Citations

Abstract In some cases, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) may be difficult to perform in patients with acute cholecystitis (AC) with severe inflammation and fibrosis. The Tokyo Guidelines 2018 (TG18) expand the indications for LC under difficult conditions for each level of severity of AC. As a result of expanding the indications for LC to treat AC, it is absolutely necessary to avoid any increase in bile duct injury (BDI), particularly vasculo‐biliary injury (VBI), which is known to occur at a certain rate in LC. Since the Tokyo Guidelines 2013 (TG13), an attempt has been made to assess intraoperative findings as objective indicators of surgical difficulty; based on expert consensus on these difficulty indicators, bail‐out procedures (including conversion to open cholecystectomy) have been indicated for cases in which LC for AC is difficult to perform. A bail‐out procedure should be chosen if, when the Calot's triangle is appropriately retracted and used as a landmark, a critical view of safety (CVS) cannot be achieved because of the presence of nondissectable scarring or severe fibrosis. We propose standardized safe steps for LC to treat AC. To achieve a CVS, it is vital to dissect at a location above (on the ventral side of) the imaginary line connecting the base of the left medial section (Segment 4) and the roof of Rouvière's sulcus and to fulfill the three criteria of CVS before dividing any structures. Achieving a CVS prevents the misidentification of the cystic duct and the common bile duct, which are most commonly confused. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47 . Related clinical questions and references are also included.

Abstract Management bundles that define items or procedures strongly recommended in clinical practice have been used in many guidelines in recent years. Application of these bundles facilitates the adaptation of guidelines and helps improve the prognosis of target diseases. In Tokyo Guidelines 2013 ( TG 13), we proposed management bundles for acute cholangitis and cholecystitis. Here, in Tokyo Guidelines 2018 ( TG 18), we redefine the management bundles for acute cholangitis and cholecystitis. Critical parts of the bundles in TG 18 include the diagnostic process, severity assessment, transfer of patients if necessary, and therapeutic approach at each time point. Observance of these items and procedures should improve the prognosis of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis. Studies are now needed to evaluate the dissemination of these TG 18 bundles and their effectiveness. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47 . Related clinical questions and references are also included.

Background: Non-Hispanic blacks (NHB) and Hispanics often present with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). The aim of the study was to characterize CRC differences among Hispanics, NHB, and non-Hispanic whites (NHW). Methods: A cross-sectional analysis and logistic regression of 2009 Florida Agency for Healthcare Administration Hospital Admission Database data for CRC using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification codes was performed. Outcomes included CRC location, frequency of metastasis and colectomy rates. Each minority group was compared with NHW. Results: A total of 34,577 patients were NHW, 5190 were NHB, and 5033 were Hispanic. NHB had more proximal CRC [odds ratio (OR), 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.09-1.25; P<0.0001]; Hispanics had more distal CRC (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96; P=0.0024). Hispanics had increased metastases (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.02-1.22; P=0.04). NHB and Hispanics underwent fewer colectomies [(OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86-0.99; P=0.03) and (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.84-0.97; P=0.001), respectively]. Conclusions: Disparities in CRC metastases and colectomy rates exist among these racial groups in Florida. This work should serve as a foundation to study potential causes and to design culture-specific interventions.

Abstract Please see the full-text version of this guideline (https://www.cns.org/guidelines/guidelines-management-patients-vestibular-schwannoma/chapter_8) for the target population of each recommendation listed below. QUESTION 1 What surgical approaches for vestibular schwannomas (VS) are best for complete resection and facial nerve (FN) preservation when serviceable hearing is present? RECOMMENDATION There is insufficient evidence to support the superiority of either the middle fossa (MF) or the retrosigmoid (RS) approach for complete VS resection and FN preservation when serviceable hearing is present. QUESTION 2 Which surgical approach (RS or translabyrinthine [TL]) for VS is best for complete resection and FN preservation when serviceable hearing is not present? RECOMMENDATION There is insufficient evidence to support the superiority of either the RS or the TL approach for complete VS resection and FN preservation when serviceable hearing is not present. QUESTION 3 Does VS size matter for facial and vestibulocochlear nerve preservation with surgical resection? RECOMMENDATION Level 3: Patients with larger VS tumor size should be counseled about the greater than average risk of loss of serviceable hearing. QUESTION 4 Should small intracanalicular tumors (<1.5 cm) be surgically resected? RECOMMENDATION There are insufficient data to support a firm recommendation that surgery be the primary treatment for this subclass of VSs. QUESTION 5 Is hearing preservation routinely possible with VS surgical resection when serviceable hearing is present? RECOMMENDATION Level 3: Hearing preservation surgery via the MF or the RS approach may be attempted in patients with small tumor size (<1.5 cm) and good preoperative hearing. QUESTION 6 When should surgical resection be the initial treatment in patients with neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2)? RECOMMENDATION There is insufficient evidence that surgical resection should be the initial treatment in patients with NF2. QUESTION 7 Does a multidisciplinary team, consisting of neurosurgery and neurotology, provides the best outcomes of complete resection and facial/vestibulocochlear nerve preservation for patients undergoing resection of VSs? RECOMMENDATION There is insufficient evidence to support stating that a multidisciplinary team, usually consisting of a neurosurgeon and a neurotologist, provides superior outcomes compared to either subspecialist working alone. QUESTION 8 Does a subtotal surgical resection of a VS followed by stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) to the residual tumor provide comparable hearing and FN preservation to patients who undergo a complete surgical resection? RECOMMENDATION There is insufficient evidence to support subtotal resection (STR) followed by SRS provides comparable hearing and FN preservation to patients who undergo a complete surgical resection. QUESTION 9 Does surgical resection of VS treat preoperative balance problems more effectively than SRS? RECOMMENDATION There is insufficient evidence to support either surgical resection or SRS for treatment of preoperative balance problems. QUESTION 10 Does surgical resection of VS treat preoperative trigeminal neuralgia more effectively than SRS? RECOMMENDATION Level 3: Surgical resection of VSs may be used to better relieve symptoms of trigeminal neuralgia than SRS. QUESTION 11 Is surgical resection of VSs more difficult (associated with higher facial neuropathies and STR rates) after initial treatment with SRS? RECOMMENDATION Level 3: If microsurgical resection is necessary after SRS, it is recommended that patients be counseled that there is an increased likelihood of a STR and decreased FN function. The full guideline can be found at: https://www.cns.org/guidelines/guidelines-management-patients-vestibular-schwannoma/chapter_8.

Purpose Compare the effect of personalized feedback (PF) vs. task demonstration (TD), both delivered via video, on laparoscopic knot-tying skills and perceived workload; and evaluate the effect of repeated practice. Method General surgery interns and research fellows completed four repetitions of a simulated laparoscopic knot-tying task at one-month intervals. Midway between repetitions, participants received via e-mail either a TD video (demonstration by an expert) or a PF video (video of their own performance with voiceover from a blinded senior surgeon). Each participant received at least one video per format, with sequence randomly assigned. Outcomes included performance scores and NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) scores. To evaluate the effectiveness of repeated practice, scores from these trainees on a separate delayed retention test were compared against historical controls who did not have scheduled repetitions. Results Twenty-one trainees completed the randomized study. Mean change in performance scores was significantly greater for those receiving PF (difference = 23.1 of 150 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0, 46.2], P = .05). Perceived workload was also significantly reduced (difference = −3.0 of 20 [95% CI: −5.8, −0.3], P = .04). Compared with historical controls (N = 93), the 21 with scheduled repeated practice had higher scores on the laparoscopic knot-tying assessment two weeks after the final repetition (difference = 1.5 of 10 [95% CI: 0.2, 2.8], P = .02). Conclusions Personalized video feedback improves trainees’ procedural performance and perceived workload compared with a task demonstration video. Brief monthly practice sessions support skill acquisition and retention.

Abstract We propose a new flowchart for the treatment of acute cholecystitis ( AC ) in the Tokyo Guidelines 2018 (TG18). Grade III AC was not indicated for straightforward laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Lap‐C). Following analysis of subsequent clinical investigations and drawing on Big Data in particular, TG 18 proposes that some Grade III AC can be treated by Lap‐C when performed at advanced centers with specialized surgeons experienced in this procedure and for patients that satisfy certain strict criteria. For Grade I, TG 18 recommends early Lap‐C if the patients meet the criteria of Charlson comorbidity index ( CCI ) ≤5 and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification ( ASA ‐ PS ) ≤2. For Grade II AC , if patients meet the criteria of CCI ≤5 and ASA ‐ PS ≤2, TG 18 recommends early Lap‐C performed by experienced surgeons; and if not, after medical treatment and/or gallbladder drainage, Lap‐C would be indicated. TG 18 proposes that Lap‐C is indicated in Grade III patients with strict criteria. These are that the patients have favorable organ system failure, and negative predictive factors, who meet the criteria of CCI ≤3 and ASA ‐ PS ≤2 and who are being treated at an advanced center (where experienced surgeons practice). If the patient is not considered suitable for early surgery, TG 18 recommends early/urgent biliary drainage followed by delayed Lap‐C once the patient's overall condition has improved. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47 . Related clinical questions and references are also included.