Table 3 .
Likert scale of the likelihood of the use of the laparoscopic approach for seven common emergency surgical scenarios depending on various patient and environmental factors
| Scenario 1: A patient with suspected appendicitis. They have no significant comorbidities. You decide to operate. How likely are you to approach this laparoscopically? | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient | Never |
Rarely |
Sometimes |
Frequently |
Always |
|||||
| (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | |
| a) 6-yr-old female | 61 | 40.4 | 14 | 9.3 | 14 | 9.3 | 16 | 10.6 | 45 | 29.8 |
| b) 12-year-old male | 23 | 15.2 | 12 | 7.9 | 15 | 9.9 | 42 | 27.8 | 58 | 38.4 |
| c) 25-year-old female | 3 | 2.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 14 | 9.3 | 133 | 88.1 |
| d) 65-year-old male | 3 | 2.0 | 4 | 2.6 | 8 | 5.3 | 31 | 20.5 | 104 | 68.9 |
| Scenario 2: A 50-year-old male with a computed tomography diagnosed perforated duodenal ulcer. You decide to operate. How likely are you to approach this laparoscopically? | ||||||||||
| Patient | Never | Rarely | Sometimes | Frequently | Always | |||||
| (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | |
| a) No significant comorbidities | 37 | 24.5 | 20 | 13.2 | 31 | 20.5 | 30 | 19.9 | 32 | 21.2 |
| b) ASA grade 3 | 43 | 28.5 | 27 | 17.9 | 28 | 18.5 | 32 | 21.2 | 20 | 13.2 |
| c) Body mass index 42kg/m2 | 42 | 27.8 | 26 | 17.2 | 28 | 18.5 | 32 | 21.2 | 22 | 14.6 |
| d) Previous abdominal surgery | 51 | 33.8 | 34 | 22.5 | 41 | 27.2 | 12 | 7.9 | 12 | 7.9 |
| e) Evidence of small bowel dilatation on CT | 59 | 39.1 | 38 | 25.2 | 33 | 21.9 | 14 | 9.3 | 6 | 4.0 |
| Scenario 3: A 60-year-old female with Hinchey grade 3 diverticulitis diagnosed on computed tomography. You decide to operate. How likely are you to approach this laparoscopically? | ||||||||||
| Patient | Never | Rarely | Sometimes | Frequently | Always | |||||
| (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | |
| a) No significant comorbidities | 43 | 28.5 | 26 | 17.2 | 39 | 25.8 | 30 | 19.9 | 12 | 7.9 |
| b) ASA grade 3 | 50 | 33.1 | 29 | 19.2 | 36 | 23.8 | 29 | 19.2 | 6 | 4.0 |
| c) Body mass index 42kg/m2 | 56 | 37.1 | 29 | 19.2 | 34 | 22.5 | 24 | 15.9 | 7 | 4.6 |
| d) Previous abdominal surgery | 66 | 43.7 | 36 | 23.8 | 30 | 19.9 | 16 | 10.6 | 2 | 1.3 |
| e) Evidence of small bowel dilatation on CT | 73 | 48.3 | 41 | 27.2 | 23 | 15.2 | 11 | 7.3 | 2 | 1.3 |
| Scenario 4: 60-year-old female with Hinchey grade 4 diverticulitis diagnosed on computed tomography. You decide to operate. How likely are you to approach this laparoscopically? | ||||||||||
| Patient | Never | Rarely | Sometimes | Frequently | Always | |||||
| (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | |
| a) No significant comorbidities | 92 | 60.9 | 29 | 19.2 | 18 | 11.9 | 8 | 5.3 | 3 | 2.0 |
| b) ASA grade 3 | 97 | 64.2 | 29 | 19.2 | 17 | 11.3 | 5 | 3.3 | 2 | 1.3 |
| c) Body mass index 42kg/m2 | 96 | 63.6 | 33 | 21.9 | 15 | 9.9 | 4 | 2.6 | 2 | 1.3 |
| d) Previous abdominal surgery | 104 | 68.9 | 28 | 18.5 | 12 | 7.9 | 4 | 2.6 | 2 | 1.3 |
| e) Evidence of small bowel dilatation on CT | 106 | 70.2 | 29 | 19.2 | 10 | 6.6 | 3 | 2.0 | 2 | 1.3 |
| Scenario 5: You have performed a laparoscopic repair of a perforated duodenal ulcer. Two days later the patient deteriorates on the ward. Computed tomography shows a large amount of free fluid and free air. You decide to operate. How likely are you to approach this laparoscopically? | ||||||||||
| Patient | Never | Rarely | Sometimes | Frequently | Always | |||||
| (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | |
| a) No significant comorbidities | 74 | 49.0 | 16 | 10.6 | 27 | 17.9 | 19 | 12.6 | 13 | 8.6 |
| b) ASA grade 3 | 82 | 54.3 | 20 | 13.2 | 24 | 15.9 | 15 | 9.9 | 8 | 5.3 |
| c) Body mass index 42kg/m2 | 81 | 53.6 | 17 | 11.3 | 21 | 13.9 | 21 | 13.9 | 9 | 6.0 |
| d) 50-year-old male | 79 | 52.3 | 15 | 9.9 | 25 | 16.6 | 19 | 12.6 | 11 | 7.3 |
| e) 80-year-old male | 90 | 59.6 | 17 | 11.3 | 19 | 12.6 | 15 | 9.9 | 8 | 5.3 |
| Scenario 6: A patient has had a laparoscopic anterior resection four days ago (primary anastomosis and not defunctioned). Today they have deteriorated and computed tomography shows a probable leak at the anastomosis. You decide to operate. How likely are you to approach this laparoscopically? | ||||||||||
| Patient | Never | Rarely | Sometimes | Frequently | Always | |||||
| (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | |
| a) No significant comorbidities | 68 | 45.0 | 19 | 12.6 | 24 | 15.9 | 23 | 15.2 | 15 | 9.9 |
| b) ASA grade 3 | 72 | 47.7 | 22 | 14.6 | 21 | 13.9 | 23 | 15.2 | 11 | 7.3 |
| c) Body mass index 42kg/m2 | 73 | 48.3 | 23 | 15.2 | 21 | 13.9 | 23 | 15.2 | 8 | 5.3 |
| d) 50-year-old male | 71 | 47.0 | 18 | 11.9 | 24 | 15.9 | 21 | 13.9 | 15 | 9.9 |
| e) 80-year-old male | 76 | 50.3 | 22 | 14.6 | 20 | 13.2 | 23 | 15.2 | 8 | 5.3 |
| Scenario 7: A patient presents with small-bowel obstruction confirmed on computed tomography. They have had no previous surgery and the radiologist reports an abrupt transition point in the pelvis. You decide to operate. How likely are you to approach this laparoscopically? | ||||||||||
| Patient | Never | Rarely | Sometimes | Frequently | Always | |||||
| (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | |
| a) No significant comorbidities | 39 | 25.8 | 31 | 20.5 | 39 | 25.8 | 30 | 19.9 | 20 | 13.2 |
| b) ASA grade 3 | 42 | 27.8 | 25 | 16.6 | 43 | 28.5 | 28 | 18.5 | 11 | 7.3 |
| c) Body mass index 42kg/m2 | 47 | 31.1 | 28 | 18.5 | 37 | 24.5 | 22 | 14.6 | 15 | 9.9 |
| d) 50-year-old male | 39 | 25.8 | 24 | 15.9 | 39 | 25.8 | 27 | 17.9 | 20 | 13.2 |
| e) 80-year-old male | 47 | 31.1 | 27 | 17.9 | 36 | 23.8 | 23 | 15.2 | 15 | 9.9 |
| f) A patient who has had previous open abdominal surgery | 63 | 41.7 | 31 | 20.5 | 34 | 22.5 | 14 | 9.3 | 7 | 4.6 |
ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; CT, computed tomography