Mr Shabuddin Khan, Dr. Victoria Male, Dr. Charlo1e Ashworth,, Miss ...
Outcome following emergency laparotomy Mr Shabuddin Khan, Dr. Victoria Male, Dr. Charlo7e Ashworth,, Miss Joanna Reed, Mr Donald Menzies
AIM
To compare our outcomes following emergency laparotomy (or equivalent) against naIonal standards.
METHOD
RetrospecIve analysis of paIents undergoing emergency laparotomy or equivalent procedure from Nov 2012 to Nov 2013 were analyzed. Data was collected from clinical coding and case notes. Data was collected for demographics, procedure, grade of surgeon, operaIng Ime, morbidity and mortality.
RESULT
a) 265 emergency laparotomy or equivalent procedures were carried out during 1 year period from Aug 2012 to Aug 2013. b) 130 out of 265 (51%) were aged between 60-‐80 years. c) 135 out of 265 (52%) were female and 130 (48%) were male.
d) 85 out of 265 (32%) were due to Small bowel related and 100 out of 265 (38%) were related to large bowel. e) 15 out of 265 (6%) required more than 1 laparotomy. f) 60 out of 265 (23%) were performed under upper G.I. team (2 consultants) and 215 (77%) by colorectal team (6 consultants). UPPER G.I VERSUS COLORECTAL g) 20 out of 265 (7.5%) were done by registrars, 7.5% by post-‐CCT fellows, 11% by registrar with consultant and 74% by consultants as first surgeon.
GRADE OF OPERATING SURGEON h) 140 out of 265 (53%) were during out of hours. i) 27 out of 265 (10%) died on same admission.
d) 80 out of 265 (30%) were done laparoscopically.
LAPAROSCOPY VERSUS LAPAROTOMY
CONCLUSION
1) 1 in 15 required more than one operaIon. 2) 77% of emergency laparotomies were done under colorectal team. 3) 53% of emergency laparotomies were done during out of hours. 4) 30-‐day mortality rate was 10%. 5) Our mortality rate following emergency laparotomy is less than the naIonal standards (12-‐18%) 6) 74% of emergency laparotomy or equivalent procedure, were performed by consultants. 7) We recommend that consultant surgeon should be present for all.
AIM
To compare our outcomes following emergency laparotomy (or equivalent) against naIonal standards.
METHOD
RetrospecIve analysis of paIents undergoing emergency laparotomy or equivalent procedure from Nov 2012 to Nov 2013 were analyzed. Data was collected from clinical coding and case notes. Data was collected for demographics, procedure, grade of surgeon, operaIng Ime, morbidity and mortality.
RESULT
a) 265 emergency laparotomy or equivalent procedures were carried out during 1 year period from Aug 2012 to Aug 2013. b) 130 out of 265 (51%) were aged between 60-‐80 years. c) 135 out of 265 (52%) were female and 130 (48%) were male.
d) 85 out of 265 (32%) were due to Small bowel related and 100 out of 265 (38%) were related to large bowel. e) 15 out of 265 (6%) required more than 1 laparotomy. f) 60 out of 265 (23%) were performed under upper G.I. team (2 consultants) and 215 (77%) by colorectal team (6 consultants). UPPER G.I VERSUS COLORECTAL g) 20 out of 265 (7.5%) were done by registrars, 7.5% by post-‐CCT fellows, 11% by registrar with consultant and 74% by consultants as first surgeon.
GRADE OF OPERATING SURGEON h) 140 out of 265 (53%) were during out of hours. i) 27 out of 265 (10%) died on same admission.
d) 80 out of 265 (30%) were done laparoscopically.
LAPAROSCOPY VERSUS LAPAROTOMY
CONCLUSION
1) 1 in 15 required more than one operaIon. 2) 77% of emergency laparotomies were done under colorectal team. 3) 53% of emergency laparotomies were done during out of hours. 4) 30-‐day mortality rate was 10%. 5) Our mortality rate following emergency laparotomy is less than the naIonal standards (12-‐18%) 6) 74% of emergency laparotomy or equivalent procedure, were performed by consultants. 7) We recommend that consultant surgeon should be present for all.
