Abstract
Introduction
Guidelines suggest the laparoscopic approach may be safe and feasible in emergency general surgery. Despite this, the UK National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) rate of laparoscopic surgery remains low. Our earlier analysis of the NELA database identified factors associated with use of laparoscopy, then recommended further analysis to compare outcomes between laparoscopic and open surgery.
Methods
We obtained information from the NELA database (2013 - 2017) and performed logistic regression on all first operations during the hospital admission. Outcomes were compared between open and laparoscopic approach (fully laparoscopic, laparoscopic assisted and laparoscopic converted). The primary outcome was death during hospital admission; secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care unit (ICU), length of ICU stay and return to theatre.
Results
The cohort comprised 68,928 open (52% men, mean age 65) and 12,144 laparoscopic (51% men, mean age 58). In a model adjusted for all factors influencing primary or secondary outcomes (age, gender, p-possum, weekday versus weekend, operative time of day, malignancy, peritoneal soiling, CEPOD urgency, surgical grade and anaesthetist grade), death rates were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.59 – 0.71). Post-operative admission to ICU and ICU stay > 3 days were both significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.56 – 0.62; OR 0.82, CI 0.75 – 0.89). There was no difference in return to theatre.
Conclusions
Outcomes for laparoscopy in emergency general surgery appear superior to open surgery, although there may be residual unmeasured confounding factors. Further analysis will compare outcomes between pathologies.
Comparison of the Incidence of Complications among the Different Techniques of Laparoscopic Approach: Experience in a General Surgery Service in a Private Hospital
