Textbook outcome in patients with biliary duct injury during cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Iatrogenic bile duct injury (BDI) during cholecystectomy is associated with a complex and heterogeneous management owing to the burden of morbidity until their definitive treatment. This study aimed to define the textbook outcomes (TOs) after BDI with the purpose to indicate the ideal treatment and to improve it management. METHODS: We collected data from patients with an BDI between 1990 and 2022 from 27 hospitals. TO was defined as a successful conservative treatment of the iatrogenic BDI or only minor complications after BDI or patients in whom the first repair resolves the iatrogenic BDI without complications or with minor complications. RESULTS: We included 808 patients and a total of 394 patients (46.9%) achieved TO. Overall complications in TO and non-TO groups were 11.9% and 86%, respectively (P < .001). Major complications and mortality in the non-TO group were 57.4% and 9.2%, respectively. The use of end-to-end bile duct anastomosis repair was higher in the non-TO group (23.1 vs 7.8, P < .001). Factors associated with achieving a TO were injury in a specialized center (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.01; 95% CI, 2.68-5.99; P < .001), transfer for a first repair (aOR, 5.72; 95% CI, 3.51-9.34; P < .001), conservative management (aOR, 5.00; 95% CI, 1.63-15.36; P = .005), or surgical management (aOR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.50-4.00; P < .001). CONCLUSION: TO largely depends on where the BDI is managed and the type of injury. It allows hepatobiliary centers to identify domains of improvement of perioperative management of patients with BDI.

Vascular injury during cholecystectomy: A multicenter critical analysis behind the drama.

BACKGROUND: The management of a vascular injury during cholecystectomy is still very complicated, especially in centers not specialized in complex hepatobiliary surgery. METHODS: This was a multi-institutional retrospective study in patients with vascular injuries during cholecystectomy from 18 centers in 4 countries. The aim of the study was to analyze the management of vascular injuries focusing on referral, time to perform the repair, and different treatments options outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were included. Twenty-nine patients underwent vascular repair (27.9%), 13 (12.5%) liver resection, and 1 liver transplant as a first treatment. Eighty-four (80.4%) vascular and biliary injuries occurred in nonspecialized centers and 45 (53.6%) were immediately transferred. Intraoperative diagnosed injuries were rare in referred patients (18% vs 84%, P = .001). The patients managed at the hospital where the injury occurred had a higher number of reoperations (64% vs 20%, P ˂ .001). The need for vascular reconstruction was associated with higher mortality (P = .04). Two of the 4 patients transplanted died. CONCLUSION: Vascular lesions during cholecystectomy are a potentially life-threatening complication. Management of referral to specialized centers to perform multiple complex multidisciplinary procedures should be mandatory. Late vascular repair has not shown to be associated with worse results.

Machine Learning-Based Analysis in the Management of Iatrogenic Bile Duct Injury During Cholecystectomy: a Nationwide Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Iatrogenic bile duct injury (IBDI) is a challenging surgical complication. IBDI management can be guided by artificial intelligence models. Our study identified the factors associated with successful initial repair of IBDI and predicted the success of definitive repair based on patient risk levels. METHODS: This is a retrospective multi-institution cohort of patients with IBDI after cholecystectomy conducted between 1990 and 2020. We implemented a decision tree analysis to determine the factors that contribute to successful initial repair and developed a risk-scoring model based on the Comprehensive Complication Index. RESULTS: We analyzed 748 patients across 22 hospitals. Our decision tree model was 82.8% accurate in predicting the success of the initial repair. Non-type E (p < 0.01), treatment in specialized centers (p < 0.01), and surgical repair (p < 0.001) were associated with better prognosis. The risk-scoring model was 82.3% (79.0-85.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI]) and 71.7% (63.8-78.7%, 95% CI) accurate in predicting success in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. Surgical repair, successful initial repair, and repair between 2 and 6 weeks were associated with better outcomes. DISCUSSION: Machine learning algorithms for IBDI are a novel tool may help to improve the decision-making process and guide management of these patients.

Impact of number and site of lymph node invasion on survival of adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction.

Lymph node involvement in adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) is similar to that of gastric cancer. The impact on survival of the number and site of lymph nodes involved in a subgroup of patients undergone surgery for adenocarcinoma of EGJ is reported. Sixty-four patients undergone transthoracic esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy for adenocarcinoma of the EGJ were retrospectively assessed. Five-year survival according to AJCC gastric cancer nodal classification and central node invasion was evaluated. In N0 patients survival was assessed in relation to the number of lymph nodes removed. Five-year survival was 72% in N0, 46% in N1 and 0% in N2 and N3 group. Intergroup differences were statistically significant (P<0.05) except between N2 and N3 groups. Overall survival was different depending on the infiltration of distal or proximal site nodes, 23% vs. 58% (P<0.05); in N0 patients it was related to the number of lymph nodes removed (83% >15 vs. 57% <15, P<0.05). Classification of lymph node involvement in adenocarcinoma of the EGJ by gastric cancer criteria is adequate for prognostic purposes. The involvement of distal nodes in all cases and the removal of <15 nodes in N0 group resulted as independent negative predictive factors.

Laparoscopic approach to esophageal perforation secondary to pneumatic dilation for achalasia.

BACKGROUND: Perforation of the esophagus after pneumatic dilation for achalasia is a severe complication which should be treated accurately in order to obtain a successful immediate outcome and a satisfactory result for the underlying condition. METHODS: Five consecutive patients presenting with distal esophageal perforation after pneumatic dilation for achalasia were included in this study. All patients had gastrografin swallow performed to confirm the perforation, and one patient was also submitted to flexible esophagoscopy. Laparoscopic approach was performed in all patients with five portals. The phrenoesophageal membrane was opened on its anterior aspect. The distal esophagus was dissected free, and perforations were identified with the help of methylene blue or milk administration through the esophageal tube. All perforations were sutured with interrupted absorbable sutures. Contralateral myotomy and partial anterior Dor fundoplication completed the operation. Endoscopic control of length of myotomy and watertightness of mucosal closure was performed in all cases. RESULTS: There were no intraoperative complications. After surgery all patients were maintained with nil per os until a barium swallow showed no leakage. One patient had a radiologic leakage sustained for 1 week. All patients were dismissed uneventfully. At 6 months after surgery, esophageal manometry was performed. Mean lower esophageal sphincter resting pressure had fallen from 30 to 8.7 mmHg. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy offers an excellent approach to treat distal esophageal instrumental perforations, perhaps even better than open surgery. Suture of the perforation, contralateral myotomy and partial anterior fundoplication is a good option in the treatment of perforated achalasia after pneumatic dilation.