Weekend Effect and Mortality After Emergency Laparotomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study With Complimentary Meta-Analysis.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Hashim Al-Sarireh, Ahmad Al-Sarireh, Shahin Hajibandeh, Shahab Hajibandeh
{"title":"Weekend Effect and Mortality After Emergency Laparotomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study With Complimentary Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Hashim Al-Sarireh, Ahmad Al-Sarireh, Shahin Hajibandeh, Shahab Hajibandeh","doi":"10.1111/ans.70277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To evaluate the prognostic significance of the weekend effect in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A STROCSS-compliant retrospective cohort study (in three centres between January 2014 and January 2022) with complementary PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis (last search on 10 February 2025) was conducted. All adult patients undergoing non-traumatic emergency laparotomy were considered eligible. Emergency laparotomy during weekends (Saturday, Sunday and public holidays) was the prognostic factor of interest, and emergency laparotomy during weekdays (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday) was the comparison. Thirty-day mortality was the outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The cohort study included 1952 patients and a search of electronic databases identified five retrospective cohort studies including 5374 patients. Consequently, 7326 patients (weekend group: 2035; weekdays group: 5291) were included for analyses. Both groups were comparable in terms of median age (67 years vs. 65, p = 0.194), being an octogenarian (17.9% vs. 17.9%, p = 0.970), male sex (41.9% vs. 45.7%, p = 0.153), ASA I status (4.5% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.080), ASA II (33.6% vs. 35.2%, p = 0.524), ASA III (46.6% vs. 41.6%, p = 0.060), ASA IV (14.7% vs. 15.2%, p = 0.764), ASA V (0.6% vs. 1.3%, p = 0.249), need for bowel resection (54.0% vs. 57.6%, p = 0.172) and peritoneal contamination (26.4% vs. 29.2%, p = 0.236). There was no difference in the risk of 30-day mortality between the two groups (OR: 1.04, 95% CI 0.87-1.25, p = 0.650; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). The GRADE certainty was high.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Robust evidence with high certainty suggests that the weekend effect does not influence the risk of mortality after emergency laparotomy. This could be explained by the standardisation of perioperative care in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy.</p>","PeriodicalId":8158,"journal":{"name":"ANZ Journal of Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ANZ Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.70277","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate the prognostic significance of the weekend effect in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy.

Methods: A STROCSS-compliant retrospective cohort study (in three centres between January 2014 and January 2022) with complementary PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis (last search on 10 February 2025) was conducted. All adult patients undergoing non-traumatic emergency laparotomy were considered eligible. Emergency laparotomy during weekends (Saturday, Sunday and public holidays) was the prognostic factor of interest, and emergency laparotomy during weekdays (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday) was the comparison. Thirty-day mortality was the outcome.

Results: The cohort study included 1952 patients and a search of electronic databases identified five retrospective cohort studies including 5374 patients. Consequently, 7326 patients (weekend group: 2035; weekdays group: 5291) were included for analyses. Both groups were comparable in terms of median age (67 years vs. 65, p = 0.194), being an octogenarian (17.9% vs. 17.9%, p = 0.970), male sex (41.9% vs. 45.7%, p = 0.153), ASA I status (4.5% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.080), ASA II (33.6% vs. 35.2%, p = 0.524), ASA III (46.6% vs. 41.6%, p = 0.060), ASA IV (14.7% vs. 15.2%, p = 0.764), ASA V (0.6% vs. 1.3%, p = 0.249), need for bowel resection (54.0% vs. 57.6%, p = 0.172) and peritoneal contamination (26.4% vs. 29.2%, p = 0.236). There was no difference in the risk of 30-day mortality between the two groups (OR: 1.04, 95% CI 0.87-1.25, p = 0.650; I2 = 0%). The GRADE certainty was high.

Conclusions: Robust evidence with high certainty suggests that the weekend effect does not influence the risk of mortality after emergency laparotomy. This could be explained by the standardisation of perioperative care in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy.

急诊剖腹手术后的周末效应和死亡率:一项回顾性队列研究和互补荟萃分析。
目的:探讨周末效应对急诊剖腹手术患者预后的影响。方法:采用一项符合strocross标准的回顾性队列研究(2014年1月至2022年1月在三个中心进行),并辅以符合prisma标准的荟萃分析(最后一次检索于2025年2月10日)。所有接受非创伤性紧急剖腹手术的成年患者均被认为符合条件。周末(周六、周日和公众假期)急诊剖腹手术是关注的预后因素,而工作日(周一、周二、周三、周四、周五)急诊剖腹手术是比较的因素。结果是30天死亡率。结果:队列研究包括1952例患者,电子数据库检索确定了5项回顾性队列研究,包括5374例患者。7326例(周末组2035例;工作日组:5291例)纳入分析。两组人可比的年龄中位数(67年和65年,p = 0.194),在耄耋之年(17.9%比17.9%,p = 0.970),男性(41.9%比45.7%,p = 0.153),亚撒我地位(4.5%比6.7%,p = 0.080),亚撒二世(33.6%比35.2%,p = 0.524), ASA III(46.6%比41.6%,p = 0.060), ASA IV(14.7%比15.2%,p = 0.764), ASA V(0.6%比1.3%,p = 0.249),需要肠切除(54.0%比57.6%,p = 0.172)和腹腔污染(26.4%比29.2%,p = 0.236)。两组患者30天死亡风险无差异(OR: 1.04, 95% CI 0.87-1.25, p = 0.650;i2 = 0%)。GRADE的确定性很高。结论:高确定性的有力证据表明,周末效应不影响急诊剖腹手术后的死亡风险。这可能与急诊剖腹手术患者围手术期护理的标准化有关。
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
ANZ Journal of Surgery
ANZ Journal of Surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
720
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: ANZ Journal of Surgery is published by Wiley on behalf of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons to provide a medium for the publication of peer-reviewed original contributions related to clinical practice and/or research in all fields of surgery and related disciplines. It also provides a programme of continuing education for surgeons. All articles are peer-reviewed by at least two researchers expert in the field of the submitted paper.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信