Schistosomal Colorectal Cancer: Biomarkers and Treatment Strategies

About 15.4% of human cancers worldwide have been attributed to infections. Among these, blood and liver flukes, notably Schistosoma sp, Clonorchis Sinesis, and Opisthorchis Viverrini have been associated with the development of various cancer types. Schistosoma sp. promotes colorectal cancer (CRC) progression through multiple mechanisms including production of toxins, symbiotic action with bacterial agents, and more importantly chronic inflammation. Diagnosis of schistosomal colorectal cancer (SCC) requires high index of clinical suspicion in endemic areas. Novel biomarkers may aid early diagnosis of SCC in patients with chronic intestinal schistosomiasis. Treatment should be tailored to individual patients according to the stage and biologic characteristics of the tumour, and the extent of hepatosplenic schistosomiasis. Long-term survival after surgical resection of SCC is lower than that reported in patients with sporadic CRC

Colorectal carcinoma associated with schistosomiasis: a possible causal relationship

The association between schistosomiasis and colorectal malignancy has long been suggested in the literature, but it is not uniformly accepted. In the Far East, considerable evidence supports an etiological link between Schistosoma japonicum and colorectal cancer. However, the available data regarding the role of Schistosoma mansoni in colorectal carcinogenesis are conflicting and most often do not show causality. We report on a patient with sigmoid colonic cancer coexisting with schistosomiasis, and we provide a comprehensive review of the literature regarding the epidemiology and pathobiology of this association

Types, limitations, and possible alternatives of peer review based on the literature and surgeons’ opinions via Twitter: a narrative review

This review aimed to illustrate the types, limitations, and possible alternatives of peer review (PR) based on a literature review together with the opinions of a social media audience via Twitter. This study was conducted via the #OpenSourceResearch collaborative platform and combined a comprehensive literature search on the current PR system with the opinions of a social media audience of surgeons who are actively engaged in the current PR system. Six independent researchers conducted a literature search of electronic databases in addition to Google Scholar. Electronic polls were organized via Twitter to assess surgeons’ opinions on the current PR system and potential alternative approaches. PR can be classified into single-blind, double-blind, triple-blind, and open PR. Newer PR systems include interactive platforms, prepublication and postpublication commenting or review, transparent review, and collaborative review. The main limitations of the current PR system are its allegedly time-consuming nature and inconsistent, biased, and non-transparent results. Suggestions to improve the PR process include employing an interactive, double-blind PR system, using artificial intelligence to recruit reviewers, providing incentives for reviewers, and using PR templates. The above results offer several concepts for possible alternative approaches and modifications to this critically important process

Pediatric trauma and emergency surgery: an international cross-sectional survey among WSES members

Background: In contrast to adults, the situation for pediatric trauma care from an international point of view and the global management of severely injured children remain rather unclear. The current study investigates structural management of pediatric trauma in centers of different trauma levels as well as experiences with pediatric trauma management around the world. Methods: A web-survey had been distributed to the global mailing list of the World Society of Emergency Surgery from 10/2021-03/2022, investigating characteristics of respondents and affiliated hospitals, case-load of pediatric trauma patients, capacities and infrastructure for critical care in children, trauma team composition, clinical work-up and individual experiences with pediatric trauma management in response to patients´ age. The collaboration group was subdivided regarding sizes of affiliated hospitals to allow comparisons concerning hospital volumes. Comparable results were conducted to statistical analysis. Results: A total of 133 participants from 34 countries, i.e. 5 continents responded to the survey. They were most commonly affiliated with larger hospitals (> 500 beds in 72.9%) and with level I or II trauma centers (82.0%), respectively. 74.4% of hospitals offer unrestricted pediatric medical care, but only 63.2% and 42.9% of the participants had sufficient experiences with trauma care in children ≤ 10 and ≤ 5 years of age (p = 0.0014). This situation is aggravated in participants from smaller hospitals (p < 0.01). With regard to hospital size (≤ 500 versus > 500 in-hospital beds), larger hospitals were more likely affiliated with advanced trauma centers, more elaborated pediatric intensive care infrastructure (p < 0.0001), treated children at all ages more frequently (p = 0.0938) and have higher case-loads of severely injured children < 12 years of age (p = 0.0009). Therefore, the majority of larger hospitals reserve either pediatric surgery departments or board-certified pediatric surgeons (p < 0.0001) and in-hospital trauma management is conducted more multi-disciplinarily. However, the majority of respondents does not feel prepared for treatment of severe pediatric trauma and call for special educational and practical training courses (overall: 80.2% and 64.3%, respectively). Conclusions: Multi-professional management of pediatric trauma and individual experiences with severely injured children depend on volumes, level of trauma centers and infrastructure of the hospital. However, respondents from hospitals at all levels of trauma care complain about an alarming lack of knowledge on pediatric trauma management

Long-term risk prediction after major lower limb amputation: 1-year results of the PERCEIVE study

Background: Decision-making when considering major lower limb amputation is complex and requires individualized outcome estimation. It is unknown how accurate healthcare professionals or relevant outcome prediction tools are at predicting outcomes at 1-year after major lower limb amputation. Methods: An international, multicentre prospective observational study evaluating healthcare professional accuracy in predicting outcomes 1 year after major lower limb amputation and evaluation of relevant outcome prediction tools identified in a systematic search of the literature was undertaken. Observed outcomes at 1 year were compared with: healthcare professionals' preoperative predictions of death (surgeons and anaesthetists), major lower limb amputation revision (surgeons) and ambulation (surgeons, specialist physiotherapists and vascular nurse practitioners); and probabilities calculated from relevant outcome prediction tools. Results: A total of 537 patients and 2244 healthcare professional predictions of outcomes were included. Surgeons and anaesthetists had acceptable discrimination (C-statistic = 0.715), calibration and overall performance (Brier score = 0.200) when predicting 1-year death, but performed worse when predicting major lower limb amputation revision and ambulation (C-statistics = 0.627 and 0.662 respectively). Healthcare professionals overestimated the death and major lower limb amputation revision risks. Consultants outperformed trainees, especially when predicting ambulation. Allied healthcare professionals marginally outperformed surgeons in predicting ambulation. Two outcome prediction tools (C-statistics = 0.755 and 0.717, Brier scores = 0.158 and 0.178) outperformed healthcare professionals' discrimination, calibration and overall performance in predicting death. Two outcome prediction tools for ambulation (C-statistics = 0.688 and 0.667) marginally outperformed healthcare professionals. Conclusion: There is uncertainty in predicting 1-year outcomes following major lower limb amputation. Different professional groups performed comparably in this study. Two outcome prediction tools for death and two for ambulation outperformed healthcare professionals and may support shared decision-making

The INTOXICATE study: methodology and preliminary results of a prospective observational study

Background There is currently no practice-based, multicenter database of poisoned patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). The INTOXICATE study, endorsed by the ESICM and EAPCCT, aimed to determine the rate of eventful admissions among acutely intoxicated adult ICU patients. Methods Ethical approval was obtained for this multicenter, prospective observational study, and data-sharing agreements were signed with each participating center. An electronic case report form was used to collect data on patient demographics, exposure, clinical characteristics, investigations, treatment, and in-hospital mortality data. The primary outcome, ‘eventful admission’, was a composite outcome defined as the rate of patients who received any of the following treatments in the first 24 h after the ICU admission: oxygen supplementation with a FiO2 > 40%, mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, renal replacement therapy (RRT), cardiopulmonary resuscitation, antidotes, active cooling, fluid resuscitation (> 1.5 L of intravenous fluid of any kind), sedation, or who died in the hospital. Results Seventy-eight ICUs, mainly from Europe, but also from Australia and the Eastern Mediterranean, participated. A total of 2,273 patients were enrolled between November 2020 and June 2023. The median age of the patients was 41 years, 72% were exposed to intoxicating drugs. The observed rate of patients with an eventful ICU admission was 68% (n = 1546/2273 patients). The hospital mortality was 4.5% (n = 103/2273). Conclusions The vast majority of patients survive, and approximately one third of patients do not receive any ICU-specific interventions after admission in an intensive care unit for acute intoxication. High-quality detailed clinical data have been collected from a large cohort of acutely intoxicated ICU patients, providing information on the pattern of severe acute poisoning requiring intensive care admission and the outcomes of these patients. Trial registration: OSF registration ID: osf.io/7e5uy

Diversity and ethics in trauma and acute care surgery teams: results from an international survey

Background Investigating the context of trauma and acute care surgery, the article aims at understanding the factors that can enhance some ethical aspects, namely the importance of patient consent, the perceptiveness of the ethical role of the trauma leader, and the perceived importance of ethics as an educational subject. Methods The article employs an international questionnaire promoted by the World Society of Emergency Surgery. Results Through the analysis of 402 fully filled questionnaires by surgeons from 72 different countries, the three main ethical topics are investigated through the lens of gender, membership of an academic or non-academic institution, an official trauma team, and a diverse group. In general terms, results highlight greater attention paid by surgeons belonging to academic institutions, official trauma teams, and diverse groups. Conclusions Our results underline that some organizational factors (e.g., the fact that the team belongs to a university context or is more diverse) might lead to the development of a higher sensibility on ethical matters. Embracing cultural diversity forces trauma teams to deal with different mindsets. Organizations should, therefore, consider those elements in defining their organizational procedures. Level of evidence Trauma and acute care teams work under tremendous pressure and complex circumstances, with their members needing to make ethical decisions quickly. The international survey allowed to shed light on how team assembly decisions might represent an opportunity to coordinate team member actions and increase performance

IMPACT-Global Hip Fracture Audit: Nosocomial infection, risk prediction and prognostication, minimum reporting standards and global collaborative audit. Lessons from an international multicentre study of 7,090 patients conducted in 14 nations during the COVID-19 pandemic

AIMS: This international study aimed to assess: 1) the prevalence of preoperative and postoperative COVID-19 among patients with hip fracture, 2) the effect on 30-day mortality, and 3) clinical factors associated with the infection and with mortality in COVID-19-positive patients. METHODS: A multicentre collaboration among 112 centres in 14 countries collected data on all patients presenting with a hip fracture between 1(st) March-31(st) May 2020. Demographics, residence, place of injury, presentation blood tests, Nottingham Hip Fracture Score, time to surgery, management, ASA grade, length of stay, COVID-19 and 30-day mortality status were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 7090 patients were included, with a mean age of 82.2 (range 50-104) years and 4959 (70%) being female. Of 651 (9.2%) patients diagnosed with COVID-19, 225 (34.6%) were positive at presentation and 426 (65.4%) became positive postoperatively. Positive COVID-19 status was independently associated with male sex (odds ratio (OR) 1.38, p=0.001), residential care (OR 2.15, p<0.001), inpatient fall (OR 2.23, p=0.003), cancer (OR 0.63, p=0.009), ASA grade 4-5 (OR 1.59, p=0.008; OR 8.28, p<0.001), and longer admission (OR 1.06 for each increasing day, p<0.001). Patients with COVID-19 at any time had a significantly lower chance of 30-day survival versus those without COVID-19 (72.7% versus 92.6%, p<0.001). COVID-19 was independently associated with an increased 30-day mortality risk (hazard ratio (HR) 2.83, p<0.001). Increasing age (HR 1.03, p=0.028), male sex (HR 2.35, p<0.001), renal disease (HR 1.53, p=0.017), and pulmonary disease (HR 1.45, p=0.039) were independently associated with a higher 30-day mortality risk in patients with COVID-19 when adjusting for confounders. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of COVID-19 in hip fracture patients during the first wave of the pandemic was 9%, and was independently associated with a three-fold increased 30-day mortality risk. Among COVID-19-positive patients, those who were older, male, with renal or pulmonary disease had a significantly higher mortality risk

Correction to: Two years later: Is the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic still having an impact on emergency surgery? An international cross-sectional survey among WSES members

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is still ongoing and a major challenge for health care services worldwide. In the first WSES COVID-19 emergency surgery survey, a strong negative impact on emergency surgery (ES) had been described already early in the pandemic situation. However, the knowledge is limited about current effects of the pandemic on patient flow through emergency rooms, daily routine and decision making in ES as well as their changes over time during the last two pandemic years. This second WSES COVID-19 emergency surgery survey investigates the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on ES during the course of the pandemic. Methods: A web survey had been distributed to medical specialists in ES during a four-week period from January 2022, investigating the impact of the pandemic on patients and septic diseases both requiring ES, structural problems due to the pandemic and time-to-intervention in ES routine. Results: 367 collaborators from 59 countries responded to the survey. The majority indicated that the pandemic still significantly impacts on treatment and outcome of surgical emergency patients (83.1% and 78.5%, respectively). As reasons, the collaborators reported decreased case load in ES (44.7%), but patients presenting with more prolonged and severe diseases, especially concerning perforated appendicitis (62.1%) and diverticulitis (57.5%). Otherwise, approximately 50% of the participants still observe a delay in time-to-intervention in ES compared with the situation before the pandemic. Relevant causes leading to enlarged time-to-intervention in ES during the pandemic are persistent problems with in-hospital logistics, lacks in medical staff as well as operating room and intensive care capacities during the pandemic. This leads not only to the need for triage or transferring of ES patients to other hospitals, reported by 64.0% and 48.8% of the collaborators, respectively, but also to paradigm shifts in treatment modalities to non-operative approaches reported by 67.3% of the participants, especially in uncomplicated appendicitis, cholecystitis and multiple-recurrent diverticulitis. Conclusions: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic still significantly impacts on care and outcome of patients in ES. Well-known problems with in-hospital logistics are not sufficiently resolved by now; however, medical staff shortages and reduced capacities have been dramatically aggravated over last two pandemic years

Goodbye Hartmann trial: a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study on the current use of a surgical procedure developed a century ago

Background: Literature suggests colonic resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) instead of Hartmann's procedure (HP) for the treatment of left-sided colonic emergencies. We aim to evaluate the surgical options globally used to treat patients with acute left-sided colonic emergencies and the factors that leading to the choice of treatment, comparing HP and RPA. Methods: This is a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. A total 1215 patients with left-sided colonic emergencies who required surgery were included from 204 centers during the period of March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020. with a 1-year follow-up. Results: 564 patients (43.1%) were females. The mean age was 65.9 ± 15.6&nbsp;years. HP was performed in 697 (57.3%) patients and RPA in 384 (31.6%) cases. Complicated acute diverticulitis was the most common cause of left-sided colonic emergencies (40.2%), followed by colorectal malignancy (36.6%). Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3b) were higher in the HP group (P &lt; 0.001). 30-day mortality was higher in HP patients (13.7%), especially in case of bowel perforation and diffused peritonitis. 1-year follow-up showed no differences on ostomy reversal rate between HP and RPA. (P = 0.127). A backward likelihood logistic regression model showed that RPA was preferred in younger patients, having low ASA score (≤ 3), in case of large bowel obstruction, absence of colonic ischemia, longer time from admission to surgery, operating early at the day working hours, by a surgeon who performed more than 50 colorectal resections. Conclusions: After 100&nbsp;years since the first Hartmann's procedure, HP remains the most common treatment for left-sided colorectal emergencies. Treatment's choice depends on patient characteristics, the time of surgery and the experience of the surgeon. RPA should be considered as the gold standard for surgery, with HP being an exception