The use of intra-abdominal prophylactic drainage in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: does it change in relation to surgical expertise? A multicenter case-control retrospective study on postoperative outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The routine use of abdominal drainage (AD) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is still controversial. The aim of this expertise-based study is to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic AD in terms of postoperative complications and analyze the factors linked to AD placement. METHODS: This case-control retrospective study included patients with cholelithiasis who underwent LC with AD (AD group) and LC without drainage (no-AD group) in two Italian centers. Allocation to groups was non-randomized and based on surgeons' decisions. Patient's characteristics, operative results, postoperative outcomes, surgeon's expertise related data were compared between the two groups with univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Patients in the two groups were comparable for age, sex ratio, and morbidity. Length of postoperative hospital stay (LOS) in the no-AD group was shorter than the AD group. Patients in the AD group had a higher rate of wound infection. No difference in postoperative pain measured 7 days after the surgery was found. Our results show an association between the first operator's expertise and age and the decision of placing the AD. The operative time seems to be the principal factor impacting the decision whether to place or not the AD. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that it is feasible not to insert routine AD after elective LC for cholelithiasis. The use of AD seems to cause more cases of postoperative wound infections, prolongs the LOS and the operative time. The drain placement choice seems to change in relation to the surgeon's expertise.

Evaluating the Natural History of Groin Hernia from an "Unplanned" Watchful Waiting Strategy.

Groin hernia is one of the most common surgical diagnoses worldwide. The indication for surgery in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic patients is discussed. Some trials have demonstrated the safety of a watchful waiting strategy. During the pandemic, waiting lists for hernia surgery dramatically increased the opportunity to evaluate the natural history of groin hernias. The present study aimed to evaluate the incidence of emergency hernia surgery in a large cohort of patients that were selected and were waiting for elective surgery. This is a retrospective cross-sectional cohort study including all patients evaluated and selected for elective groin hernia surgery at San Gerardo Hospital between 2017 and 2020. Elective and emergency hernia surgeries were recorded for all patients. The incidence of adverse events was also evaluated. Overall, 1423 patients were evaluated, and 964 selected patients (80.3%) underwent elective hernia surgery, while 17 patients (1.4%) required an emergency operation while waiting for an elective operation. A total of 220 (18.3%) patients were still awaiting surgery in March 2022. The overall cumulative risk levels for emergency hernia surgeries were 1%, 2%, 3.2%, and 5% at 12, 24, 36, and 48 months, respectively. There was no association between longer waiting periods and an increased need for emergency surgery. Our study indicates that up to 5% of patients with groin hernia require emergency surgery at 48 months from the evaluation; the increased waiting time for surgery for elective groin hernia repair was not associated with an increased incidence of adverse events.