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

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

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

Compliance with evidence-based clinical guidelines in the management of acute biliary pancreatitis: the MANCTRA-1 study protocol.

Despite existing evidence-based practice guidelines for the management of biliary acute pancreatitis (AP), the clinical compliance with recommendations is overall poor. Studies in this field have identified significant discrepancies between evidence-based recommendations and daily clinical practice. The most commonly reported gaps between clinical practice and AP guidelines include the indications for CT scan, need and timing of artificial nutritional support, indications for antibiotics, and surgical/endoscopic management of biliary AP. The MANCTRA-1 (coMpliAnce with evideNce-based cliniCal guidelines in the managemenT of acute biliaRy pancreAtitis) study is aiming to identify the areas for quality improvement that will require new implementation strategies. The study primary objective is to evaluate which items of the current AP guidelines are commonly disregarded and if they correlate with negative clinical outcomes according to the different clinical presentations of the disease. We attempt to summarize the main areas of sub-optimal care due to the lack of compliance with current guidelines to provide the basis for introducing a number of bundles in AP patients' management to be implemented during the next years. The MANCTRA-1 study is an international multicenter, retrospective cohort study with the purpose to assess the outcomes of patients admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of biliary AP and the compliance of surgeons worldwide to the most up-to-dated international guidelines on biliary AP. ClinicalTrials.Gov ID Number: NCT04747990, Date: February 23, 2021. Protocol Version V2.2

Cirugía robótica en patología quirúrgica benigna y maligna: urología, cirugía general y digestiva, cirugía cardiotorácica, ginecología, endocrinología, oftalmología y cirugía de cabeza y cuello. Capítulo II: cirugía urológica, ginecológica, general y digestiva

Cirurgia robòtica; Tècniques quirúrgiques; InnovacióCirugía robótica; Técnicas quirúrgicas; InnovaciónRobotic surgery; Surgical techniques; InnovationS'ha avaluat, de manera específica, l’eficàcia o l’efectivitat, la seguretat i l’eficiència de la cirurgia assistida per robot en comparació amb la cirurgia oberta o la cirurgia laparoscòpica en un grup d’indicacions de patologia benigna o maligna en les especialitats de cirurgia urològica, ginecològica i general i digestiva. De manera addicional, s’ha analitzat l’activitat de la cirurgia robòtica a Espanya per a les indicacions ginecològiques en els últims cinc anys.Se ha evaluado, de forma específica, la eficacia o la efectividad, la seguridad y la eficiencia de la cirugía asistida por robot en comparación con la cirugía abierta o la cirugía laparoscópica en un grupo de indicaciones de patología benigna o maligna en las especialidades de cirugía urológica, ginecológica y general y digestiva. De forma adicional, se ha analizado la actividad de la cirugía robótica en España para las indicaciones ginecológicas en los últimos cinco años.The aim of the study is to determine whether robot-assisted surgery has sufficient evidence to be included in the common portfolio of the UK NHS healthcare services. To this end, the efficacy or effectiveness, safety and efficiency of robot-assisted surgery compared to open surgery or laparoscopic surgery in a group of indications of benign or malignant pathology in the specialities of urological, gynaecological and general and digestive surgery has been specifically evaluated. In addition, the activity of robotic surgery in Spain for gynaecological indications in the last five years has been analysed.Este documento ha sido realizado por la Agència de Qualitat i Avaluació Sanitàries de Catalunya en el marco de la financiación del Ministerio de Sanidad para el desarrollo de las actividades del Plan anual de Trabajo de la Red Española de Agencias de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias y Prestaciones del SNS, aprobado en el Pleno del Consejo Interterritorial del SNS de 28 de octubre de 2020 (conforme al Acuerdo del Consejo de Ministros de 9 de diciembre de 2020)

coMpliAnce with evideNce-based cliniCal guidelines in the managemenT of acute biliaRy pancreAtitis): The MANCTRA-1 international audit

Background/objectives: Reports about the implementation of recommendations from acute pancreatitis guidelines are scant. This study aimed to evaluate, on a patient-data basis, the contemporary practice patterns of management of biliary acute pancreatitis and to compare these practices with the recommendations by the most updated guidelines. Methods: All consecutive patients admitted to any of the 150 participating general surgery (GS), hepatopancreatobiliary surgery (HPB), internal medicine (IM) and gastroenterology (GA) departments with a diagnosis of biliary acute pancreatitis between 01/01/2019 and 31/12/2020 were included in the study. Categorical data were reported as percentages representing the proportion of all study patients or different and well-defined cohorts for each variable. Continuous data were expressed as mean and standard deviation. Differences between the compliance obtained in the four different subgroups were compared using the Mann-Whitney U, Student's t, ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests for continuous data, and the Chi-square test or the Fisher's exact test for categorical data. Results: Complete data were available for 5275 patients. The most commonly discordant gaps between daily clinical practice and recommendations included the optimal timing for the index CT scan (6.1%, χ2 6.71, P = 0.081), use of prophylactic antibiotics (44.2%, χ2 221.05, P < 0.00001), early enteral feeding (33.2%, χ2 11.51, P = 0.009), and the implementation of early cholecystectomy strategies (29%, χ2 354.64, P < 0.00001), with wide variability based on the admitting speciality. Conclusions: The results of this study showed an overall poor compliance with evidence-based guidelines in the management of ABP, with wide variability based on the admitting speciality. Study protocol registered in ClinicalTrials.Gov (ID Number NCT04747990)

Infected pancreatic necrosis : outcomes and clinical predictors of mortality. A post hoc analysis of the MANCTRA-1 international study

Peer reviewe