Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: What is the price of conversion?

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard procedure for gallbladder removal. Conversion to an open procedure is sometimes deemed necessary, especially in complex cases in which a prolonged laparoscopic operative time is anticipated. A prolonged LC case is thought to be associated with increased complications and cost and therefore generally discouraged. The purpose of this study was to test this assumption, and compare outcomes and cost of converted and prolonged LC cases. METHODS: By using institutional National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and financial databases, we retrospectively reviewed and compared prolonged laparoscopic cases (Long-LC) with converted (CONV) procedures. Surgical times, length of stay (LOS), 30-day complications, operative room, and total hospital charges were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: A total of 101 Long-LC and 66 CONV cases met our inclusion criteria. Long-LC cases were 19 minutes longer than CONV cases (123 vs 104 min; P < .01). No differences in postoperative complications were found between the 2 groups (P > .05). When Poisson regression was used, we found that LOS was significantly shorter in the Long-LC compared with CONV group (1 day vs 4 days; P < .01). Long-LC cases had greater operative charges ($15,278 vs $13,128; P < .01). However, hospital charges for Long-LC cases were 26% less than for CONV cases ($23,946 vs $32,446; P < .01). CONCLUSION: Conversion is associated with a 3-day increase in LOS. Long-LC cases have greater operative room charges, but overall hospital charges were 26% less than CONV cases. Our data suggest that decision making regarding conversion should focus on safety and not time considerations.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy after a quarter century: why do we still convert?

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard procedure for gallbladder removal. However, conversion to open surgery is sometimes needed. The factors underlying a surgeon's decision to convert a laparoscopic case to an open case are complex and poorly understood. With decreasing experience in open cholecystectomy, this procedure is however no longer the "safe" alternative it once was. With such an impending paradigm shift, this study aimed to identify the main reasons for conversion and ultimately to develop guidelines to help reduce the conversion rates. METHODS: Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database and financial records, the authors retrospectively reviewed 1,193 cholecystectomies performed at their institution from 2002 to 2009 and identified 70 conversions. Two independent surgeons reviewed the operative notes and determined the reasons for conversion. The number of ports at the time and the extent of dissection before conversion were assessed and used to create new conversion categories. Hospital length of stay (LOS), 30-day complications, operative times and charges, and hospital charges were compared between the new groups. RESULTS: In 91% of conversion cases, the conversion was elective. In 49% of these conversions, the number of ports was fewer than four. According to the new conversion categories, most conversions were performed after minimal or no attempt at dissection. There were no differences in LOS, complications, operating room charges, or hospital charges between categories. Of the six emergent conversions (9%), bleeding and concern about common bile duct (CBD) injury were the main reasons. One CBD injury occurred. CONCLUSIONS: In 49% of the cases, conversion was performed without a genuine attempt at laparoscopic dissection. Considering this new insight into the circumstances of conversion, the authors recommend that surgeons make a genuine effort at a laparoscopic approach, as reflected by placing four ports and trying to elevate the gallbladder before converting a case to an open approach.

Evaluation of colonoscopy technical skill levels by use of an objective kinematic-based system.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy requires training and experience to ensure accuracy and safety. Currently, no objective, validated process exists to determine when an endoscopist has attained technical competence. Kinematics data describing movements of laparoscopic instruments have been used in surgical skill assessment to define expert surgical technique. We have developed a novel system to record kinematics data during colonoscopy and quantitatively assess colonoscopist performance. OBJECTIVE: To use kinematic analysis of colonoscopy to quantitatively assess endoscopic technical performance. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary-care academic medical center. POPULATION: This study involved physicians who perform colonoscopy. INTERVENTION: Application of a kinematics data collection system to colonoscopy evaluation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Kinematics data, validated task load assessment instrument, and technical difficulty visual analog scale. RESULTS: All 13 participants completed the colonoscopy to the terminal ileum on the standard colon model. Attending physicians reached the terminal ileum quicker than fellows (median time, 150.19 seconds vs 299.86 seconds; p<.01) with reduced path lengths for all 4 sensors, decreased flex (1.75 m vs 3.14 m; P=.03), smaller tip angulation, reduced absolute roll, and lower curvature of the endoscope. With performance of attending physicians serving as the expert reference standard, the mean kinematic score increased by 19.89 for each decrease in postgraduate year (P<.01). Overall, fellows experienced greater mental, physical, and temporal demand than did attending physicians. LIMITATION: Small cohort size. CONCLUSION: Kinematic data and score calculation appear useful in the evaluation of colonoscopy technical skill levels. The kinematic score appears to consistently vary by year of training. Because this assessment is nonsubjective, it may be an improvement over current methods for determination of competence. Ongoing studies are establishing benchmarks and characteristic profiles of skill groups based on kinematics data.