19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Systematic review and meta-analysis of factors which reduce the length of stay associated with elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a safe ambulatory procedure in appropriately selected patients; however, day case rates remain low. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify interventions which are effective in reducing the length of stay (LOS) or improving the day case rate for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

          Methods

          Comparative English-language studies describing perioperative interventions applicable to elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy in adult patients and their impact on LOS or day case rate were included.

          Results

          Quantitative data were available for meta-analysis from 80 studies of 10,615 patients. There were an additional 17 studies included for systematic review. The included studies evaluated 14 peri-operative interventions. Implementation of a formal day case care pathway was associated with a significantly shorter LOS (MD = 24.9 h, 95% CI, 18.7–31.2, p < 0.001) and an improved day case rate (OR = 3.5; 95% CI, 1.5–8.1, p = 0.005). Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, dexamethasone and prophylactic antibiotics were associated with smaller reductions in LOS.

          Conclusion

          Care pathway implementation demonstrated a significant impact on LOS and day case rates. A limited effect was noted for smaller independent interventions. In order to achieve optimal day case targets, a greater understanding of the effective elements of a care pathway and local barriers to implementation is required.

          Related collections

          Most cited references118

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Assessing the quality of randomized trials: reliability of the Jadad scale.

          An instrument was developed and validated by Jadad, et al. to assess the quality of clinical trials using studies from the pain literature. Our study determined the reliability of the Jadad scale and the effect of blinding on interrater agreement in another group of primary studies. Four raters independently assessed blinded and unblinded versions of 76 randomized trials. Interrater agreement was calculated among combinations of four raters for blinded and unblinded versions of the studies. A 4 x 2 x 2 repeated measures design was employed to evaluate the effect of blinding. The interrater agreement for the Jadad scale was poor (kappa 0.37 to 0.39), but agreement improved substantially (kappa 0.53 to 0.59) with removal of the third item (an explanation of withdrawals). Blinding did not significantly affect the Jadad scale scores. A more precise description of how to score the withdrawal item and careful conduct of a practice set of articles might improve interrater agreement. In contrast with the conclusions reached by Jadad, we were unable to demonstrate a significant effect of blinding on the quality scores.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            Guidelines for day‐case surgery 2019

            Guidelines are presented for the organisational and clinical management of anaesthesia for day-case surgery in adults and children. The advice presented is based on previously published recommendations, clinical studies and expert opinion.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Preoperative dexamethasone improves surgical outcome after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

              To determine the effects of preoperative dexamethasone on surgical outcome after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Pain and fatigue are dominating symptoms after LC and may prolong convalescence. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 88 patients were randomized to intravenous dexamethasone (8 mg) or placebo 90 minutes before LC. Patients received a similar standardized anesthetic, surgical, and multimodal analgesic treatment. All patients were recommended 2 days postoperative duration of convalescence. The primary endpoints were fatigue and pain. Preoperatively and at several times during the first 24 postoperative hours, we measured C-reactive protein (CRP) and pulmonary function, pain scores, nausea, and number of vomiting episodes were registered. Analgesic and antiemetic requirements were recorded. Also, on a daily basis, patients reported scores of fatigue and pain before and during the first postoperative week and the dates for resumption of work and recreational activities. Eight patients were excluded from the study, leaving 40 patients in each study group for analysis. There were no apparent side effects of the study drug. Dexamethasone significantly reduced postoperative levels of CRP (P = 0.01), fatigue (P = 0.01), overall pain, and incisional pain during the first 24 postoperative hours (P < 0.05) and total requirements of opioids (P < 0.05). In addition, cumulated overall and visceral pain scores during the first postoperative week were significantly reduced (P < 0.05). Dexamethasone also reduced nausea and vomiting on the day of operation (P < 0.05). Resumption of recreational activities was significantly faster in the dexamethasone group versus placebo group (median 1 day versus 2 days) (P < 0.05). Preoperative dexamethasone (8 mg) reduced pain, fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and duration of convalescence in patients undergoing noncomplicated LC, when compared with placebo, and is recommended for routine use.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                HPB (Oxford)
                HPB (Oxford)
                HPB : The Official Journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association
                International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
                1365-182X
                1477-2574
                6 September 2020
                6 September 2020
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of General Surgery, Midland Regional Hospital, Mullingar, Westmeath, Ireland
                [2 ]Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, Ireland
                [3 ]Department of Colorectal Surgery, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
                [4 ]Department of Colorectal Surgery, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
                [5 ]National Clinical Programme in Surgery, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Proud's Lane, Dublin 2, Ireland
                Author notes
                []Correspondence: Jessica M. Ryan, Department of Colorectal Surgery, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
                [#]

                Joint first authorship.

                Article
                S1365-182X(20)31125-4
                10.1016/j.hpb.2020.08.012
                7474810
                32900611
                98a6ef7d-dbd9-48f4-b0fd-26e0d0bd51ac
                © 2020 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 22 June 2020
                : 17 August 2020
                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article