RESUMEN
Aim: The aim is to evaluate laparoscopic cholecystectomy safety based on American Society of Anesthesiologists score for acute cholecystitis in patients with comorbidities. Patients & methods: This is retrospective study of patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis between 2003 and 2021. According to their respective ASA-score, patients were divided into group 1: ASA1-2 and group 2: ASA3-4. Results: We collected 578 patients. Even though the gangrenous forms were more frequent and the operative time was longer in group 2, laparoscopic cholecystectomy seems safe and effective. We didn't observe any differences in terms of intraoperative incidents, open conversion rate, or postoperative complications compared with other patients. Conclusion: ASA3-4 patients with acute cholecystitis don't face elevated risks of complications or mortality during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
This study, involving 578 patients with acute cholecystitis, assessed the safety of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy based on their health scores. Despite longer operative times and more gangrenous forms in higher-scored patients, laparoscopic cholecystectomy was found to be safe and effective. No significant differences in complications or mortality were observed compared with lower-scored patients. In conclusion, early laparoscopic cholecystectomy is considered a safe option for patients with higher health scores facing acute cholecystitis.
Study assessed laparoscopic cholecystectomy safety in high-risk patients with acute cholecystitis based on ASA scores. Despite longer operative times, it's a safe and effective option. #CholecystectomySafety.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Digital rectal examination (DRE) is a simple gesture, used for diagnosis of several diseases. However, some general practitioners (GPs) are practicing it less and less often. AIM: To estimate the rate of unrealized DRE and to analyze the factors preventing threir achievement. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study conducted among 105 GPs practicing in Sousse. We used a pre-established pre-tested and self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: We identified 551 DRE that were indicated but unrealized. There was a significant influence between the non-realization of DRE on the one hand, and on the other hand: the lack of experience; the closeness of the specialist; the lack of training and the lack of conviction of the importance of this examination. Embarrassment during the realization of the DRE was felt in 69.3% of cases. Factors associated with this embarrassment were: female practitioner; the young age of the practitioner; the rural practice and the nature of internship placements. CONCLUSION: Although it is a simple and inexpensive gesture, the DRE remains neglected by many physicians. Several factors appear to influence the achievement of the DRE. Ongoing continuing medical education seems necessary, especially as we found a lack of belief in the importance of this examination.
