis was performed on the first 500 cases with 30-day follow-up. RESULTS: The patient cohort consisted of 500 patients from 48 sites. The median age of this cohort was 35 [26-49.75] years and 233 (47%) of patients were female. Two hundred and seventy-one (54%) patients were initially treated conservatively; with only 26 (10%) cases progressing to an operation. Operative interventions were performed laparoscopically in 44% (93/211). Median length of hospital stay was significantly reduced in the conservatively managed group (2 [IQR 1-4] days vs. 3 [2-4], p < 0.001). At 30 days, complications were significantly higher in the operative group (p < 0.001), with no deaths in any group. Of the 159 (32%) patients tested for COVID-19 on admission, only 6 (4%) were positive. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 has changed the management of acute appendicitis in the UK, with non-operative management shown to be safe and effective in the short-term. Antibiotics should be considered as the first line during the pandemic and perhaps beyond.


Assuntos
Apendicectomia/estatística & dados numéricos , Apendicite/cirurgia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Controle de Doenças Transmissíveis , Adulto , Apendicite/epidemiologia , Estudos de Coortes , Feminino , Humanos , Tempo de Internação , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pandemias , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Estudos Prospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Reino Unido/epidemiologia
5.
Br J Surg ; 104(1): 98-107, 2017 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27762448

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of cholecystectomy for patients admitted with acute gallbladder pathology is unclear. Some studies have shown that emergency cholecystectomy during the index admission can reduce length of hospital stay with similar rates of conversion to open surgery, complications and mortality compared with a 'delayed' operation following discharge. Others have reported that cholecystectomy during the index acute admission results in higher morbidity, extended length of stay and increased costs. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of emergency versus delayed cholecystectomy for acute benign gallbladder disease. METHODS: Using data from a prospective population-based cohort study examining the outcomes of cholecystectomy in the UK and Ireland, a model-based cost-utility analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service, with a 1-year time horizon for costs and outcomes. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to investigate the impact of parameter uncertainty on the results obtained from the model. RESULTS: Emergency cholecystectomy was found to be less costly (£4570 versus £4720; €5484 versus €5664) and more effective (0·8868 versus 0·8662 QALYs) than delayed cholecystectomy. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the emergency strategy is more than 60 per cent likely to be cost-effective across willingness-to-pay values for the QALY from £0 to £100 000 (€0-120 000). CONCLUSION: Emergency cholecystectomy is less costly and more effective than delayed cholecystectomy. This approach is likely to be beneficial to patients in terms of improved health outcomes and to the healthcare provider owing to the reduced costs.


Assuntos
Colecistectomia Laparoscópica/economia , Colecistite Aguda/economia , Colecistite Aguda/cirurgia , Emergências , Análise Custo-Benefício , Humanos , Modelos Econômicos , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Medicina Estatal/economia , Tempo para o Tratamento , Reino Unido
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA