Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy is Safe Both Day and Night.

BACKGROUND: It is reported that performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) at night leads to increased rates of complications and conversion to open. We hypothesize that it is safe to perform LC at night in appropriately selected patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of nonelective LC in adults at our institution performed between April 2007 and February 2015. We dichotomized the cases to either day or night. RESULTS: Five thousand two hundred four patients underwent LC, with 4628 during the day and 576 at night. There were no differences in age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, race, insurance type, pregnancy rate, or white blood cell count. There were also no differences in the prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, or renal failure. However, daytime patients had higher median initial total bilirubin (0.6 [0.4, 1.3] versus 0.5 [0.3, 1.0] mg/dL, P = 0.002) and lipase (33 [24, 56] versus 30 [22, 42] U/L, P < 0.001) values. There was no difference in case length, estimated blood loss, rate of conversion to open, biliary complications, length of stay (LOS) after operation, unanticipated return to the hospital in 60 d, or 60-d mortality. Daytime patients spent more time in the hospital with longer median LOS before surgery (1 [1, 2] versus 1 [0, 2] d, P < 0.001) and median total LOS (3 [2, 4] versus 2 [1, 3] d, P < 0.001) compared with night patients. CONCLUSIONS: At our institution, we perform LC safely during day or night. The lack of complications and shorter LOS justify performing LC at any hour.

Fast track pathway provides safe, value based care on busy acute care surgery service.

BACKGROUND: Fast track (FT) pathways have been adopted across a multitude of elective surgeries but have been slow to be adopted into the acute care surgery realm. We hypothesized that an FT pathway for acute cholecystitis patients would decrease patient length of stay and resource utilization. METHODS: All patients at two hospitals, one with an FT pathway and one with a traditional pathway, who underwent an urgent laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis between May 1, 2019, and October 31, 2019, were queried using CPT codes. Exclusion criteria were conversion to open or partial cholecystectomy. Retrospective chart review was used to gather demographics, operative, hospital course, and outcomes. Time to operating room, hospital length of stay, and resource utilization were the primary outcomes. RESULTS: There was a total of 479 urgent laparoscopic cholecystectomies performed, 430 (89.8%) were performed under the FT pathway. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) time to the operating room was not different: 14.1 hours (IQR, 8.3-29.0 hours) for FT and 18.5 hours (IQR, 11.9-25.9 hours) for traditional (p = 0.316). However, the median length of stay was shorter by 15.9 hours in the FT cohort (22.6 hours; IQR, 14.2-40.4 hours vs. 38.5 hours; IQR, 28.3-56.3 hours; p < 0.001). Under the FT pathway, 33.0% of patients were admitted to the hospital and 75.6% were discharged from the postanesthesia care unit, compared with 91.8% and 12.2% on the traditional pathway (both p < 0.001). There were 59.6% of the FT patients that received a phone call follow up, as opposed to 100% of the traditional patients having clinic follow up (p < 0.001). The emergency department bounce back rate, readmission rates, and complication rates were similar (p > 0.2 for all). On multivariate analysis, having a FT pathway was an independent predictor of discharge within 24 hours of surgical consultation (odds ratio, 7.65; 95% confidence interval< 2.90-20.15; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Use of a FT program for patients with acute cholecystitis has a significant positive impact on resource utilization without compromise of clinical outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management, level IV.

The Advanced Trauma Operative Management course in a Canadian residency program.

BACKGROUND: The Advanced Trauma Operative Management (ATOM) course was first introduced into Canada in 2003 at the University of Toronto, with senior general surgery residents being the primary focus. We present an assessment of the course in this Canadian general surgery residency program. METHODS: We compared trainees' pre-and postcourse self-efficacy scores and multiple choice question (MCQ) examination results, using paired t tests and resident (n = 24) and faculty (n = 7) course ratings made according to a 10-item, 5-point Likert scale. Faculty were previously trained as ATOM instructors. RESULTS: Mean pre-and postcourse self-efficacy scores were 68.9 (standard deviation [SD] 24.0) and 101.4 (SD 14.8), respectively (p < 0.001). Mean pre-and post-MCQ scores were 16.4 (SD 3.2) and 18.8 (SD 2.7), respectively (p = 0.006). On the Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), all faculty and residents rated the following items as 4-5: objectives were met; knowledge, skills, clinical training, judgment and confidence improved; the live animal is a useful representation of clinical trauma; and the course should be continued but would be more appropriate for the fourth rather than the fifth year of residency. Residents rated as 1-2 the item that the human cadaver would be preferable for learning the surgical skills. Of 24 residents, 20 rated as 3 or less the item stating that the course prepares them for trauma management more adequately than their regular training program. CONCLUSION: Self-efficacy, trauma knowledge and skills improved significantly with ATOM training. Preference was expressed for the live animal versus cadaver model, for ATOM training in the fourth rather than fifth year of residency and for the view that it complements general surgery trauma training. The data suggest that including ATOM training in Canadian general surgical residency should be considered.

Follow-up survey of participants attending the Advanced Trauma Operative Management (ATOM) Course.

BACKGROUND: The ATOM Course was developed to educate surgeons about the surgical management of penetrating injuries. Its goals are to improve knowledge, self-confidence, and technical competence. METHODS: ATOM participants completed a 25-item questionnaire to assess self-efficacy (SE) for advanced trauma operative management before and immediately after taking the ATOM course. On follow-up, questionnaires were sent to ATOM participants. One was a 7-item survey to assess the value of the ATOM course to surgical practice. Another was the 25-item questionnaire to assess SE. RESULTS: Four items on the survey to assess the value of ATOM had mean scores > or = 4.0 and 3 had mean scores > 3.6. All had modes of 4.0 or greater. For all items, most respondents selected the agree options indicating positive assessments of the ATOM course to their surgical practice. For SE, the pre-ATOM mean SE score was 3.88 and the immediate post ATOM mean SE score was 4.57 (p < 0.05). The follow-up mean SE score was 4.47 indicating maintenance of SE (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Follow-up data from ATOM participants indicate that respondents believe the ATOM course improved their ability to identify and repair traumatic injuries. They report they use the techniques and knowledge learned in ATOM and confidence remains high after the ATOM course. ATOM is well received as an effective teaching strategy for surgical education for the management of penetrating injuries.