Contralateral risk reducing mastectomy in Non-BRCA-Mutated patients

The use of contralateral risk reducing mastectomy (CRRM) is indicated in women affected by breast cancer, who are at high risk of developing a contralateral breast cancer, particularly women with genetic mutation of BRCA1, BRCA2 and P53. However we should consider that the genes described above account for only 20-30% of the excess familiar risk. What is contralaterally indicated when genetic assessment results negative for mutation in a young patient with unilateral breast cancer? Is it ethically correct to remove a contralateral " healthy" breast? CRRM rates continue to rise all over the world although CRRM seems not to improve overall survival in women with unilateral sporadic breast cancer. The decision to pursue CRRM as part of treatment in women who have a low-to-moderate risk of developing a secondary cancer in the contralateral breast should consider both breast cancer individual-features and patients preferences, but should be not supported by the surgeon and avoided as first approach with the exception of women highly worried about cancer. Prospective studies are needed to identify cohorts of patients most likely to benefit from CRRM

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

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

Contralateral risk reducing mastectomy in Non-BRCA-Mutated patients

The use of contralateral risk reducing mastectomy (CRRM) is indicated in women affected by breast cancer, who are at high risk of developing a contralateral breast cancer, particularly women with genetic mutation of BRCA1, BRCA2 and P53. However we should consider that the genes described above account for only 20-30% of the excess familiar risk. What is contralaterally indicated when genetic assessment results negative for mutation in a young patient with unilateral breast cancer? Is it ethically correct to remove a contralateral “healthy” breast? CRRM rates continue to rise all over the world although CRRM seems not to improve overall survival in women with unilateral sporadic breast cancer. The decision to pursue CRRM as part of treatment in women who have a low-to-moderate risk of developing a secondary cancer in the contralateral breast should consider both breast cancer individual-features and patients preferences, but should be not supported by the surgeon and avoided as first approach with the exception of women highly worried about cancer. Prospective studies are needed to identify cohorts of patients most likely to benefit from CRRM

IPOD Study: Management of Acute Left Colonic Diverticulitis in Italian Surgical Departments

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the emergency management of acute left colonic diverticulitis (ALCD) has evolved dramatically despite lack of strong evidence. As a consequence, management strategies are frequently guided by surgeon's personal preference, rather than by scientific evidence. The primary aim of IPOD study (Italian Prospective Observational Diverticulitis study) is to describe both the diagnostic and treatment profiles of patients with ALCD in the Italian surgical departments. METHODS: IPOD study is a prospective observational study performed during a 6-month period (from April 1 2015 to September 1 2015) and including 89 Italian surgical departments. All consecutive patients with suspected clinical diagnosis of ALCD confirmed by imaging and seen by a surgeon were included in the study. The study was promoted by the Italian Society of Hospital Surgeons and the World Society of Emergency Surgery Italian chapter. RESULTS: Eleven hundred and twenty-five patients with a median age of 62 years [interquartile range (IQR), 51-74] were enrolled in the IPOD study. One thousand and fifty-four (93.7%) patients were hospitalized with a median duration of hospitalization of 7 days (IQR 5-10). Eight hundred and twenty-eight patients (73.6%) underwent medical treatment alone, 13 patients had percutaneous drainage (1.2%), and the other 284 (25.2%) patients underwent surgery as first treatment. Among 121 patients having diffuse peritonitis, 71 (58.7%) underwent Hartmann's resection. However, the Hartmann's resection was used even in patients with lower stages of ALCD (36/479; 7.5%) where other treatment options could be more adequate. CONCLUSIONS: The IPOD study demonstrates that in the Italian surgical departments treatment strategies for ALCD are often guided by the surgeon's personal preference

IPOD Study: Management of Acute Left Colonic Diverticulitis in Italian Surgical Departments.

Background: In recent years, the emergency management of acute left colonic diverticulitis (ALCD) has evolved dramatically despite lack of strong evidence. As a consequence, management strategies are frequently guided by surgeon’s personal preference, rather than by scientific evidence. The primary aim of IPOD study (Italian Prospective Observational Diverticulitis study) is to describe both the diagnostic and treatment profiles of patients with ALCD in the Italian surgical departments. Methods: IPOD study is a prospective observational study performed during a 6-month period (from April 1 2015 to September 1 2015) and including 89 Italian surgical departments. All consecutive patients with suspected clinical diagnosis of ALCD confirmed by imaging and seen by a surgeon were included in the study. The study was promoted by the Italian Society of Hospital Surgeons and the World Society of Emergency Surgery Italian chapter. Results: Eleven hundred and twenty-five patients with a median age of 62 years [interquartile range (IQR), 51–74] were enrolled in the IPOD study. One thousand and fifty-four (93.7%) patients were hospitalized with a median duration of hospitalization of 7 days (IQR 5–10). Eight hundred and twenty-eight patients (73.6%) underwent medical treatment alone, 13 patients had percutaneous drainage (1.2%), and the other 284 (25.2%) patients underwent surgery as first treatment. Among 121 patients having diffuse peritonitis, 71 (58.7%) underwent Hartmann’s resection. However, the Hartmann’s resection was used even in patients with lower stages of ALCD (36/479; 7.5%) where other treatment options could be more adequate. Conclusions: The IPOD study demonstrates that in the Italian surgical departments treatment strategies for ALCD are often guided by the surgeon’s personal preference

IPOD Study: Management of Acute Left Colonic Diverticulitis in Italian Surgical Departments

Background: In recent years, the emergency management of acute left colonic diverticulitis (ALCD) has evolved dramatically despite lack of strong evidence. As a consequence, management strategies are frequently guided by surgeon’s personal preference, rather than by scientific evidence. The primary aim of IPOD study (Italian Prospective Observational Diverticulitis study) is to describe both the diagnostic and treatment profiles of patients with ALCD in the Italian surgical departments. Methods: IPOD study is a prospective observational study performed during a 6-month period (from April 1 2015 to September 1 2015) and including 89 Italian surgical departments. All consecutive patients with suspected clinical diagnosis of ALCD confirmed by imaging and seen by a surgeon were included in the study. The study was promoted by the Italian Society of Hospital Surgeons and the World Society of Emergency Surgery Italian chapter. Results: Eleven hundred and twenty-five patients with a median age of 62 years [interquartile range (IQR), 51–74] were enrolled in the IPOD study. One thousand and fifty-four (93.7%) patients were hospitalized with a median duration of hospitalization of 7 days (IQR 5–10). Eight hundred and twenty-eight patients (73.6%) underwent medical treatment alone, 13 patients had percutaneous drainage (1.2%), and the other 284 (25.2%) patients underwent surgery as first treatment. Among 121 patients having diffuse peritonitis, 71 (58.7%) underwent Hartmann’s resection. However, the Hartmann’s resection was used even in patients with lower stages of ALCD (36/479; 7.5%) where other treatment options could be more adequate. Conclusions: The IPOD study demonstrates that in the Italian surgical departments treatment strategies for ALCD are often guided by the surgeon’s personal preference

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