Purpose: Common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is relatively common. No studies have been conducted evaluating the safety and feasibility of re-do LCBDE in the treatment of recurrent CBD stones. Methods: This single-center retrospective study reviewed 340 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE for CBD stones between January 2004 and December 2020. Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancies and those who underwent other surgical procedures were excluded. Results: Of the 340 included patients, 45 experienced a recurrence after a mean follow-up period of 24.2 months. Of them, 18 underwent re-do LCBDE, 20 underwent endoscopic intervention, 2 underwent radiologic intervention, and 5 underwent observation. Re-do LCBDE and initial LCBDE showed similar surgical outcomes in terms of operative time (113.1 minutes vs. 107.5 minutes, P = 0.515), estimated blood loss (42.5 mL vs. 49.1 mL, P = 0.661), open conversion rate (2.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.461), postoperative complication (15.3% vs. 22.2%, P = 0.430), and postoperative hospital stay (6.5 days vs. 6.4 days, P = 0.921). Comparing re-do LCBDE and nonsurgical treatment (endoscopic or radiologic), no statistically significant differences were noted in posttreatment complication (22.2% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.477), hospital stay (6.4 days vs.7.3 days, P = 0.607), and recurrence (50.0% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.385). The clearance rate was higher in the re-do LCBDE group than in the nonsurgical group (100% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.057). Conclusion Compared to initial LCBDE and endoscopic or radiological treatments, re-do LCBDE for recurrent CBD stones is a treatment option worth considering in selected patients.

Purpose: Common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is relatively common. No studies have been conducted evaluating the safety and feasibility of re-do LCBDE in the treatment of recurrent CBD stones. Methods: This single-center retrospective study reviewed 340 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE for CBD stones between January 2004 and December 2020. Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancies and those who underwent other surgical procedures were excluded. Results: Of the 340 included patients, 45 experienced a recurrence after a mean follow-up period of 24.2 months. Of them, 18 underwent re-do LCBDE, 20 underwent endoscopic intervention, 2 underwent radiologic intervention, and 5 underwent observation. Re-do LCBDE and initial LCBDE showed similar surgical outcomes in terms of operative time (113.1 minutes vs. 107.5 minutes, P = 0.515), estimated blood loss (42.5 mL vs. 49.1 mL, P = 0.661), open conversion rate (2.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.461), postoperative complication (15.3% vs. 22.2%, P = 0.430), and postoperative hospital stay (6.5 days vs. 6.4 days, P = 0.921). Comparing re-do LCBDE and nonsurgical treatment (endoscopic or radiologic), no statistically significant differences were noted in posttreatment complication (22.2% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.477), hospital stay (6.4 days vs.7.3 days, P = 0.607), and recurrence (50.0% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.385). The clearance rate was higher in the re-do LCBDE group than in the nonsurgical group (100% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.057). Conclusion Compared to initial LCBDE and endoscopic or radiological treatments, re-do LCBDE for recurrent CBD stones is a treatment option worth considering in selected patients.

Purpose: Common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is relatively common. No studies have been conducted evaluating the safety and feasibility of re-do LCBDE in the treatment of recurrent CBD stones. Methods: This single-center retrospective study reviewed 340 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE for CBD stones between January 2004 and December 2020. Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancies and those who underwent other surgical procedures were excluded. Results: Of the 340 included patients, 45 experienced a recurrence after a mean follow-up period of 24.2 months. Of them, 18 underwent re-do LCBDE, 20 underwent endoscopic intervention, 2 underwent radiologic intervention, and 5 underwent observation. Re-do LCBDE and initial LCBDE showed similar surgical outcomes in terms of operative time (113.1 minutes vs. 107.5 minutes, P = 0.515), estimated blood loss (42.5 mL vs. 49.1 mL, P = 0.661), open conversion rate (2.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.461), postoperative complication (15.3% vs. 22.2%, P = 0.430), and postoperative hospital stay (6.5 days vs. 6.4 days, P = 0.921). Comparing re-do LCBDE and nonsurgical treatment (endoscopic or radiologic), no statistically significant differences were noted in posttreatment complication (22.2% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.477), hospital stay (6.4 days vs.7.3 days, P = 0.607), and recurrence (50.0% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.385). The clearance rate was higher in the re-do LCBDE group than in the nonsurgical group (100% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.057). Conclusion Compared to initial LCBDE and endoscopic or radiological treatments, re-do LCBDE for recurrent CBD stones is a treatment option worth considering in selected patients.

Purpose: We present a case of central anticholinergic syndrome following the administration of atropine eye drops.Case summary: A 60-year-old male presented with decreased visual acuity in his left eye and was diagnosed with intraocular lens dislocation. Preoperatively, Isopto atropine® eye drops (1 drop at 15-minutes intervals) were used for pupil dilation. Within an hour of the first instillation, the patient exhibited drowsiness, disorientation, agitation, and urinary retention. Laboratory tests and computed tomography of the brain were unremarkable. Considering the recent administration of atropine eye drops, a diagnosis of central anticholinergic syndrome was made. The surgery was postponed and the patient recovered fully after 3 hours of observation. He remained asymptomatic during an additional day of hospitalization. Conclusions A small dose of atropine eye drops even at a therapeutic dose can induce central anticholinergic syndrome. Therefore, ophthalmologists should be aware of this rare and severe complication.

Purpose: We present a case of central anticholinergic syndrome following the administration of atropine eye drops.Case summary: A 60-year-old male presented with decreased visual acuity in his left eye and was diagnosed with intraocular lens dislocation. Preoperatively, Isopto atropine® eye drops (1 drop at 15-minutes intervals) were used for pupil dilation. Within an hour of the first instillation, the patient exhibited drowsiness, disorientation, agitation, and urinary retention. Laboratory tests and computed tomography of the brain were unremarkable. Considering the recent administration of atropine eye drops, a diagnosis of central anticholinergic syndrome was made. The surgery was postponed and the patient recovered fully after 3 hours of observation. He remained asymptomatic during an additional day of hospitalization. Conclusions A small dose of atropine eye drops even at a therapeutic dose can induce central anticholinergic syndrome. Therefore, ophthalmologists should be aware of this rare and severe complication.

Purpose: We present a case of central anticholinergic syndrome following the administration of atropine eye drops.Case summary: A 60-year-old male presented with decreased visual acuity in his left eye and was diagnosed with intraocular lens dislocation. Preoperatively, Isopto atropine® eye drops (1 drop at 15-minutes intervals) were used for pupil dilation. Within an hour of the first instillation, the patient exhibited drowsiness, disorientation, agitation, and urinary retention. Laboratory tests and computed tomography of the brain were unremarkable. Considering the recent administration of atropine eye drops, a diagnosis of central anticholinergic syndrome was made. The surgery was postponed and the patient recovered fully after 3 hours of observation. He remained asymptomatic during an additional day of hospitalization. Conclusions A small dose of atropine eye drops even at a therapeutic dose can induce central anticholinergic syndrome. Therefore, ophthalmologists should be aware of this rare and severe complication.

Safe and effective sedation depends on various factors, such as the choice of sedatives, sedation techniques used, experience of the sedation provider, degree of sedation-related education and training, equipment and healthcare worker availability, the patient’s underlying diseases, and the procedure being performed. The purpose of these evidence-based multidisciplinary clinical practice guidelines is to ensure the safety and efficacy of sedation, thereby contributing to patient safety and ultimately improving public health. These clinical practice guidelines comprise 15 key questions covering various topics related to the following: the sedation providers; medications and equipment available; appropriate patient selection; anesthesiologist referrals for high-risk patients; pre-sedation fasting; comparison of representative drugs used in adult and pediatric patients; respiratory system, cardiovascular system, and sedation depth monitoring during sedation; management of respiratory complications during pediatric sedation; and discharge criteria. The recommendations in these clinical practice guidelines were systematically developed to assist providers and patients in sedation-related decision making for diagnostic and therapeutic examinations or procedures. Depending on the characteristics of primary, secondary, and tertiary care institutions as well as the clinical needs and limitations, sedation providers at each medical institution may choose to apply the recommendations as they are, modify them appropriately, or reject them completely.

Purpose: The safety of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) for acute cholecystitis (AC) has not yet been confirmed. Methods: This single-center retrospective study included patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for AC between April 2010 and December 2020.Propensity scores were used to match patients who underwent SILC with those who underwent conventional multiport LC (CMLC) in the entire cohort and in the two subgroups. Results: A total of 1,876 patients underwent LC for AC, and 427 (22.8%) underwent SILC. In the propensity score-matched analysis of the entire cohort (404 patients in each group), the length of hospital stay (2.9 days vs. 3.5 days, p = 0.029) was shorter in the SILC group than in the CMLC group. No significant differences were observed in other surgical outcomes. In grade I AC (336 patients in each group), the SILC group showed poorer surgical outcomes than the CMLC group, regarding operation time (57.6 minutes vs. 52.4 minutes, p = 0.001) and estimated blood loss (22.9 mL vs. 13.1 mL, p = 0.006). In grade II/III AC (58 patients in each group), there were no significant differences in surgical outcomes between the two groups. Postoperative pain outcomes were also not significantly different in the two groups, regardless of severity. Conclusion This study demonstrated that SILC had similar surgical and pain outcomes to CMLC in patients with AC; however, subgroup analysis showed that SILC was associated with poor surgical outcomes than CMLC in grade I AC. Therefore, SILC should be carefully performed in patients with AC by experienced hepatobiliary surgeons.

Purpose: This study was performed to investigate the effect of drain placement on complicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy (cLC) for acute cholecystitis (AC). Methods: This single-center retrospective study reviewed patients with AC who underwent cLC between January 2010 and December 2020. cLC was defined as open conversion, subtotal cholecystectomy, adjacent organ injury during surgery, operation time of ≥90 minutes, or estimated blood loss of ≥100 mL. One-toone propensity score matching was performed to compare the surgical outcomes between patients with and without drain on cLC. Results: A total of 216 patients (mean age, 65.8 years; 75 female patients [34.7%]) underwent cLC, and 126 (58.3%) underwent intraoperative abdominal drainage. In the propensity score-matched cohort (61 patients in each group), early drain removal (≤postoperative day 3) was performed in 42 patients (68.9%). The overall rate of surgical site infection (SSI) was 10.7%. Late drain removal demonstrated significantly worse surgical outcomes than no drain placement and early drain removal for overall complications (13.1% vs. 21.4% vs. 47.4%, p = 0.006), postoperative hospital stay (3.8 days vs. 4.4 days vs. 12.7 days, p < 0.001), and SSI (4.9% vs. 11.9% vs. 31.6%, p = 0.006). In the multivariate analysis, late drain removal was the most significant risk factor for organ space SSI. Conclusion This study demonstrated that drain placement is not routinely recommended, even after cLC for AC. When placing a drain, early drain removal is recommended because late drain removal is associated with a higher risk of organ space SSI.

Purpose: The optimal indications for single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) have not yet been established. Methods: This single-center retrospective study included consecutive patients who underwent SILC between April 2010 and June 2020. Dif f icult surger y (DS) (conversion to multiport or open cholecystectomy, adjacent organ injury, operation time of ≥90 minutes, or estimated blood loss of ≥100 mL) and poor postoperative outcome (PPO) (postoperative hospital stay ≥ 7 days or Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ II postoperative complications) were def ined to comprehensively evaluate surgical diff iculty and postoperative outcomes, respectively. Results: Of 1,405 patients (mean age, 51.2 years; 802 female [57.1%]), 427 (grade I, n = 358; grade II/III, n = 69) underwent SILC for acute cholecystitis (AC), 34 (2.4%) needed conversion to multiport (n = 33) or open cholecystectomy (n = 1), 7 (0.5%) had adjacent organ injury during surgery, and 49 (3.5%) developed postoperative complications. Of the patients, 89 and 52 had DS and PPO, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, grade I AC, grade II/III AC, and body mass index of ≥30 kg/m 2 were significant predictors of DS.Age of ≥70 years and DS were significant predictors of PPO. In a subgroup analysis of patients with AC, DS (9.5% vs. 27.5%, p < 0.001) and PPO (5.0% vs. 15.9%, p = 0.001) were more frequent in patients with grade II/III AC than in those with grade I AC. Conclusion SILC is not recommended in patients with grade II/III AC and should be carefully performed by experienced and well-trained surgeons.