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

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

Testing and preliminary modelling of a 2.5 kW micro-CHP SOFC unit

The experimental activities, carried out at the Laboratory of Micro-Cogeneration (LMC) of the Department of Energy at Politecnico di Milano are hereby outlined in relation to the testing of four 2.5 kWel AC SOFC-based micro-CHP units developed by SOLIDpower S.p.a. The novelty of the work consists in carrying out a complete thermodynamic and environmental performance characterisation of the studied commercial system in a third-party laboratory. The main objectives of the experimental campaign have been the investigation and assessment of the electric and heat recovery performances in different cogeneration thermal power demand loads. The generator has been tested in five different thermal loads, whilst operated at full electric load, in order to simulate the coupling with thermal appliances of diverse nature. The cogeneration water inlet temperature has been varied from 20°C (as in more complex cogeneration systems which may envisage a thermal storage and additional pre-heating section) to 50°C (as for district heating purposes or heating of sanitary water). Each measurement has been acquired with a redundant approach for statistical purposes aiming to the reduction of uncertainty and to guarantee procedure robustness. Moreover, the design point experimental characterisation has been supported by an overall process calibration and simulation performed by means of an in-house software (GS), developed at the Department of Energy. Each component has been modelled using a 0D approach, such that the required mass and energy balances of the plant can be compared with those obtained from the experimental activity. In conclusion, the overall performances have met the expectations, being characterised by a net electric efficiency of approximately 39% and a total efficiency which may overcome 95%

Is total pancreatectomy as feasible, safe, efficacious, and cost-effective as pancreaticoduodenectomy? A single center, prospective, observational study

Background: Total pancreatectomy is actually considered a viable option in selected patients even if large comparative studies between partial versus total pancreatectomy are not currently available. Our aim was to evaluate whether total pancreatectomy can be considered as feasible, safe, efficacious, and cost-effective as pancreaticoduodenectomy. Methods: A single center, prospective, observational trial, regarding postoperative outcomes, long-term results, and cost-effectiveness, in a tertiary referral center was conducted, comparing consecutive patients who underwent elective total pancreatectomy and/or pancreaticoduodenectomy. Results: Seventy-three consecutive elective total pancreatectomies and 184 pancreaticoduodenectomies were compared. There were no significant differences regarding postoperative outcomes and overall survival. The quality of life, evaluated in 119 patients according to the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire, showed that there were no significant differences regarding the five items considered. The mean EQ-5D-5L score was similar in the two procedures (total pancreatectomy = 0.872, range 0.345\u20131.000; pancreaticoduodenectomy = 0.832, range 0.393\u20131.000; P = 0.320). The impact of diabetes according to the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) questionnaire did not show any significant differences except for question 13 (total pancreatectomy = 0.60; pancreaticoduodenectomy = 0.19; P = 0.022). The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that the quality-adjusted life year was not significantly different between the two procedures (total pancreatectomy = 0.910, range 0.345\u20131.000; pancreaticoduodenectomy = 0.910, range 120.393\u20131.000; P = 0.320). Conclusions: From this study, it seems reasonable to suggest that total pancreatectomy can be considered as safe, feasible, and efficacious as PD and acceptable in terms of cost-effectiveness

Colonic Resection, Stoma, or Self-expanding Metal Stents for Obstructive Left Colon Cancer: the CROSCO-1 study protocol

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide. There are several causes of a mechanical left bowel obstructive but CRC accounts for approximately 50% of cases and in 10-30% of whom it is the presenting syndrome. In most cases, the left colon is involved. At present, the range of therapeutic alternatives in the management of obstructive left CRC in emergency conditions (primary resection vs staged resection with applied self-expanding metallic stents) is broad, whereas internationally validated clinical recommendations in each condition are still lacking. This enormous variability affects the scientific evidence on both the immediate and long-term surgical and oncological outcomes. Methods: CROSCO-1 (Colonic Resection, Stoma or Self-expanding Metal Stents for Obstructive Left Colon Cancer) study is a national, multi-center, prospective observational study intending to compare the clinical results of all these therapeutic regimens in a cohort of patients treated for obstructive left-sided CRC. Results: The primary aim of the CROSCO-1 study is the 1-year stoma rate of patients undergoing primary emergency surgical resection (Hartmann procedure or primary resection and anastomosis) compared with patients undergoing staged resection. Secondary outcomes are 30-day and 90-day major morbidity and mortality, 1-year quality of life and the timing of chemotherapy initiation in the two groups. Future CROSCO studies will follow in which, instead, we will evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes of the two treatment strategies. Conclusions: The results of a large prospective cohort study which will analyze what really happens in the common clinical practice of managing patients with obstructive left CRC will have the aim of understanding which is the best strategy in terms of surgical and oncological outcomes. Indeed, the CROSCO-1 study will analyze the early surgical outcomes for patients with obstructed left CRC. Future CROSCO studies will follow in which, instead, we will evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes of the two treatment strategies

A prospective cohort analysis of the prevalence and predictive factors of delayed discharge after laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Italy: the DeDiLaCo Study

Background: The concept of early discharge ≤24 hours after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (LC) is still doubted in Italy. This prospective multicentre study aims to analyze the prevalence of patients undergoing elective LC who experienced a delayed discharge >24 hours in an extensive Italian national database and identify potential limiting factors of early discharge after LC. Methods: This is a prospective observational multicentre study performed from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021 by 90 Italian surgical units. Results: A total of 4664 patients were included in the study. Clinical reasons were found only for 850 patients (37.7%) discharged >24 hours after LC. After excluding patients with nonclinical reasons for delayed discharge >24 hours, 2 groups based on the length of hospitalization were created: the Early group (≤24 h; 2414 patients, 73.9%) and the Delayed group (>24 h; 850 patients, 26.1%). At the multivariate analysis, ASA III class ( P <0.0001), Charlson's Comorbidity Index (P=0.001), history of choledocholithiasis (P=0.03), presence of peritoneal adhesions (P<0.0001), operative time >60 min (P<0.0001), drain placement (P<0.0001), pain ( P =0.001), postoperative vomiting (P=0.001) and complications (P<0.0001) were independent predictors of delayed discharge >24 hours. Conclusions: The majority of delayed discharges >24 hours after LC in our study were unrelated to the surgery itself. ASA class >II, advanced comorbidity, the presence of peritoneal adhesions, prolonged operative time, and placement of abdominal drainage were intraoperative variables independently associated with failure of early discharge

The ChoCO-W prospective observational global study: Does COVID-19 increase gangrenous cholecystitis?

BACKGROUND: The incidence of the highly morbid and potentially lethal gangrenous cholecystitis was reportedly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of the ChoCO-W study was to compare the clinical findings and outcomes of acute cholecystitis in patients who had COVID-19 disease with those who did not. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected over 6 months (October 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021) with 1-month follow-up. In October 2020, Delta variant of SARS CoV-2 was isolated for the first time. Demographic and clinical data were analyzed and reported according to the STROBE guidelines. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients who had COVID-19 were compared with those who did not. RESULTS: A total of 2893 patients, from 42 countries, 218 centers, involved, with a median age of 61.3 (SD: 17.39) years were prospectively enrolled in this study; 1481 (51%) patients were males. One hundred and eighty (6.9%) patients were COVID-19 positive, while 2412 (93.1%) were negative. Concomitant preexisting diseases including cardiovascular diseases (p < 0.0001), diabetes (p < 0.0001), and severe chronic obstructive airway disease (p = 0.005) were significantly more frequent in the COVID-19 group. Markers of sepsis severity including ARDS (p < 0.0001), PIPAS score (p < 0.0001), WSES sepsis score (p < 0.0001), qSOFA (p < 0.0001), and Tokyo classification of severity of acute cholecystitis (p < 0.0001) were significantly higher in the COVID-19 group. The COVID-19 group had significantly higher postoperative complications (32.2% compared with 11.7%, p < 0.0001), longer mean hospital stay (13.21 compared with 6.51 days, p < 0.0001), and mortality rate (13.4% compared with 1.7%, p < 0.0001). The incidence of gangrenous cholecystitis was doubled in the COVID-19 group (40.7% compared with 22.3%). The mean wall thickness of the gallbladder was significantly higher in the COVID-19 group [6.32 (SD: 2.44) mm compared with 5.4 (SD: 3.45) mm; p < 0.0001]. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of gangrenous cholecystitis is higher in COVID patients compared with non-COVID patients admitted to the emergency department with acute cholecystitis. Gangrenous cholecystitis in COVID patients is associated with high-grade Clavien-Dindo postoperative complications, longer hospital stay and higher mortality rate. The open cholecystectomy rate is higher in COVID compared with non -COVID patients. It is recommended to delay the surgical treatment in COVID patients, when it is possible, to decrease morbidity and mortality rates. COVID-19 infection and gangrenous cholecystistis are not absolute contraindications to perform laparoscopic cholecystectomy, in a case by case evaluation, in expert hands

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

Changes in surgicaL behaviOrs dUring the CoviD-19 pandemic. The SICE CLOUD19 Study

BACKGROUND: The spread of the SARS-CoV2 virus, which causes COVID-19 disease, profoundly impacted the surgical community. Recommendations have been published to manage patients needing surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. This survey, under the aegis of the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery, aims to analyze how Italian surgeons have changed their practice during the pandemic.METHODS: The authors designed an online survey that was circulated for completion to the Italian departments of general surgery registered in the Italian Ministry of Health database in December 2020. Questions were divided into three sections: hospital organization, screening policies, and safety profile of the surgical operation. The investigation periods were divided into the Italian pandemic phases I (March-May 2020), II (June-September 2020), and III (October-December 2020).RESULTS: Of 447 invited departments, 226 answered the survey. Most hospitals were treating both COVID-19-positive and -negative patients. The reduction in effective beds dedicated to surgical activity was significant, affecting 59% of the responding units. 12.4% of the respondents in phase I, 2.6% in phase II, and 7.7% in phase III reported that their surgical unit had been closed. 51.4%, 23.5%, and 47.8% of the respondents had at least one colleague reassigned to non-surgical COVID-19 activities during the three phases. There has been a reduction in elective (>200 procedures: 2.1%, 20.6% and 9.9% in the three phases, respectively) and emergency (<20 procedures: 43.3%, 27.1%, 36.5% in the three phases, respectively) surgical activity. The use of laparoscopy also had a setback in phase I (25.8% performed less than 20% of elective procedures through laparoscopy). 60.6% of the respondents used a smoke evacuation device during laparoscopy in phase I, 61.6% in phase II, and 64.2% in phase III. Almost all responders (82.8% vs. 93.2% vs. 92.7%) in each analyzed period did not modify or reduce the use of high-energy devices.CONCLUSION: This survey offers three faithful snapshots of how the surgical community has reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic during its three phases. The significant reduction in surgical activity indicates that better health policies and more evidence-based guidelines are needed to make up for lost time and surgery not performed during the pandemic