A comparison of outcomes including bile duct injury of subtotal cholecystectomy versus open total cholecystectomy as bailout procedures for severe cholecystitis: A multicenter real-world study.

BACKGROUND: Dense inflammation obscuring the hepatocystic anatomy can hinder the ability to perform a safe standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy in severe cholecystitis, requiring use of a bailout procedure. We compared clinical outcomes of laparoscopic and open subtotal cholecystectomy against the traditional standard of open total cholecystectomy to identify the optimal bailout strategy for the difficult gallbladder. METHODS: A multicenter, multinational retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent bailout procedures for severe cholecystitis. Procedures were compared using one-way analysis of variance/Kruskal-Wallis tests and χ2 tests with multiple pairwise comparisons, maintaining a family-wise error rate at 0.05. Multiple multivariate linear/logistical regression models were created. RESULTS: In 11 centers, 727 bailout procedures were conducted: 317 laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomies, 172 open subtotal cholecystectomies, and 238 open cholecystectomies. Baseline characteristics were similar among subgroups. Bile leak was common in laparoscopic and open fenestrating subtotal cholecystectomies, with increased intraoperative drain placements and postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(P < .05). In contrast, intraoperative bleeding (odds ratio = 3.71 [1.9, 7.22]), surgical site infection (odds ratio = 2.41 [1.09, 5.3]), intensive care unit admission (odds ratio = 2.65 [1.51, 4.63]), and length of stay (Δ = 2 days, P < .001) were higher in open procedures. Reoperation rates were higher for open reconstituting subtotal cholecystectomies (odds ratio = 3.43 [1.03, 11.44]) than other subtypes. The overall rate of bile duct injury was 1.1% and was not statistically different between groups. Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy had a bile duct injury rate of 0.63%. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy is a feasible surgical bailout procedure in cases of severe cholecystitis where standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy may carry undue risk of bile duct injury. Open cholecystectomy remains a reasonable option.

Medical Student Perspectives on Sexual and Gender Minority Acceptance in Surgical Specialties and Sexual and Gender Minority Education.

BACKGROUND: The topics of healthcare for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) patients and inclusion of LGBTQ+ health providers remain overlooked. Some specialties may be perceived as less inclusive to LGBTQ+ trainees. This study aimed to describe the perspectives of current medical students regarding LGBTQ+ education and the acceptance of LGBTQ+ trainees among different specialties. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional voluntary and anonymous online survey was distributed through REDCap to all medical students (n = 495) at a state medical school. Medical students' sexuality and gender identity were queried. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed, and the responses were classified into two groups: LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+. RESULTS: A total of 212 responses were queried. Of the respondents who agreed that certain specialties are less welcoming to LGBTQ+ trainees (n = 69, 39%), orthopedic surgery, general surgery and neurosurgery were identified most frequently (84%, 76%, and 55%, respectively). After analyzing sexual orientation as an influence on choosing a future specialty for residency, only 1% of non-LGBTQ+ students indicated that their sexual orientation influences their specialty of choice in comparison with 30% of LGBTQ+ students (P < 0.001). Finally, more non-LGBTQ+ students indicated that they believe they are receiving appropriate education on caring for LGBTQ+ patients as compared to LGBTQ+ students (71% and 55%, respectively, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: LGBTQ+ students are still hesitant to pursue careers in General Surgery as compared to their non-LGBTQ+ peers. The perception that surgical specialties are the least welcoming to LGBTQ+ students continues to be a concern for all students. Further strategies of inclusivity and their effectiveness need to be studied.

Surgical stabilization of rib fractures in octogenarians and beyond-what are the outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Prospective studies of surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) have excluded elderly patients, and no study has exclusively addressed the ≥80-year-old subgroup. We hypothesized that SSRF is associated with decreased mortality in trauma patients 80 years or older. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective cohort study involving eight centers. Patients who underwent SSRF from 2015 to 2020 were matched to controls by study center, age, injury severity score, and presence of intracranial hemorrhage. Patients with chest Abbreviated Injury Scale score less than 3, head Abbreviated Injury Scale score greater than 2, death within 24 hours, and desire for no escalation of care were excluded. A subgroup analysis compared early (0-2 days postinjury) to late (3-7 days postinjury) SSRF. Poisson regression accounting for clustered data by center calculated the relative risk (RR) of the primary outcome of mortality for SSRF versus nonoperative management. RESULTS: Of 360 patients, 133 (36.9%) underwent SSRF. Compared with nonoperative patients, SSRF patients were more severely injured and more likely to receive locoregional analgesia. There were 31 hospital deaths among the entire sample (8.6%). Multivariable regression demonstrated a decreased risk of mortality for the SSRF group, as compared with the nonoperative group (RR, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.69; p < 0.01). However, SSRF patients were more likely to develop pneumonia, and had an increased duration of both mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit stay. There were no differences in discharge destination, although the SSRF group was less likely to be discharged on narcotics (RR, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.90; p = 0.01). There was no difference in adjusted mortality between the early and late SSRF subgroups. CONCLUSION: Patients selected for SSRF were substantially more injured versus those managed nonoperatively. Despite this, SSRF was independently associated with decreased mortality. With careful patient selection, SSRF may be considered a viable treatment option in octogenarian/nonagenarians. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, Level IV.