Impelling Factors for Contracting COVID-19 Among Surgical Professionals During the Pandemic: A Multinational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND Medical workers, including surgical professionals working in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treating hospitals, were under enormous stress during the pandemic. This global study investigated factors endowing COVID-19 amongst surgical professionals and students. METHODS This global cross-sectional survey was made live on February 18, 2021 and closed for analysis on March 13, 2021. It was freely shared on social and scientific media platforms and was sent via email groups and circulated through a personal network of authors. Chi-square test for independence, and binary logistic regression analysis were carried out on determining predictors of surgical professionals contracting COVID-19. RESULTS This survey captured the response of 520 surgical professionals from 66 countries. Of the professionals, 92.5% (481/520) reported practising in hospitals managing COVID-19 patients. More than one-fourth (25.6%) of the respondents (133/520) reported suffering from COVID-19 which was more frequent in surgical professionals practising in public sector healthcare institutions (P = 0.001). Thirty-seven percent of those who reported never contracting COVID-19 (139/376) reported being still asked to practice self-isolation and wear a shield without the diagnosis (P = 0.001). Of those who did not contract COVID-19, 75.7% (283/376) were vaccinated (P < 0.001). Surgical professionals undergoing practice in the private sector (odds ratio (OR): 0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.14 - 0.77; P = 0.011) and receiving two doses of vaccine (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.32 - 0.95; P = 0.031) were identified to enjoy decreased odds of contracting COVID-19. Only 6.9% of those who reported not contracting COVID-19 (26/376) were calculated to have the highest "overall composite level of harm" score (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS High prevalence of respondents got COVID-19, which was more frequent in participants working in public sector hospitals. Those who reported contracting COVID-19 were calculated to have the highest level of harm score. Self-isolation or shield, getting two doses of vaccines decreases the odds of contracting COVID-19

Antimicrobials: a global alliance for optimizing their rational use in intra-abdominal infections (AGORA)

Intra-abdominal infections (IAI) are an important cause of morbidity and are frequently associated with poor prognosis, particularly in high-risk patients. The cornerstones in the management of complicated IAIs are timely effective source control with appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Empiric antimicrobial therapy is important in the management of intra-abdominal infections and must be broad enough to cover all likely organisms because inappropriate initial antimicrobial therapy is associated with poor patient outcomes and the development of bacterial resistance. The overuse of antimicrobials is widely accepted as a major driver of some emerging infections (such as C. difficile), the selection of resistant pathogens in individual patients, and for the continued development of antimicrobial resistance globally. The growing emergence of multi-drug resistant organisms and the limited development of new agents available to counteract them have caused an impending crisis with alarming implications, especially with regards to Gram-negative bacteria. An international task force from 79 different countries has joined this project by sharing a document on the rational use of antimicrobials for patients with IAIs. The project has been termed AGORA (Antimicrobials: A Global Alliance for Optimizing their Rational Use in Intra-Abdominal Infections). The authors hope that AGORA, involving many of the world's leading experts, can actively raise awareness in health workers and can improve prescribing behavior in treating IAIs

Türkiye’de bulunan yoğun bakımlarda sabun, kağıt havlu ve alkol bazlı el dezenfektanı yeterli mi?: Phokai çalışması sonuçları

Introduction: Hand hygiene is one of the most effective infection control measures to prevent the spread of healthcare-associated infections (HCAI). Water, soap, paper towel and hand disinfectant must be available and adequate in terms of effective hand hygiene. The adequacy of hand hygiene products or keeping water-soap and paper towel is still a problem for many developing countries like Turkey. In this multicenter study, we analyzed the adequacy in number and availability of hand hygiene products.Materials and Methods: This study was performed in all intensive care units (ICUs) of 41 hospitals (27 tertiary-care educational, 10 state and four private hospitals) from 22 cities located in seven geographical regions of Turkey. We analyzed water, soap, paper towel and alcohol-based hand disinfectant adequacy on four different days, two of which were in summer during the vacation time (August, 27th and 31st 2016) and two in autumn (October, 12th and 15th 2016).Results: The total number of ICUs and intensive care beds in 41 participating centers were 214 and 2357, respectively. Overall, there was no soap in 3-11% of sinks and no paper towel in 10-18% of sinks while there was no alcohol-based hand disinfectant in 1-4.7% of hand disinfectant units on the observation days. When we compared the number of sinks with soap and/or paper towel on weekdays vs. weekends, there was no significant difference in summer. However, on autumn weekdays, the number of sinks with soap and paper towel was significantly lower on weekend days (p<0.0001, p<0.0001) while the number of hand disinfectant units with alcohol-based disinfectant was significantly higher (p<0.0001).Conclusion: There should be adequate and accessible hand hygiene materials for effective hand hygiene. In this study, we found that soap and paper towels were inadequate on the observation days in 3-11% and 10-18% of units, respectively. Attention should be paid on soap and paper towel supply at weekends as well

Prospective, observational, multicenter study on minimally invasive gastrectomy for gastric cancer: robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery compared on operative and follow-up outcomes - IMIGASTRIC II study protocol: IMIGASTRIC II

Background:Several meta-analyses have tried to defi ne the role of minimally invasive approaches.&nbsp;However, further evidence to get a wider spread of these methods is necessary. Current&nbsp;studies describe minimally invasive surgery as a possible alternative to open surgery&nbsp;but deserving further clarifi cation. However, despite the increasing interest, the&nbsp;difficulty of planning prospective studies of adequate size accounts for the low level of&nbsp;evidence, which is mostly based on retrospective experiences.A multi-institutional prospective study allows the collection of an impressive amount&nbsp;of data to investigate various aspects of minimally invasive procedures with the&nbsp;opportunity of developing several subgroup analyses.A prospective data collection with high methodological quality on minimally invasive&nbsp;and open gastrectomies can clarify the role of diff erent procedures with the aim to&nbsp;develop specifi c guidelines.Methods and analysis:a multi-institutional prospective database will be established including information on&nbsp;surgical, clinical and oncological features of patients treated for gastric cancer with&nbsp;robotic, laparoscopic or open approaches and subsequent follow-up.The study has been shared by the members of the International study group on&nbsp;Minimally Invasive surgery for GASTRIc Cancer (IMIGASTRIC)The database is designed to be an international electronic submission system and a&nbsp;HIPPA protected real time data repository from high volume gastric cancer centers.Ethics:This study is conducted in compliance with ethical principles originating from the&nbsp;Helsinki Declaration, within the guidelines of Good Clinical Practice and relevantlaws/regulations.Trial registration number:NCT0275108

Intra-operative gallbladder scoring predicts conversion of laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy: a WSES prospective collaborative study

Abstract Introduction Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the gold-standard approach for cholecystectomy, has surprisingly variable outcomes and conversion rates. Only recently has operative grading been reported to define disease severity and few have been validated. This multicentre, multinational study assessed an operative scoring system to assess its ability to predict the need for conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. Methods A prospective, web-based, ethically approved study was established by WSES with a 10-point gallbladder operative scoring system; enrolling patients undergoing elective or emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy between January 2016 and December 2017. Gallbladder surgery was considered easy if the G10 score < 2, moderate (2 ≦ 4), difficult (5 ≦ 7) and extreme (8 ≦ 10). Demographics about the patients, surgeons and operative procedures, use of cholangiography and conversion rates were recorded. Results Five hundred four patients, mean age 53.5 (range 18–89), were enrolled by 55 surgeons in 16 countries. Surgery was performed by consultants in 70% and was elective in (56%) with a mean operative time of 78.7 min (range 15-400). The mean G10 score was 3.21, with 22% deemed to have difficult or extreme surgical gallbladders, and 71/504 patients were converted. The G10 score was 2.98 in those completed laparoscopically and 4.65 in the 71/504 (14%) converted. (p <  0.0001; AUC 0.772 (CI 0.719–0.825). The optimal cut-off point of 0.067 (score of 3) was identified in G10 vs conversion to open cholecystectomy. Conversion occurred in 33% of patients with G10 scores of ≥ 5. The four variables statistically predictive of conversion were GB appearance—completely buried GB, impacted stone, bile or pus outside GB and fistula. Conclusion The G10 operative scores provide simple grading of operative cholecystectomy and are predictive of the need to convert to open cholecystectomy. Broader adaptation and validation may provide a benchmark to understand and improve care and afford more standardisation in global comparisons of care for cholecystectomy

Novel Textbook Outcomes following emergency laparotomy:Delphi exercise

Background: Textbook outcomes are composite outcome measures that reflect the ideal overall experience for patients. There are many of these in the elective surgery literature but no textbook outcomes have been proposed for patients following emergency laparotomy. The aim was to achieve international consensus amongst experts and patients for the best Textbook Outcomes for non-trauma and trauma emergency laparotomy. Methods: A modified Delphi exercise was undertaken with three planned rounds to achieve consensus regarding the best Textbook Outcomes based on the category, number and importance (Likert scale of 1–5) of individual outcome measures. There were separate questions for non-trauma and trauma. A patient engagement exercise was undertaken after round 2 to inform the final round. Results: A total of 337 participants from 53 countries participated in all three rounds of the exercise. The final Textbook Outcomes were divided into ‘early’ and ‘longer-term’. For non-trauma patients the proposed early Textbook Outcome was ‘Discharged from hospital without serious postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo ≥ grade III; including intra-abdominal sepsis, organ failure, unplanned re-operation or death). For trauma patients it was ‘Discharged from hospital without unexpected transfusion after haemostasis, and no serious postoperative complications (adapted Clavien–Dindo for trauma ≥ grade III; including intra-abdominal sepsis, organ failure, unplanned re-operation on or death)’. The longer-term Textbook Outcome for both non-trauma and trauma was ‘Achieved the early Textbook Outcome, and restoration of baseline quality of life at 1 year’. Conclusion: Early and longer-term Textbook Outcomes have been agreed by an international consensus of experts for non-trauma and trauma emergency laparotomy. These now require clinical validation with patient data.</p

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.</p