Evolving Trends in the Management of Acute Appendicitis During COVID-19 Waves: The ACIE Appy II Study

Background In 2020, ACIE Appy study showed that COVID-19 pandemic heavily affected the management of patients with acute appendicitis (AA) worldwide, with an increased rate of non-operative management (NOM) strategies and a trend toward open surgery due to concern of virus transmission by laparoscopy and controversial recommendations on this issue. The aim of this study was to survey again the same group of surgeons to assess if any difference in management attitudes of AA had occurred in the later stages of the outbreak. Methods From August 15 to September 30, 2021, an online questionnaire was sent to all 709 participants of the ACIE Appy study. The questionnaire included questions on personal protective equipment (PPE), local policies and screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection, NOM, surgical approach and disease presentations in 2021. The results were compared with the results from the previous study. Results A total of 476 answers were collected (response rate 67.1%). Screening policies were significatively improved with most patients screened regardless of symptoms (89.5% vs. 37.4%) with PCR and antigenic test as the preferred test (74.1% vs. 26.3%). More patients tested positive before surgery and commercial systems were the preferred ones to filter smoke plumes during laparoscopy. Laparoscopic appendicectomy was the first option in the treatment of AA, with a declined use of NOM. Conclusion Management of AA has improved in the last waves of pandemic. Increased evidence regarding SARS-COV-2 infection along with a timely healthcare systems response has been translated into tailored attitudes and a better care for patients with AA worldwide

The 2023 MANCTRA Acute Biliary Pancreatitis Care Bundle A Joint Effort Between Human Knowledge and Artificial Intelligence (ChatGPT) to Optimize the Care of Patients With Acute Biliary Pancreatitis in Western Countries

Acute biliary pancreatitis; Artificial intelligence (ChatGPT); Care of patientsPancreatitis biliar aguda; Intel·ligència artificial (ChatGPT); Atenció als pacientsPancreatitis biliar aguda; Inteligencia artificial (ChatGPT); Atención a los pacientesObjective: To generate an up-to-date bundle to manage acute biliary pancreatitis using an evidence-based, artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted GRADE method. Background: A care bundle is a set of core elements of care that are distilled from the most solid evidence-based practice guidelines and recommendations. Methods: The research questions were addressed in this bundle following the PICO criteria. The working group summarized the effects of interventions with the strength of recommendation and quality of evidence applying the GRADE methodology. ChatGPT AI system was used to independently assess the quality of evidence of each element in the bundle, together with the strength of the recommendations. Results: The 7 elements of the bundle discourage antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis, support the use of a full-solid diet in patients with mild to moderately severe acute biliary pancreatitis, and recommend early enteral nutrition in patients unable to feed by mouth. The bundle states that endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography should be performed within the first 48 to 72 hours of hospital admission in patients with cholangitis. Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be performed in patients with mild acute biliary pancreatitis. When operative intervention is needed for necrotizing pancreatitis, this should start with the endoscopic step-up approach. Conclusions: We have developed a new care bundle with 7 key elements for managing patients with acute biliary pancreatitis. This new bundle, whose scientific strength has been increased thanks to the alliance between human knowledge and AI from the new ChatGPT software, should be introduced to emergency departments, wards, and intensive care units

Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy versus appendectomy or antibiotics in the modern approach to uncomplicated acute appendicitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Endoscopic therapy; Appendicitis; AppendectomyTerapia endoscópica; Apendicitis; ApendicectomíaTeràpia endoscòpica; Apendicitis; ApendicectomiaIntroduction Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy has been proposed as an alternative strategy for treating appendicitis, but debate exists on its role compared with conventional treatment. Methods This systematic review was performed on MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. The last search was in April of 2023. The risk ratio with a 95% confidence interval was calculated for dichotomous variables, and the mean difference with a 95% confidence interval for continuous variables. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool (randomized controlled trials) and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Intervention tool (non-randomized controlled trials). Results Six studies met the eligibility criteria. Four studies compared endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (n = 236 patients) and appendectomy (n = 339) and found no differences in technical success during index admission (risk ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval [0.92,1.02]). Appendectomy showed superior outcomes for recurrence at 1-year follow-up (risk ratio 11.28, 95% confidence interval [2.61,48.73]). Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy required shorter procedural time (mean difference –14.38, 95% confidence interval [–20.17, –8.59]) and length of hospital stay (mean difference –1.19, 95% confidence interval [–2.37, –0.01]), with lower post-intervention abdominal pain (risk ratio 0.21, 95% confidence interval [0.14,0.32]). Two studies compared endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (n = 269) and antibiotic treatment (n = 280). Technical success during admission (risk ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval [0.91,1.35]) and appendicitis recurrence (risk ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval [0.08,14.87]) did not differ, but endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy decreased the length of hospitalization (mean difference –1.91, 95% confidence interval [–3.18, –0.64]). Conclusion This meta-analysis did not identify significant differences between endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy and appendectomy or antibiotics regarding technical success during index admission and treatment efficacy at 1-year follow-up. However, a high risk of imprecision limits these results. The advantages of endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy in terms of reduced procedural times and shorter lengths of stay must be balanced against the increased risk of having an appendicitis recurrence at one year

Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Using Intradermal Microbubble Sulfur Hexafluoride for Identification of Sentinel Lymph Nodes During Breast Cancer Surgery: A Clinical Trial

Background/aim: Sentinel lymph node (SLN) procedures have gained popularity in early breast cancer thanks to the reduction of surgical side-effects. The standard SLN mapping procedure uses 99mTc-nanocolloid human serum albumin with/without blue dye; limitations include logistical challenges and adverse reactions. Recently, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) using sulfur hexafluoride has emerged as a promising technique for SLN mapping. Our study aimed to compare the CEUS technique with the standard isotope method. Materials and methods: AX-CES, a prospective, monocentric, single-arm phase-3 study was designed (EudraCT: 2020-000393-20). Inclusion criteria were histologically diagnosed early breast cancer eligible for upfront surgery and SLN resection, bodyweight 40-85 kg, and no prior history of ipsilateral surgery or radiotherapy. All patients underwent CEUS prior to surgery and blue dye injection was performed in areas with contrast accumulation. After the experimental procedure, all patients underwent the standard mapping procedure and SLN frozen section assessment was performed. Data on the success rate, systemic reactions, mean procedure time, CEUS appearance, SLN number, and concordance with standard mapping procedure were collected. Results: Among 16 cases, a median of two SLNs were identified during CEUS. In all cases, at least one SLN was identified by CEUS (100%). In six cases, SLNs were classified during CEUS as abnormal, which was confirmed by definitive staining in four cases. After the standard mapping technique, in 15 out of the 16 cases (87.50%), at least one SLN from the standard mapping procedure was marked with blue dye in the CEUS procedure. In our series, sensitivity and specificity of SLN detection by CEUS were 75% and 100%, respectively. Conclusion: CEUS is a safe and manageable intraoperative procedure. When compared with standard techniques, US appearance during CEUS may provide additional information when associated with histological assessment

Evolving Trends in the Management of Acute Appendicitis During COVID-19 Waves: The ACIE Appy II Study

Apendicitis aguda; Gestió; Onada de COVID-19Apendicitis aguda; Gestión; Ola de COVID-19Acute appendicitis; management; COVID-19 wavesBackground In 2020, ACIE Appy study showed that COVID-19 pandemic heavily affected the management of patients with acute appendicitis (AA) worldwide, with an increased rate of non-operative management (NOM) strategies and a trend toward open surgery due to concern of virus transmission by laparoscopy and controversial recommendations on this issue. The aim of this study was to survey again the same group of surgeons to assess if any difference in management attitudes of AA had occurred in the later stages of the outbreak. Methods From August 15 to September 30, 2021, an online questionnaire was sent to all 709 participants of the ACIE Appy study. The questionnaire included questions on personal protective equipment (PPE), local policies and screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection, NOM, surgical approach and disease presentations in 2021. The results were compared with the results from the previous study. Results A total of 476 answers were collected (response rate 67.1%). Screening policies were significatively improved with most patients screened regardless of symptoms (89.5% vs. 37.4%) with PCR and antigenic test as the preferred test (74.1% vs. 26.3%). More patients tested positive before surgery and commercial systems were the preferred ones to filter smoke plumes during laparoscopy. Laparoscopic appendicectomy was the first option in the treatment of AA, with a declined use of NOM. Conclusion Management of AA has improved in the last waves of pandemic. Increased evidence regarding SARS-COV-2 infection along with a timely healthcare systems response has been translated into tailored attitudes and a better care for patients with AA worldwide.Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. The authors did not receive any funding for the present study

Cost-Effectiveness of Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Surgery for Different Surgical Procedures: Protocol for a Prospective, Multicentric Study (ROBOCOSTES)

Cost-effectiveness; Laparoscopic surgery; Multicenter studiesRendibilitat; Cirurgia laparoscòpica; Estudis multicèntricsRentabilidad; Cirugía laparoscópica; Estudios multicéntricosBackground: The studies which address the impact of costs of robotic vs. laparoscopic approach on quality of life (cost-effectiveness studies) are scares in general surgery. Methods: The Spanish national study on cost-effectiveness differences among robotic and laparoscopic surgery (ROBOCOSTES) is designed as a prospective, multicentre, national, observational study. The aim is to determine in which procedures robotic surgery is more cost-effective than laparoscopic surgery. Several surgical operations and patient populations will be evaluated (distal pancreatectomy, gastrectomy, sleeve gastrectomy, inguinal hernioplasty, rectal resection for cancer, Heller cardiomiotomy and Nissen procedure). Discussion: The results of this study will demonstrate which treatment (laparoscopic or robotic) and in which population is more cost-effective. This study will also assess the impact of previous surgical experience on main outcomes.Project PI20/00008, funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) and co-funded by the European Union

Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy versus appendectomy or antibiotics in the modern approach to uncomplicated acute appendicitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction: Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy has been proposed as an alternative strategy for treating appendicitis, but debate exists on its role compared with conventional treatment. Methods: This systematic review was performed on MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. The last search was in April of 2023. The risk ratio with a 95% confidence interval was calculated for dichotomous variables, and the mean difference with a 95% confidence interval for continuous variables. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool (randomized controlled trials) and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Intervention tool (non-randomized controlled trials).Results: Six studies met the eligibility criteria. Four studies compared endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (n = 236 patients) and appendectomy (n = 339) and found no differences in technical success during index admission (risk ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval [0.92,1.02]). Appendectomy showed superior outcomes for recurrence at 1-year follow-up (risk ratio 11.28, 95% confidence interval [2.61,48.73]). Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy required shorter procedural time (mean difference -14.38, 95% confidence interval [-20.17, -8.59]) and length of hospital stay (mean difference -1.19, 95% confidence interval [-2.37, -0.01]), with lower postintervention abdominal pain (risk ratio 0.21, 95% confidence interval [0.14,0.32]). Two studies compared endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (n = 269) and antibiotic treatment (n = 280). Technical success during admission (risk ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval [0.91,1.35]) and appendicitis recurrence (risk ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval [0.08,14 .87]) did not differ, but endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy decreased the length of hospitalization (mean difference -1.91, 95% confidence interval [-3.18, -0.64]).Conclusion: This meta-analysis did not identify significant differences between endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy and appendectomy or antibiotics regarding technical success during index admission and treatment efficacy at 1-year follow-up. However, a high risk of imprecision limits these results. The advantages of endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy in terms of reduced procedural times and shorter lengths of stay must be balanced against the increased risk of having an appendicitis recurrence at one year

Global disparities in surgeons' workloads, academic engagement and rest periods: the on-calL shIft fOr geNEral SurgeonS (LIONESS) study

: The workload of general surgeons is multifaceted, encompassing not only surgical procedures but also a myriad of other responsibilities. From April to May 2023, we conducted a CHERRIES-compliant internet-based survey analyzing clinical practice, academic engagement, and post-on-call rest. The questionnaire featured six sections with 35 questions. Statistical analysis used Chi-square tests, ANOVA, and logistic regression (SPSS® v. 28). The survey received a total of 1.046 responses (65.4%). Over 78.0% of responders came from Europe, 65.1% came from a general surgery unit; 92.8% of European and 87.5% of North American respondents were involved in research, compared to 71.7% in Africa. Europe led in publishing research studies (6.6 ± 8.6 yearly). Teaching involvement was high in North America (100%) and Africa (91.7%). Surgeons reported an average of 6.7 ± 4.9 on-call shifts per month, with European and North American surgeons experiencing 6.5 ± 4.9 and 7.8 ± 4.1 on-calls monthly, respectively. African surgeons had the highest on-call frequency (8.7 ± 6.1). Post-on-call, only 35.1% of respondents received a day off. Europeans were most likely (40%) to have a day off, while African surgeons were least likely (6.7%). On the adjusted multivariable analysis HDI (Human Development Index) (aOR 1.993) hospital capacity > 400 beds (aOR 2.423), working in a specialty surgery unit (aOR 2.087), and making the on-call in-house (aOR 5.446), significantly predicted the likelihood of having a day off after an on-call shift. Our study revealed critical insights into the disparities in workload, access to research, and professional opportunities for surgeons across different continents, underscored by the HDI