Introduction The covid‐19 pandemic has had a drastic impact on all medical services. Acute cholecystitis is a serious condition that accounts for a considerable percentage of general surgical acute admissions. Therefore, the Royal College of Surgeons' Commissioning guidance' recommended urgent admission to secondary care and early cholecystectomy. During the first wave of hospital admissions associated with COVID‐19, most guidelines recommended conservative treatment in order to limit the admission rates and free up spaces for COVID‐19‐infected patients. However, reviews of this approach have not been widely done to assess the results and, in turn, planning our future management approach when future pressures on in‐patient admissions are inevitable. Methods Our study included all acute cholecystitis patients who needed surgical intervention in one Centre in the UK over three distinct periods (pre‐COVID‐19, during the first lockdown, and lockdown ease). Comparison between these groups were done regarding intraoperative and postoperative results. Results The conservative management led to a high rate of readmission. Moreover, delayed cholecystectomy was associated with increased operative difficulties such as extensive adhesions, intraoperative blood loss, and/or complicated gall bladder pathologies such as perforated or gangrenous gall bladder (29.9%, 16.7%, and 24.8%, respectively). The resulting postoperative complications of surgical and nonsurgical resulted in a longer hospital stay (13.5 d). Conclusion The crisis approach for acute cholecystitis management failed to deliver the hoped outcome. Instead, it backfired and did the exact opposite, leading to longer hospital stays and extra burden to the patient and the healthcare system.

No abstract

Background: Globally, the incidence of severe obesity and the comorbidities that it causes has increased. A patient who undergoes day-case surgery (DCS) is admitted and released the same day. The practicality and safety of using DCS during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) procedures have already been discussed and are almost established. As of yet, no studies have looked into this problem for OAGB. Objective: The present study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of DC-OAGB in the Egyptian community and to compare it with DCS-LSG. Patients and methods: This is a prospective non-randomized controlled clinical trial that was conducted on 100 patients scheduled for bariatric surgery. Patients eligible for day-case surgery were included. The study patients were nonrandomly equally allocated to the DC-LSG group or the DC-OAGB group. Patients' operative data were recorded. They were followed by telephone for 4 days, and were followed again 15 days and 1 month later, and their satisfaction with DC bariatric surgery was assessed. Results: There was an equal same-day discharge rate (96%) in both groups. The total readmission rate was 1%, while for DC-LSG and DC-OAGB separately; the rates were 2% and 0%, respectively. The patients in the current study presented a high satisfaction rate. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in the postoperative outcome. Conclusion: DC-OAGB as well as DC-LSG showed feasibility and safety. Patients for the DCS should be properly selected to avoid elevated morbidity and mortality rates. Patients were highly satisfied with the DCS protocol.