A little goes a long way: A comparison of enterolithotomy versus single-stage cholecystectomy in the management of gallstone ileus.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Muhammad Haris Khurshid, Omar Hejazi, Audrey L Spencer, Adam Nelson, Collin Stewart, Christina Colosimo, Micheal Ditillo, Marc R Matthews, Louis J Magnotti, Bellal Joseph
{"title":"A little goes a long way: A comparison of enterolithotomy versus single-stage cholecystectomy in the management of gallstone ileus.","authors":"Muhammad Haris Khurshid, Omar Hejazi, Audrey L Spencer, Adam Nelson, Collin Stewart, Christina Colosimo, Micheal Ditillo, Marc R Matthews, Louis J Magnotti, Bellal Joseph","doi":"10.1097/TA.0000000000004497","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Gallstone ileus is an infrequent complication of cholelithiasis with no specific guidelines for its management. This study aims to compare the outcomes of patients with gallstone ileus managed with both enterolithotomy with cholecystectomy (EL-CCY) versus those managed with enterolithotomy (EL) only.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective analysis of 2011-2017 Nationwide Readmissions Database, all patients with an index admission diagnosis of gallstone ileus were included. Patients were stratified based on the type of intervention received for gallstone ileus into those who underwent EL-CCY and those who underwent EL alone and compared. Primary outcomes were in-hospital complications (surgical site infections, sepsis, pneumonia, cardiac arrest, deep vein thrombosis, intestinal obstruction) and mortality. Secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay, hospital costs, and readmissions rate and cause of readmissions. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1,960 patients were identified. The mean age was 67 years and 67% were female. Two hundred eighty-nine patients (14.7%) were managed with EL-CCY, whereas 1,671 patients (85.3%) underwent EL only. Overall, the readmission rate was 4.8%, whereas mortality was 4.2%. There was no significant difference between groups in terms of index-admission complications (24.8% vs. 21.7%, p = 0.415), mortality (6.2% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.068), rates of readmission (3.5% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.22), and cause of readmission ( p > 0.05). Enterolithotomy and cholecystectomy group had significantly longer hospital length of stay (10 vs. 8 days, p < 0.001) and median hospital costs ($70,959 vs. $52,147, p < 0.001). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, female sex was a predictor of undergoing EL-CCY, whereas increasing age and higher grade of all-patient redefined diagnosis-related groups risk of mortality were independently associated with lower odds of undergoing EL-CCY.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings suggest no difference between EL compared with EL-CCY in terms of complications, readmissions, and mortality. However, patients managed with EL-CCY had a longer hospital stay and higher hospital costs compared with EL. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings and develop management protocols for gallstone ileus.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.</p>","PeriodicalId":17453,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"649-654"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000004497","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Gallstone ileus is an infrequent complication of cholelithiasis with no specific guidelines for its management. This study aims to compare the outcomes of patients with gallstone ileus managed with both enterolithotomy with cholecystectomy (EL-CCY) versus those managed with enterolithotomy (EL) only.

Methods: In this retrospective analysis of 2011-2017 Nationwide Readmissions Database, all patients with an index admission diagnosis of gallstone ileus were included. Patients were stratified based on the type of intervention received for gallstone ileus into those who underwent EL-CCY and those who underwent EL alone and compared. Primary outcomes were in-hospital complications (surgical site infections, sepsis, pneumonia, cardiac arrest, deep vein thrombosis, intestinal obstruction) and mortality. Secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay, hospital costs, and readmissions rate and cause of readmissions. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed.

Results: A total of 1,960 patients were identified. The mean age was 67 years and 67% were female. Two hundred eighty-nine patients (14.7%) were managed with EL-CCY, whereas 1,671 patients (85.3%) underwent EL only. Overall, the readmission rate was 4.8%, whereas mortality was 4.2%. There was no significant difference between groups in terms of index-admission complications (24.8% vs. 21.7%, p = 0.415), mortality (6.2% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.068), rates of readmission (3.5% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.22), and cause of readmission ( p > 0.05). Enterolithotomy and cholecystectomy group had significantly longer hospital length of stay (10 vs. 8 days, p < 0.001) and median hospital costs ($70,959 vs. $52,147, p < 0.001). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, female sex was a predictor of undergoing EL-CCY, whereas increasing age and higher grade of all-patient redefined diagnosis-related groups risk of mortality were independently associated with lower odds of undergoing EL-CCY.

Conclusion: Our findings suggest no difference between EL compared with EL-CCY in terms of complications, readmissions, and mortality. However, patients managed with EL-CCY had a longer hospital stay and higher hospital costs compared with EL. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings and develop management protocols for gallstone ileus.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

一点就有很长的路要走:肠内取石术与单期胆囊切除术在胆结石性肠梗阻治疗中的比较。
简介:胆石性肠梗阻是胆石症的罕见并发症,目前尚无具体的治疗指南。本研究旨在比较胆石性肠梗阻患者同时行肠内取石术和胆囊切除术(EL- ccy)与仅行肠内取石术(EL)治疗的结果。方法:回顾性分析2011-2017年全国再入院数据库,纳入所有入院诊断为胆结石性肠梗阻的患者。根据胆结石性肠梗阻的干预类型,将患者分为EL- ccy组和单独EL- cy组,并进行比较。主要结局是院内并发症(手术部位感染、败血症、肺炎、心脏骤停、深静脉血栓形成、肠梗阻)和死亡率。次要结局是住院时间、住院费用、再入院率和再入院原因。进行多变量logistic回归分析。结果:共发现1960例患者。平均年龄67岁,67%为女性。289例患者(14.7%)接受EL- ccy治疗,而1,671例患者(85.3%)仅接受EL治疗。总体而言,再入院率为4.8%,而死亡率为4.2%。两组间入院并发症发生率(24.8%比21.7%,p = 0.415)、死亡率(6.2%比3.9%,p = 0.068)、再入院率(3.5%比5.1%,p = 0.22)、再入院原因(p = 0.05)差异无统计学意义。肠内取石术和胆囊切除术组的住院时间明显更长(10天对8天,p < 0.001),住院费用中位数(70,959美元对52,147美元,p < 0.001)。在多变量logistic回归分析中,女性性别是接受EL-CCY的预测因子,而年龄的增加和所有患者重新定义诊断相关组的较高级别的死亡风险与接受EL-CCY的较低几率独立相关。结论:我们的研究结果表明EL与EL- ccy在并发症、再入院率和死亡率方面没有差异。然而,与EL相比,EL- ccy治疗的患者住院时间更长,住院费用更高。需要进一步的前瞻性研究来验证这些发现并制定胆结石性肠梗阻的治疗方案。证据水平:治疗/护理管理;第三层次。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
11.80%
发文量
637
审稿时长
2.7 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery® is designed to provide the scientific basis to optimize care of the severely injured and critically ill surgical patient. Thus, the Journal has a high priority for basic and translation research to fulfill this objectives. Additionally, the Journal is enthusiastic to publish randomized prospective clinical studies to establish care predicated on a mechanistic foundation. Finally, the Journal is seeking systematic reviews, guidelines and algorithms that incorporate the best evidence available.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信