Abstract
Background
Laparoscopy has been widely adopted in elective abdominal surgery but is still sparsely used in emergency settings. The study investigated the effect of laparoscopic emergency surgery using a population database.
Methods
Data for all patients from December 2013 to November 2018 were retrieved from the NELA national database of emergency laparotomy for England and Wales. Laparoscopically attempted cases were matched 2 : 1 with open cases for propensity score derived from a logistic regression model for surgical approach; included co-variates were age, gender, predicted mortality risk, and diagnostic, procedural and surgeon variables. Groups were compared for mortality. Secondary endpoints were blood loss and duration of hospital stay.
Results
Of 116 920 patients considered, 17 040 underwent laparoscopic surgery. The most common procedures were colectomy, adhesiolysis, washout and perforated ulcer repair. Of these, 11 753 were matched exactly to 23 506 patients who had open surgery. Laparoscopically attempted surgery was associated with lower mortality (6.0 versus 9.1 per cent, P < 0.001), blood loss (less than 100 ml, 64.4 versus 52.0 per cent, P < 0.001), and duration of hospital stay (median 8 (i.q.r. 5–14) versus 10 (7–18) days, P < 0.001). Similar trends were seen when comparing only successful laparoscopic cases with open surgery, and also when comparing cases converted to open surgery with open surgery.
Conclusion
In appropriately selected patients, laparoscopy is associated with superior outcomes compared with open emergency surgery.
Laparoscopy has positively impacted elective surgical outcomes but is sparsely used in emergency major surgery. This population-level analysis suggests laparoscopy may reduce mortality and length of stay compared to propensity score-matched laparotomy. Greater adoption of minimally invasive emergency surgery may improve patient care.
Introduction
Emergency laparotomy for bowel-related pathology is one of the most frequently performed and highest-risk operations. Over 50 000 emergency laparotomies are carried out each year in England alone, with a mean postoperative hospital stay of 16 days and a 30-day mortality rate of 9.6 per cent1. Patients undergoing emergency laparotomy continue to be at highest risk of death, and among the highest consumers of health system resources2.
While emergency laparotomy encompasses a range of operations (i.e. colectomy, adhesiolysis, irrigation and drainage), numerous risk-prediction frameworks3–6 have shown outcomes to be most strongly determined by physiology, associated pathology and degree of peritoneal soiling, rather than the type of procedure. The UK National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) was established to define this group more clearly and to improve care outcomes. However, despite this and other population-level quality-improvement initiatives7,8, outcomes for this patient group have only modestly improved in the past 5 years1.
Wide variations exist in the care of emergency laparotomy patients1. Laparoscopy has been identified as a potentially beneficial approach, with some data suggesting reductions in duration of hospital stay and postoperative mortality following major emergency bowel surgery9. Although well established in elective bowel surgery, the benefits of laparoscopy in emergency surgery are less known. Meta-analyses are largely limited to retrospective studies, with some suggesting potential benefits in limited applications, such as adhesiolysis10, but there are more conflicting results for other pathology, such as perforated gastroduodenal ulcers11–13.
Most recent reports show that uptake of emergency laparoscopy varies across the UK, ranging from 0–76 per cent1. On average fewer than 20 per cent of NELA-eligible cases are attempted laparoscopically, and half of these are converted to open surgery. This low rate of laparoscopy for emergency surgery may be due to system inadequacies and to individual surgeon preference14, but continues to be enabled by a lack of quality evidence demonstrating the potential benefits of the laparoscopic approach.
This analysis aims to assess the effect of laparoscopy on outcomes in emergency major general surgery at a population level.
Methods
The NELA dataset is a prospective national database of all major (non-trauma related) emergency abdominal surgery in England and Wales. NELA’s inclusion criteria and recorded data have been previously described1; data analysis is permitted under the NHS Act 2006. This study is reported in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines15.
Anonymized demographic, clinical and outcome data for all patients undergoing surgery between 1 December 2013 and 31 November 2018, were retrieved from the NELA database. Age data were grouped by 5-year intervals to preserve anonymity. P-POSSUM5, a well validated predictor of postoperative mortality risk, which combines diagnostic, demographic, biochemical and physiological variables, was used to stratify patients into low (0–4.9 per cent mortality risk), high (5.0–9.9 per cent), and very high (10 per cent or greater) risk, according to NELA-defined thresholds.
The NELA dataset defines the following surgical approaches: open, laparoscopic, laparoscopic converted to open, and laparoscopically assisted. As ‘laparoscopically assisted’ is not clearly defined by NELA, we elected to exclude these patients from analysis to ensure clear differentiation between laparoscopic and open procedures.
Statistical analysis
Demographics between groups were compared using the Kruskal–Wallis test. Laparoscopically attempted cases (including converted) were matched exactly on a 2:1 basis with open cases using propensity matching with a tolerance of 0. Propensity scores were calculated with a logistic regression model; the dependent factor was surgical approach and the co-variables were all available potential predictors of surgical approach. These included age (categorized into 5-year intervals), gender, P-possum mortality (less than 5 per cent, 5–9.9 per cent, 10 per cent or greater), malignancy status (none, primary, nodal, metastases), peritoneal soiling (none, serous fluid, local pus, generalized contamination), surgical grade (consultant, non-consultant), and the most common operation types (perforated duodenal ulcer, small bowel resection, colectomy, adhesiolysis, washout, other).
An overall (intention to treat) comparison of laparoscopically attempted cases with their exact open matched cases was performed.
Two further subgroup analyses were performed. First, (per-protocol) an analysis of laparoscopic completed cases and their open matched cases, to examine the effect of laparoscopically completed surgery on outcome. Second, converted cases were compared to their open matched cases, to assess whether abandoned attempts at laparoscopy (conversion) might be associated with detrimental effects on outcomes, in case for example this group reflected a higher rate of iatrogenic injury with resulting conversion.
The primary outcome compared was in-hospital mortality, secondary outcomes were blood loss, intensive treatment unit stay and overall postoperative duration of hospital stay. Categorical variables were represented as percentages and compared using χ2 test. Continuous variables were represented as medians and inter-quartile range (i.q.r.) and compared using the Mann–Whitney U test or the Kruskal–Wallis test if there were more than two groups.
Results
Some 118 355 patients undergoing major emergency abdominal surgery were recorded by NELA during the 5-year study interval. Patients who received ‘laparoscopically assisted’ surgery (1435 patients, 1.2 per cent of the total) were excluded.
Laparoscopy was attempted in 17 040 of 116 920 patients (14.6 per cent), and 7 915 of 17 040 (46.4 per cent) were converted to open. The remaining 99 880 (85.4 per cent) underwent open surgery. The rate of laparoscopic completed, converted and open cases for different operations is shown in Table 1.
Table 1.
Frequency of most common surgical procedures and surgical approach.
| Surgical procedure | Approach |
Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Laparoscopic | Converted | Open | ||
| Colectomy | 2362 (5.6) | 2732 (6.5) | 36 755 (87.8) | 41 849 |
| Adhesiolysis | 1911 (9.8) | 1177 (6.0) | 16 416 (84.2) | 19 504 |
| Small bowel resection | 343 (1.8) | 1472 (7.8) | 17 091 (90.4) | 18 906 |
| Perforated duodenal ulcer | 1000 (13.9) | 486 (6.8) | 5714 (79.4) | 7200 |
| Washout | 1173 (20.2) | 597 (10.3) | 4037 (69.5) | 5807 |
| Other | 2336 (9.9) | 1451 (6.1) | 19 867 (84.0) | 23 654 |
Values in parentheses are percentages.
In unmatched comparisons, the laparoscopic group was younger, had lower risk of mortality, was less likely to have malignant pathology, had less contamination and was more likely to be operated on by a consultant surgeon (Table 2). In-hospital mortality rate, duration of hospital stay and intraoperative blood loss were also lowest the laparoscopic group.
Table 2.
Demographics and outcomes of non-matched patients.
| Open * | Laparoscopic * | Converted * | P ‡ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 99 880) | (n = 9125) | (n = 7915) | |||
| Gender | |||||
| Male | 51 506 (51.6) | 4323 (47.4) | 3882 (49.0) | 0.074 | |
| Female | 48 374 (48.4) | 4802 (52.6) | 4033 (51.0) | ||
| Age category (years) | |||||
| 18–25 | 2442 (2.4) | 434 (4.8) | 310 (3.9) | <0.001 | |
| 25–30 | 1935 (1.9) | 480 (5.3) | 355 (4.5) | ||
| 30–35 | 2251 (2.3) | 483 (5.3) | 406 (5.1) | ||
| 35–40 | 2778 (2.8) | 470 (5.2) | 441 (5.6) | ||
| 40–45 | 3665 (3.7) | 698 (7.6) | 573 (7.2) | ||
| 45–50 | 5276 (5.3) | 716 (7.8) | 616 (7.8) | ||
| 50–55 | 6532 (6.5) | 725 (7.9) | 626 (7.9) | ||
| 55–60 | 7474 (7.5) | 745 (8.2) | 672 (8.5) | ||
| 60–65 | 8921 (8.9) | 848 (9.3) | 812 (10.3) | ||
| 65–70 | 11 921 (11.9) | 897 (9.8) | 816 (10.3) | ||
| 70–75 | 13 106 (13.1) | 804 (8.8) | 761 (9.6) | ||
| 75–80 | 13 084 (13.1) | 716 (7.8) | 634 (8.0) | ||
| >80 | 11 313 (11.3) | 629 (6.9) | 496 (6.3) | ||
| p-POSSUM mortality risk | |||||
| <5% (low) | 38 951 (39.1) | 5583 (61.4) | 4335 (54.9) | <0.001 | |
| 5–9.9% (high) | 17 391 (17.5) | 1533 (16.9) | 1289 (16.3) | ||
| ≥10% (very high) | 43 208 (43.4) | 1979 (21.8) | 2276 (28.8) | ||
| Missing | 330 (0.3) | 30 (0.3) | 15 (0.2) | ||
| Contamination | |||||
| None | 36 400 (36.6) | 4370 (48.2) | 2312 (29.3) | <0.001 | |
| Serous fluid | 27 438 (27.6) | 1932 (21.3) | 1906 (24.2) | ||
| Localized pus | 9932 (10.0) | 1089 (12.0) | 1190 (15.1) | ||
| Free contamination | 25 708 (25.8) | 1677 (18.5) | 2480 (31.4) | ||
| Missing | 402 (0.4) | 57 (0.6) | 27 (0.3) | ||
| Malignancy | |||||
| None | 76 533 (76.9) | 7282 (80.3) | 6495 (82.3) | <0.001 | |
| Local | 11 354 (11.4) | 891 (9.8) | 757 (9.6) | ||
| Nodal metastases | 4381 (4.4) | 333 (3.7) | 262 (3.3.) | ||
| Distant metastases | 7234 (7.3) | 563 (6.2) | 375 (4.8) | ||
| Missing | 378 (0.4) | 56 (0.6) | 26 (0.3) | ||
| Surgeon grade | |||||
| Consultant | 88 022 (88.1) | 8307 (91.0) | 7102 (89.7) | <0.001 | |
| Other | 11 858 (11.9) | 818 (9.0) | 813 (10.3) | ||
| In-hospital mortality | |||||
| Yes | 12 480 (12.5) | 372 (4.1) | 554 (7.0) | <0.001 | |
| No | 87 400 (87.5) | 8753 (96.0) | 7361 (93.0) | ||
| Blood loss (ml) | |||||
| <100 | 49 007 (49.4) | 6976 (77.1) | 4204 (53.5) | <0.001 | |
| 100–500 | 43 248 (43.6) | 1873 (20.7) | 3224 (41.0) | ||
| 501–1000 | 4460 (4.5) | 130 (1.4) | 288 (3.7) | ||
| >1000 | 2395 (2.4) | 70 (0.8) | 149 (1.9) | ||
| Missing | 770 (0.8) | 76 (0.8) | 50 (0.6) | ||
| Duration of ITU stay (days) † | 0 (0–3) | 0(0–0) | 0(0–2) | <0.001 | |
| Duration of postoperative hospital stay (days) † | 11 (7–20) | 7 (4–12) | 9 (6–16) | <0.001 | |
| In-hospital mortality | |||||
| Yes | 12 480 (12.5) | 372 (4.1) | 554 (7.0) | <0.001 | |
| No | 87 400 (87.5) | 8753 (96.0) | 7361 (93.0) | ||
With percentages in parentheses unless indicated otherwise;
values are median (i.q.r.). ITU, intensive treatment unit.
Kruskal–Wallis test.
Propensity matched analysis
Of the 17 040 laparoscopically attempted cases, 11 753 were matched exactly to 23 506 (1 : 2) open cases. Some 5876 of 11 753 (50.0 per cent) were completed laparoscopically and 5877 (50.0 per cent) were converted, and these were matched to 11 752 and 11 754 open cases, respectively. The matched demographic, diagnostic and mortality risk predictor variables are shown in Table 3 (laparoscopic versus open) and Table S1 (converted versus open and laparoscopic completed versus open).
Table 3.
Demographics and outcomes of matched patients.
| Open* | Laparoscopic attempted* | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 23 506) | (n = 11 753) | ||
| Gender | |||
| Male | 11 342 (48.3) | 5671 (48.3) | |
| Age category (years) | |||
| 18–25 | 838 | 419 | |
| 25–30 | 604 | 302 | |
| 30–35 | 776 | 388 | |
| 35–40 | 968 | 484 | |
| 40–45 | 1108 | 554 | |
| 45–50 | 1588 | 794 | |
| 50–55 | 1878 | 939 | |
| 55–60 | 1900 | 950 | |
| 60–65 | 2106 | 1053 | |
| 65–70 | 2620 | 1310 | |
| 70–75 | 2726 | 1363 | |
| 75–80 | 2418 | 1209 | |
| 80–85 | 2180 | 1090 | |
| >85 | 1796 | 898 | |
| p-POSSUM mortality risk | |||
| <5% (low) | 13 080 (55.6) | 6540 (55.6) | |
| 5–9.9% (high) | 3542 (15.1) | 1771 (15.1) | |
| ≥10% (very high) | 6884 (29.3) | 3442 (29.3) | |
| Contamination | |||
| None | 9692 (41.2) | 4846 (41.2) | |
| Serous fluid | 5902 (25.1) | 2951 (25.1) | |
| Localized pus | 2344 (10.0) | 1172 (10.0) | |
| Free contamination | 5568 (23.7) | 2784 (23.7) | |
| Malignancy | |||
| None | 19 676 (83.7) | 9838 (83.7) | |
| Local | 2126 (9.0) | 1063 (9.0) | |
| Nodal metastases | 610 (2.6) | 305 (2.6) | |
| Distant metastases | 1094 (4.7) | 547 (4.7) | |
| Surgeon grade | |||
| Consultant | 22 372 (95.2) | 11 186 (95.2) | |
| Other | 1134 (4.8) | 567 (4.8) | |
| Operation type | |||
| Perforated ulcer | 1916 (8.2) | 958 (8.2) | |
| Small bowel resection | 3282 (14.0) | 1641 (14.0) | |
| Colectomy | 7654 (32.6) | 3827 (32.6) | |
| Adhesiolysis | 5690 (24.2) | 2845 (24.2) | |
| Washout | 1436 (6.1) | 718 (6.1) | |
| Other | 3528 (15.0) | 1764 (15.0) | |
Values in parentheses are percentages.
Comparing all attempted laparoscopic cases (both successfully completed and converted to open) to open surgery, patients who received attempted laparoscopy demonstrated significantly improved outcomes, with reduced levels of blood loss (less than 100 ml, 64.4 versus 52.0 per cent, P < 0.001), duration of hospital stay (median 8 (i.q.r. 5–14) versus 10 (7–18) days, P < 0.001) and mortality rate (6.0 versus 9.1 per cent, P < 0.001) (Table 4).
Table 4.
Comparison of outcomes for propensity score-matched attempted laparoscopic and open groups.
| Attempted laparoscopic * | Open * | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 11 753) | (n = 23 506) | ||
| Intraoperative blood loss | <0.001‡ | ||
| <100 ml | 7542 (64.1) | 12 124 (51.6) | |
| 100–499 ml | 3719 (31.6) | 9836 (41.8) | |
| 500–999 ml | 308 (2.6) | 938 (4.0) | |
| ≥1000 ml | 146 (1.4) | 439 (1.9) | |
| Missing | 38 (0.3) | 169 (0.7) | |
| ITU duration of stay (days) † | 0 (0–2) | 0 (0–2) | 0.095§ |
| Postoperative duration of hospital stay (days) † | 8 (5–14) | 10 (7–18) | <0.001§ |
| In-hospital mortality | 709 (6.0) | 2135 (9.1) | <0.001‡ |
With percentages in parentheses unless indicated otherwise;
values are median (i.q.r.). ITU, intensive treatment unit.
χ2 test,
Mann–Whitney U test.
Patients whose surgery was successfully completed laparoscopically also demonstrated significantly improved outcomes when compared to patients who went straight to laparotomy, blood loss (less than 100 ml, 76.2 versus 57.1 per cent, P < 0.001), postoperative duration of hospital stay (median 7 (i.q.r. 4–12) versus 10 (7–17) days, P < 0.001), and in-hospital mortality rate (4.5 versus 8.2 per cent, P < 0.001) (Table 5).
Table 5.
Comparison of outcomes for propensity score-matched laparoscopic and open groups.
| Laparoscopic * | Open * | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 5876) | (n = 11 752) | ||
| Intraoperative blood loss | <0.001‡ | ||
| <100 ml | 4463 (75.9) | 6666 (56.7) | |
| 100–499 ml | 1270 (21.6) | 4469 (38.0) | |
| 500–999 ml | 80 (1.4) | 354 (3.0) | |
| ≥1000 ml | 44 (0.7) | 181 (1.5) | |
| Missing | 19 (0.3) | 82 (0.7) | |
| ITU duration of stay (days) † | 0 (0–0) | 0 (0–1) | <0.001§ |
| Postoperative duration of hospital stay (days) † | 7 (4–12) | 10 (7–17) | <0.001§ |
| In-hospital mortality | 265 (4.5) | 963 (8.2) | <0.001‡ |
With percentages in parentheses unless indicated otherwise;
values are median (i.q.r.). ITU, intensive treatment unit.
χ2 test,
Mann–Whitney U test.
Comparing patients who were converted to open surgery with those who went straight to laparotomy, the converted patients still performed better, with reduced blood loss (less than 100 ml, 52.6 versus 46.8 per cent, P < 0.001), duration of hospital stay (median 12 (i.q.r. 8–21) versus 14 (9–24) days, P < 0.001), and in-hospital mortality rate (7.6 versus 10.0 per cent, P < 0.001) (Table 6).
Table 6.
Comparison of outcomes for propensity score-matched converted and open groups.
| Converted * | Open * | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 5877) | (n = 11 754) | ||
| Intraoperative blood loss | <0.001‡ | ||
| <100 ml | 3079 (52.4) | 5458 (46.4) | |
| 100–499 ml | 2449 (41.6) | 5367 (45.7) | |
| 500–999 ml | 228 (3.9) | 584 (5.0) | |
| ≥1000 ml | 102 (1.7) | 258 (2.2) | |
| Missing | 19 (0.3) | 87 (0.7) | |
| ITU duration of stay (days) † | 0 (0–2) | 0 (0–2) | <0.001§ |
| Postoperative duration of hospital stay (days) † | 12 (8–21) | 14 (9–24) | <0.001§ |
| In-hospital mortality | 444 (7.6) | 1172 (10.0) | <0.001‡ |
With percentages in parentheses unless indicated otherwise;
values are median (i.q.r.). ITU, intensive treatment unit.
χ2 test,
Mann–Whitney U test.
A calibration plot of observed vs. predicted mortality demonstrated divergent curves for the different approaches (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1.
Calibration plot comparing observed versus P-POSSUM predicted mortality for patient deciles (1st and 10th outlier deciles excluded).
Difference in mortality between groups P < 0.001 (Kruskal–Wallis test).
Discussion
This population-level analysis demonstrates the positive impact of laparoscopy in place of laparotomy on patient outcomes following emergency bowel surgery. When compared to a propensity score-matched cohort of patients, blood loss, duration of hospital stay and survival rates are improved. The reduction in mortality rate by almost half (8.2 per cent versus 4.5 per cent) and duration of hospital stay by 30 per cent (median 10 versus 7 days) far outweigh the benefits of any previous quality improvement measures in emergency surgery7,8,16, and suggest that a push to increase rates of laparoscopy could represent a potential step-change in quality of care.
It is important to recognize that these benefits are not applicable to all emergency cases. Selection bias in these cases is not only expected, it is necessary. Some pathologies lend themselves more to the laparoscopic approach than others: band adhesions in a virgin abdomen, or internal hernias following bariatric or colorectal surgery. Attempted laparoscopy for widespread faecal peritonitis from perforated diverticular disease or for resection of a large obstructing colonic tumour may, however, be impossible and pointless. Similarly, some patients are too physiologically unstable to permit anything other than a crash laparotomy and damage-control surgery.
What this study does illustrate is that the preferentially open approach practised in the majority of centres for patients that might have successfully undergone a minimally invasive procedure instead, potentially incurs negative implications for patient outcomes and hospital resource use. Laparoscopy in major emergency surgery is not only safe, but may be superior.
Furthermore, in this study, fears that laparoscopy might result in patient harm because of the perceived additional operative time or technical difficulty involved17, or through iatrogenic injury18, have not been substantiated. Considering all patients who underwent initial laparoscopy, these experienced reduced rates of blood loss, duration of hospital stay and in-hospital mortality compared with patients who underwent laparotomy, regardless of the eventual success or conversion of the operative approach. Starting laparoscopically, with its known differences to open surgery such as the necessary induction of pneumoperitoneum and greater use of potentially haemodynamically relevant Trendelenberg and reverse Trendelenberg positioning, did not impact these patients negatively. Similarly, patients converted from laparoscopic to open surgery still experienced improved outcomes compared with the laparotomy group, which may result from the benefit derived from a partial laparoscopic completion, and visual confirmation of the diagnosis allowing smaller and more targeted open incision. This study was unable to control for operative times, with potentially increased operative times sometimes cited as a negative factor of laparoscopy, but this did not affect the positive differences seen in outcomes for laparoscopy. Furthermore, eliminating the need to create and then close a large incision may in fact result in reduced operative time with laparoscopy, as was seen the recent LASSO randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for adhesional bowel obstruction19.
Existing literature on emergency laparoscopy remains relatively sparse, and of varying quality. The LASSO trial19, for example, demonstrated significantly reduced durations of stay after laparoscopy, but was not powered, with a total of 100 patients, to detect differences in morbidity or mortality. Others have reported improved outcomes across a number of indications such as colectomy20 or perforated ulcer repair12. This study represents the largest population-level analysis of emergency laparoscopy to date.
This study is limited by its retrospective nature and potential associated selection bias. Not all patients are suitable for laparoscopy, and not all variables relevant to this decision were captured. Surgeon experience and prior laparoscopic experience (for example, in elective practice), patient co-morbidity, prior surgery and body mass index may influence surgical decision-making but were not captured in this dataset, though multiple other factors were controlled for in this large cohort analysis through exact propensity score matching. The selection of P-POSSUM as a risk-adjusting metric was based on its well established validity and availability for the entire dataset. While the newer NELA mortality risk prediction algorithm4 has been since introduced, it is not yet widely validated, and was not available for the majority of patients in this dataset.
Long-term patient outcomes were not available, though given the reduced rates of incisional hernia or adhesions seen in other comparative studies of laparoscopy versus laparotomy21, the advantages reported in this study may eventually be even greater still through the avoidance of such longer-term sequelae of open surgery. Finally, this study aimed to assess the effect and potential benefit of laparoscopy but has not identified patient or pathological factors which determine the likelihood of surgical success via a minimally invasive approach. This remains the domain of the attending surgeon, with further research on this topic required.
Surgery remains a multidisciplinary endeavour. In particular, the importance of a quality radiology service cannot be overstated. Expert radiologists will not only diagnose intra-abdominal pathology more accurately22; they may be able to advise on the urgency of surgery, the degree of contamination, the presence of intra-abdominal adhesions and even the optimum laparoscopic port positions.
As individual surgeons and their emergency surgery teams perform more laparoscopic emergency surgery and become more confident in their skills, they extend their spectrum of what can be achieved laparoscopically. Skill and confidence can be developed as a team, if all surgeons can be encouraged to embrace the culture of laparoscopy for emergency surgery, and to educate each other with respect to operative skills and decision making. Previously published data show a steady increase in the proportion of emergency cases attempted laparoscopically over the first 5 years of the NELA data collection, from 37 towards 76 per cent9; UK national reports demonstrate a similar increasing trend, from 11 towards 20 per cent1.
Laparoscopy for emergency surgery must be considered safe, feasible in a much larger number of patients than currently practised, and potentially superior to open surgery. The significant improvements in mortality and length of stay mean that widespread implementation of the laparoscopic approach may be an important change to improve emergency surgery outcomes across the country, both for the individual patient, and for health systems as a whole.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgements
P.H.P. and H.M. contributed equally to this study and are joint first authors.
P.H.P., H.M. and S.J.M. were responsible for study concept, data analysis, drafting of manuscript and final review. V.T. was responsible for data analysis and final review.
Disclosure. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Supplementary material
Supplementary material is available at BJS online
References
- 1.NELA Project Team. Fifth Patient Report of the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit. London: Royal College of Anaesthetists, 2019.
- 2. Haider AH, Obirieze A, Velopulos CG, Richard P, Latif A, Scott VK. et al. Incremental cost of emergency versus elective surgery. Ann Surg 2015;262:260–266 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Protopapa KL, Simpson JC, Smith NC, Moonesinghe SR.. Development and validation of the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT). Br J Surg 2014;101:1774–1783 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Eugene N, Oliver CM, Bassett MG, Poulton TE, Kuryba A, Johnston C. et al. Development and internal validation of a novel risk adjustment model for adult patients undergoing emergency laparotomy surgery: the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit risk model. Br J Anaesth 2018;121:739–748 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Prytherch DR, Whiteley MS, Higgins B, Weaver PC, Prout WG, Powell SJ.. POSSUM and Portsmouth POSSUM for predicting mortality. Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity. Br J Surg 1998;85:1217–1220 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Kao AM, Maloney SR, Prasad T, Reinke CE, May AK, Heniford BT. et al. The CELIOtomy Risk Score: An effort to minimize futile surgery with analysis of early postoperative mortality after emergency laparotomy. Surgery 2020;168:676–683 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Peden CJ, Stephens T, Martin G, Kahan BC, Thomson A, Rivett K. et al. Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial. Lancet 2019;393:2213–2221 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Aggarwal G, Peden CJ, Mohammed MA, Pullyblank A, Williams B, Stephens T. et al. Evaluation of the collaborative use of an evidence-based care bundle in emergency laparotomy. JAMA Surg 2019;154:e190145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Pucher PH, Carter NC, Knight BC, Toh S, Tucker V, Mercer SJ.. Impact of laparoscopic approach in emergency major abdominal surgery: single-centre analysis of 748 consecutive cases. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2018;100:279–284 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Quah GS, Eslick GD, Cox MR.. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for adhesional small bowel obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies. Surg Endosc 2019;33:3209–3217 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Lau H. Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2004;18:1013–1021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Soreide K, Thorsen K, Soreide JA.. Strategies to improve the outcome of emergency surgery for perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg 2014;101:e51–e64 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Coe PO, Lee MJ, Boyd-Carson H, Lockwood S, Saha A.. Open versus laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer disease: a propensity-matched study of the national emergency laparotomy audit. Ann Surg 2020; DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004332 [Epub ahead of print] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Lee MJ, Sayers AE, Wilson TR, Acheson AG, Anderson ID, Fearnhead NS. et al. Current management of small bowel obstruction in the UK: results from the National Audit of Small Bowel Obstruction clinical practice survey. Colorectal Dis 2018;20:623–630 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 2007;335:806–808 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Boyd-Carson H, Doleman B, Herrod PJJ, Anderson ID, Williams JP, Lund JN. et al. Association between surgeon special interest and mortality after emergency laparotomy. Br J Surg 2019;106:940–948 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Di Saverio S, Birindelli A, Broek RT, Davies JR, Mandrioli M, Sallinen V.. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis: not for all patients, not for all surgeons, not in all centres. Updates Surg 2018;70:557–561. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Behman R, Nathens AB, Byrne JP, Mason S, Look Hong N, Karanicolas PJ.. Laparoscopic surgery for adhesive small bowel obstruction is associated with a higher risk of bowel injury: a population-based analysis of 8584 patients. Ann Surg 2017;266:489–498 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Sallinen V, Di Saverio S, Haukijarvi E, Juusela R, Wikstrom H, Koivukangas V. et al. Laparoscopic versus open adhesiolysis for adhesive small bowel obstruction (LASSO): an international, multicentre, randomised, open-label trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;4:278–286 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Moghadamyeghaneh Z, Talus H, Ballantyne G, Stamos MJ, Pigazzi A.. Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic approach to colonic obstruction for colon cancer. Surg Endosc 2020; DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07743-w [Epub ahead of print] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Bartels SA, Vlug MS, Hollmann MW, Dijkgraaf MG, Ubbink DT, Cense HA. et al. Small bowel obstruction, incisional hernia and survival after laparoscopic and open colonic resection (LAFA study). Br J Surg 2014;101:1153–1159 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Wu Y, Das B, Shah V, Verma R, Stephenson JA.. An audit of local discrepancy rates in acute abdominal CT: does subspecialist reporting reduce discrepancy rates? Clin Radiol 2020;75:879.e7–879.e11 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.