INTRODUCTION: Cholecystectomy (CCY) is the gold standard treatment of acute cholecystitis (AC). Nonsurgical management of AC includes percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD). This study aims to compare outcomes of patients who undergo CCY after having received EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD. METHODS: A multicenter international study was conducted in patients with AC who underwent EUS-GBD or PT-GBD, followed by an attempted CCY, between January 2018 and October 2021. Demographics, clinical characteristics, procedural details, postprocedure outcomes, and surgical details and outcomes were compared. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-nine patients were included: EUS-GBD in 46 patients (27% male, mean age 74 years) and PT-GBD in 93 patients (50% male, mean age 72 years). Surgical technical success was not significantly different between the 2 groups. In the EUS-GBD group, there was decreased operative time (84.2 vs 165.4 minutes, P < 0.00001), time to symptom resolution (4.2 vs 6.3 days, P = 0.005), and length of stay (5.4 vs 12.3 days, P = 0.001) compared with the PT-GBD group. There was no difference in the rate of conversion from laparoscopic to open CCY: 5 of 46 (11%) in the EUS-GBD arm and 18 of 93 (19%) in the PT-GBD group (P value 0.2324). DISCUSSION: Patients who received EUS-GBD had a significantly shorter interval between gallbladder drainage and CCY, shorter surgical procedure times, and shorter length of stay for the CCY compared with those who received PT-GBD. EUS-GBD should be considered an acceptable modality for gallbladder drainage and should not preclude patients from eventual CCY.

BACKGROUNDVarious adjuvants are being used with local anaesthetics for prolongation of intraoperative and postoperative analgesia. This study was taken up to compare the duration of postoperative analgesia, extent of motor and sensory block, adverse effects along with the haemodynamic changes between ropivacaine alone, ropivacaine with clonidine and ropivacaine with dexmedetomidine.

Introduction:Preoperative evaluation of a patient is the fundamental component of anaesthetic practice. Inadequate documentation and record keeping on the preoperative evaluation form (PEF) can be a major obstacle to attaining good practice and improving patient outcomes following operative procedures.Aim:The aim of the study was to conduct an audit to assess the quality of the preoperative anaesthetic information gathered and to observe the quality profile after the introduction of a standardized pre-operative evaluation form.Study Design:This was a retrospective study, using a sample of 3000 files of patients who underwent elective surgery in a tertiary care hospital of rural India. We devised 11 quality indicators, looking at factors in the pre-operative, peri-operative and post-operative period, and used them to audit 3000 patient records in our Hospital.Results:We found several areas where quality could be significantly improved;last minute postponement/change of plan of planned surgeries has reduced from 134 (8.9%) to 23 (1.53%) cases after implementation of standardised PEF. 784 (52.26%) patients were not formally handed over to the theatre recovery staff before implementation of standardised PEF compared to 147(9.8%) after implementation of standardised PEF.Conclusion:This audit found several areas of practice that fall below expected standards before the introduction of standardised PEF, but after the introduction of standardised PEF there is a significant improvement in quality of pre anaesthetic evaluation and overall outcome of the patient. We therefore advocate the use of such standardised PEFs for performing preoperative and perioperative assessment of surgical patients.

No abstract

No abstract