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

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

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

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Surgical Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Multicentric Study

Background/Aim: Due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, many scientific committees proposed neoadjuvant therapy (NACT) bridging treatment as a novel strategy and indication. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer patients undergoing NACT. Patients and Methods: All breast cancer patients referred to two Breast Units during COVID-19-pandemic were enrolled. Results: Out of 814 patients, 43(5.3%) were enrolled in the COVID-19-group and compared with 94 (7.9%) similar Pre-COVID-19 patients. We observed a reduction in the number of patients undergoing NACT, p=0.0019. No difference was reported in terms of clinical presentation, indications, and tumor response. In contrast, a higher number of vascular adverse events was reported (6.9% vs. 0% p=0.029). Immediate breast cancer reconstructions following invasive surgery suffered a significant slowdown (5.9% vs. 47.7%, p=0.019). Conclusion: COVID-19 caused a reduction in the number of patients undergoing NACT, with no changes in terms of indications, clinical presentation, and tumor response. Furthermore, there was an increased incidence of vascular events

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