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

It is time to define an organizational model for the prevention and management of infections along the surgical pathway: a worldwide cross-sectional survey

Background The objectives of the study were to investigate the organizational characteristics of acute care facilities worldwide in preventing and managing infections in surgery; assess participants' perception regarding infection prevention and control (IPC) measures, antibiotic prescribing practices, and source control; describe awareness about the global burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and IPC measures; and determine the role of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic on said awareness. Methods A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted contacting 1432 health care workers (HCWs) belonging to a mailing list provided by the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery. The self-administered questionnaire was developed by a multidisciplinary team. The survey was open from May 22, 2021, and June 22, 2021. Three reminders were sent, after 7, 14, and 21 days. Results Three hundred four respondents from 72 countries returned a questionnaire, with an overall response rate of 21.2%. Respectively, 90.4% and 68.8% of participants stated their hospital had a multidisciplinary IPC team or a multidisciplinary antimicrobial stewardship team. Local protocols for antimicrobial therapy of surgical infections and protocols for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis were present in 76.6% and 90.8% of hospitals, respectively. In 23.4% and 24.0% of hospitals no surveillance systems for surgical site infections and no monitoring systems of used antimicrobials were implemented. Patient and family involvement in IPC management was considered to be slightly or not important in their hospital by the majority of respondents (65.1%). Awareness of the global burden of AMR among HCWs was considered very important or important by 54.6% of participants. The COVID-19 pandemic was considered by 80.3% of respondents as a very important or important factor in raising HCWs awareness of the IPC programs in their hospital. Based on the survey results, the authors developed 15 statements for several questions regarding the prevention and management of infections in surgery. The statements may be the starting point for designing future evidence-based recommendations. Conclusion Adequacy of prevention and management of infections in acute care facilities depends on HCWs behaviours and on the organizational characteristics of acute health care facilities to support best practices and promote behavioural change. Patient involvement in the implementation of IPC is still little considered. A debate on how operationalising a fundamental change to IPC, from being solely the HCWs responsibility to one that involves a collaborative relationship between HCWs and patients, should be opened

It is time to define an organizational model for the prevention and management of infections along the surgical pathway : a worldwide cross-sectional survey

Background The objectives of the study were to investigate the organizational characteristics of acute care facilities worldwide in preventing and managing infections in surgery; assess participants' perception regarding infection prevention and control (IPC) measures, antibiotic prescribing practices, and source control; describe awareness about the global burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and IPC measures; and determine the role of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic on said awareness. Methods A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted contacting 1432 health care workers (HCWs) belonging to a mailing list provided by the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery. The self-administered questionnaire was developed by a multidisciplinary team. The survey was open from May 22, 2021, and June 22, 2021. Three reminders were sent, after 7, 14, and 21 days. Results Three hundred four respondents from 72 countries returned a questionnaire, with an overall response rate of 21.2%. Respectively, 90.4% and 68.8% of participants stated their hospital had a multidisciplinary IPC team or a multidisciplinary antimicrobial stewardship team. Local protocols for antimicrobial therapy of surgical infections and protocols for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis were present in 76.6% and 90.8% of hospitals, respectively. In 23.4% and 24.0% of hospitals no surveillance systems for surgical site infections and no monitoring systems of used antimicrobials were implemented. Patient and family involvement in IPC management was considered to be slightly or not important in their hospital by the majority of respondents (65.1%). Awareness of the global burden of AMR among HCWs was considered very important or important by 54.6% of participants. The COVID-19 pandemic was considered by 80.3% of respondents as a very important or important factor in raising HCWs awareness of the IPC programs in their hospital. Based on the survey results, the authors developed 15 statements for several questions regarding the prevention and management of infections in surgery. The statements may be the starting point for designing future evidence-based recommendations. Conclusion Adequacy of prevention and management of infections in acute care facilities depends on HCWs behaviours and on the organizational characteristics of acute health care facilities to support best practices and promote behavioural change. Patient involvement in the implementation of IPC is still little considered. A debate on how operationalising a fundamental change to IPC, from being solely the HCWs responsibility to one that involves a collaborative relationship between HCWs and patients, should be opened.Peer reviewe

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

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Minimally invasive surgery for Inflammatory Bowel Disease:a systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic surgical techniques

Background: We aimed to evaluate outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal resections in patients with inflammatorybowel disease [IBD].Methods: Comparative studies of robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal resections in patients with IBD were included. The primary outcomewas total post-operative complication rate. Secondary outcomes included operative time, conversion to open surgery, anastomotic leaks,intra-abdominal abscess formation, ileus occurrence, surgical site infection, re-operation, re-admission rate, length of hospital stay, and 30-daymortality. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using a random-effects model and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assessrisk of bias.Results: Eleven non-randomized studies [n = 5566 patients] divided between those undergoing robotic [n = 365] and conventional laparoscopic[n = 5201] surgery were included. Robotic platforms were associated with a significantly lower overall post-operative complication rate com-pared with laparoscopic surgery [p = 0.03]. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a significantly shorter operative time [p = 0.00001]. Nodifference was found in conversion rates to open surgery [p = 0.15], anastomotic leaks [p = 0.84], abscess formation [p = 0.21], paralytic ileus[p = 0.06], surgical site infections [p = 0.78], re-operation [p = 0.26], re-admission rate [p = 0.48], and 30-day mortality [p = 1.00] between thegroups. Length of hospital stay was shorter following a robotic sub-total colectomy compared with conventional laparoscopy [p = 0.03].Conclusion: Outcomes in the surgical management of IBD are comparable between traditional laparoscopic techniques and robotic-assistedminimally invasive surgery, demonstrating the safety and feasibility of robotic platforms. Larger studies investigating the use of robotic tech-nology in Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis separately may be of benefit with a specific focus on important IBD-related metrics.</p

Comparison of staged repair versus single-stage complete repair for pulmonary atresia with ventricular septal defect: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aims To evaluate comparative outcomes of the repair of pulmonary atresia with ventricular septal defect (PAVSD), done as staged repair (SR) or single-stage complete repair (CR). Methods A systematic online search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane database, The Virtual Health Library, Clinical trials.gov, and ScienceDirect for studies comparing SR versus CR for treatment of PAVSD. Total mortality rate, operative and early post-operative mortality rate, post-operative ventilation duration, duration of post-operative intensive care unit (ICU) stay, need for post-operative extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support rate, transcatheter re-intervention rate, unplanned re-operation rate, freedom from right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) re-intervention, and length of hospital stay (LOS) were the evaluated outcome parameters. Results Four comparative studies reporting a total of 264 patients who underwent SR (167 patients) or CR (97 patients) were included. Total mortality was higher in the SR group compared to the CR group (odds ratio (OR) 2.58,  = 0.03). Two groups were comparable regarding operative and early post-operative mortality (OR 1.37,  = 0.62), post-operative ventilation duration (mean difference (MD) - 1.58,  = 0.43), need for post-operative ECMO support rate (OR 4.72,  = 0.16), transcatheter re-intervention rate (OR 0.60,  = 0.53), unplanned re-operation rate (OR 0.73,  = 0.57), and LOS (MD - 3.39,  = 0.45). Higher rate of freedom from RVOT re-intervention was observed in the SR group (OR 4.16,  = 0.00001). Conclusion Single-staged early CR of PAVSD significantly reduced total mortality rate as compared with SR. However, there is life-long risk of frequent need for RVOT re-interventions. Future high-quality randomised studies with robust methodological qualities are encouraged to evaluate the optimal timing and technique for repair of PAVSD, by analysing more outcomes in large patient groups and multi-centre studies

Meta-analysis of the demographic and prognostic significance of gastrointestinal symptoms in COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND AND AIM: To evaluate the demographic and prognostic significance of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). METHODS: A systematic search of electronic information sources was conducted. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using random‐effects models for baseline demographic factors and outcomes including mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Twenty‐four comparative observational studies reporting a total of 51 522 COVID‐19 patients with (n = 6544) or without (n = 44 978) GI symptoms were identified. The patients with GI symptoms were of comparable age (mean difference [MD]: 0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] −2.42 to 2.92, P = 0.86), rate of pre‐existing hypertension (odds ratio [OR]: 1.11, 95% CI 0.86–1.42, P = 0.42), diabetes mellitus (OR: 1.14, 95% CI 0.91–1.44, P = 0.26), and coronary artery disease (OR: 1.00, 95% CI 0.86–1.16, P = 0.98) compared with those without GI symptoms. However, there were significantly more male patients in the GI symptoms group (OR: 0.85, 95% CI 0.75–0.95, P = 0.005). The presence of GI symptoms was associated with similar risk of mortality (OR: 0.73; 95% CI 0.47–1.13, P = 0.16), ICU admission (OR: 1.15; 95% CI 0.67–1.96, P = 0.62), and length of hospital stay (MD: 0.43; 95% CI −0.73 to 1.60, P = 0.47) when compared with their absence. CONCLUSION: Meta‐analysis of the best possible available evidence demonstrated that GI symptoms in COVID‐19 patients do not seem to affect patients with any specific demographic patterns and may not have any important prognostic significance. Although no randomized studies can be conducted on this topic, future high‐quality studies can provide stronger evidence to further understand the impact of GI symptoms on outcomes of COVID‐19 patients

Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on emergency surgery services—a multi-national survey among WSES members

Background!#!The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is a major challenge for health care services worldwide. It's impact on oncologic therapies and elective surgery has been described recently, and the literature provides guidelines regarding appropriate elective patient treatment during the pandemic. However, the impact of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on emergency surgery services has been poorly investigated up to now.!##!Methods!#!A 17-item web survey had been distributed to emergency surgeons in June 2020 around the world, investigating the impact of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on patients and septic diseases both requiring emergency surgery and the time-to-intervention in emergency surgery routine, as well as experiences with surgery in COVID-19 patients.!##!Results!#!Ninety-eight collaborators from 31 countries responded to the survey. The majority (65.3%) estimated the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on emergency surgical patient care as being strong or very strong. Due to the pandemic, 87.8% reported a decrease in the total number of patients undergoing emergency surgery and approximately 25% estimated a delay of more than 2 h in the time-to-diagnosis and another 2 h in the time-to-intervention. Fifty percent make structural problems with in-hospital logistics (e.g. transport of patients, closed normal wards etc.) mainly responsible for delayed emergency surgery and the frequent need (56.1%) for a triage of emergency surgical patients. 56.1% of the collaborators observed more severe septic abdominal diseases during the pandemic, especially for perforated appendicitis and severe septic cholecystitis (41.8% and 40.2%, respectively). 62.2% had experiences with surgery in COVID-19-infected patients.!##!Conclusions!#!The results of The WSES COVID-19 emergency surgery survey are alarming. The combination of an estimated decrease in numbers of emergency surgical patients and an observed increase in more severe septic diseases may be a result of the fear of patients from infection with COVID-19 and a consecutive delayed hospital admission and diagnosis. A critical delay in time-to-diagnosis and time-to-intervention may be a result of changes in in-hospital logistics and operating room as well as intensive care capacities. Both reflect the potentially harmful impact of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on emergency surgery services