Burnout among surgeons before and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: an international survey

Background: SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has had many significant impacts within the surgical realm, and surgeons have been obligated to reconsider almost every aspect of daily clinical practice. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study reported in compliance with the CHERRIES guidelines and conducted through an online platform from June 14th to July 15th, 2020. The primary outcome was the burden of burnout during the pandemic indicated by the validated Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure. Results: Nine hundred fifty-four surgeons completed the survey. The median length of practice was 10 years; 78.2% included were male with a median age of 37 years old, 39.5% were consultants, 68.9% were general surgeons, and 55.7% were affiliated with an academic institution. Overall, there was a significant increase in the mean burnout score during the pandemic; longer years of practice and older age were significantly associated with less burnout. There were significant reductions in the median number of outpatient visits, operated cases, on-call hours, emergency visits, and research work, so, 48.2% of respondents felt that the training resources were insufficient. The majority (81.3%) of respondents reported that their hospitals were included in the management of COVID-19, 66.5% felt their roles had been minimized; 41% were asked to assist in non-surgical medical practices, and 37.6% of respondents were included in COVID-19 management. Conclusions: There was a significant burnout among trainees. Almost all aspects of clinical and research activities were affected with a significant reduction in the volume of research, outpatient clinic visits, surgical procedures, on-call hours, and emergency cases hindering the training. Trial registration: The study was registered on clicaltrials.gov "NCT04433286" on 16/06/2020

Updates in bariatric surgery guidelines. What's new?

No abstract

EAES rapid guideline: systematic review, network meta-analysis, CINeMA and GRADE assessment, and European consensus on bariatric surgery-extension 2022

Background: The European Association for Endoscopic Surgery Bariatric Guidelines Group identified a gap in bariatric surgery recommendations with a structured, contextualized consideration of multiple bariatric interventions. Objective: To provide evidence-informed, transparent and trustworthy recommendations on the use of sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, adjustable gastric banding, gastric plication, biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch, one anastomosis gastric bypass, and single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy in patients with severe obesity and metabolic diseases. Only laparoscopic procedures in adults were considered. Methods: A European interdisciplinary panel including general surgeons, obesity physicians, anesthetists, a psychologist and a patient representative informed outcome importance and minimal important differences. We conducted a systematic review and frequentist fixed and random-effects network meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) using the graph theory approach for each outcome. We calculated the odds ratio or the (standardized) mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the CINeMA and GRADE methodologies. We considered the risk/benefit outcomes within a GRADE evidence to decision framework to arrive at recommendations, which were validated through an anonymous Delphi process of the panel. Results: We identified 43 records reporting on 24 RCTs. Most network information surrounded sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Under consideration of the certainty of the evidence and evidence to decision parameters, we suggest sleeve gastrectomy or laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass over adjustable gastric banding, biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch and gastric plication for the management of severe obesity and associated metabolic diseases. One anastomosis gastric bypass and single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy are suggested as alternatives, although evidence on benefits and harms, and specific selection criteria is limited compared to sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The guideline, with recommendations, evidence summaries and decision aids in user friendly formats can also be accessed in MAGICapp: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/Lpv2kE Conclusions: This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed, pertinent recommendations on the use of bariatric and metabolic surgery for the management of severe obesity and metabolic diseases. The guideline replaces relevant recommendations published in the EAES Bariatric Guidelines 2020

Clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) on bariatric surgery : update 2020 endorsed by IFSO-EC, EASO and ESPCOP

Altres ajuts: This work was funded by the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES).Surgery for obesity and metabolic diseases has been evolved in the light of new scientific evidence, long-term outcomes and accumulated experience. EAES has sponsored an update of previous guidelines on bariatric surgery. A multidisciplinary group of bariatric surgeons, obesity physicians, nutritional experts, psychologists, anesthetists and a patient representative comprised the guideline development panel. Development and reporting conformed to GRADE guidelines and AGREE II standards. Systematic review of databases, record selection, data extraction and synthesis, evidence appraisal and evidence-to-decision frameworks were developed for 42 key questions in the domains Indication; Preoperative work-up; Perioperative management; Non-bypass, bypass and one-anastomosis procedures; Revisional surgery; Postoperative care; and Investigational procedures. A total of 36 recommendations and position statements were formed through a modified Delphi procedure. This document summarizes the latest evidence on bariatric surgery through state-of-the art guideline development, aiming to facilitate evidence-based clinical decisions. The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-020-07555-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Protective ileostomy creation after anterior resection of the rectum: Shared decision-making or still subjective?

Aim: The choice of whether to perform protective ileostomy (PI) after anterior resection (AR) is mainly guided by risk factors (RFs) responsible for the development of anastomotic leakage (AL). However, clear guidelines about PI creation are still lacking in the literature and this is often decided according to the surgeon's preferences, experiences or feelings. This qualitative study aims to investigate, by an open-ended question survey, the individual surgeon's decision-making process regarding PI creation after elective AR. Method: Fifty four colorectal surgeons took part in an electronic survey to answer the questions and describe what usually led their decision to perform PI. A content analysis was used to code the answers. To classify answers, five dichotomous categories (In favour/Against PI, Listed/Unlisted RFs, Typical/Atypical, Emotions/Non-emotions, Personal experience/No personal experience) have been developed. Results: Overall, 76% of surgeons were in favour of PI creation and 88% considered listed RFs in the question of whether to perform PI. Atypical answers were reported in 10% of cases. Emotions and personal experience influenced surgeons' decision-making process in 22% and 49% of cases, respectively. The most frequently considered RFs were the distance of the anastomosis from the anal verge (96%), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (88%), a positive intraoperative leak test (65%), blood loss (37%) and immunosuppression therapy (35%). Conclusion: The indications to perform PI following rectal cancer surgery lack standardization and evidence-based guidelines are required to inform practice. Until then, expert opinion can be helpful to assist the decision-making process in patients who have undergone AR for adenocarcinoma

Protective ileostomy creation after anterior resection of the rectum: Shared decision-making or still subjective?

Aim: The choice of whether to perform protective ileostomy (PI) after anterior resection (AR) is mainly guided by risk factors (RFs) responsible for the development of anastomotic leakage (AL). However, clear guidelines about PI creation are still lacking in the literature and this is often decided according to the surgeon's preferences, experiences or feelings. This qualitative study aims to investigate, by an open-ended question survey, the individual surgeon's decision-making process regarding PI creation after elective AR. Method: Fifty four colorectal surgeons took part in an electronic survey to answer the questions and describe what usually led their decision to perform PI. A content analysis was used to code the answers. To classify answers, five dichotomous categories (In favour/Against PI, Listed/Unlisted RFs, Typical/Atypical, Emotions/Non-emotions, Personal experience/No personal experience) have been developed. Results: Overall, 76% of surgeons were in favour of PI creation and 88% considered listed RFs in the question of whether to perform PI. Atypical answers were reported in 10% of cases. Emotions and personal experience influenced surgeons' decision-making process in 22% and 49% of cases, respectively. The most frequently considered RFs were the distance of the anastomosis from the anal verge (96%), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (88%), a positive intraoperative leak test (65%), blood loss (37%) and immunosuppression therapy (35%). Conclusion: The indications to perform PI following rectal cancer surgery lack standardization and evidence-based guidelines are required to inform practice. Until then, expert opinion can be helpful to assist the decision-making process in patients who have undergone AR for adenocarcinoma

The use of emergency laparoscopy for acute abdomen in the elderly: the FRAILESEL Italian Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study

As the world population is aging rapidly, emergency abdominal surgery for acute abdomen in the elderly represents a global issue, both in developed and developing countries. Data regarding all the elderly patients who underwent emergency abdominal surgery from January 2017 to December 2017 at 36 Italian surgical departments were analyzed with the aim to appraise the contemporary reality regarding the use of emergency laparoscopy for acute abdomen in the elderly. 1993 patients were enrolled. 1369 (68.7%) patients were operated with an open technique; whereas, 624 (31.3%) underwent a laparoscopic operation. The postoperative morbidity rate was 32.6%, with a statically significant difference between the open and the laparoscopic groups (36.2% versus 22.1%, p < 0.001). The reported mortality rate was 8.8%, with a statistically significant difference between the open and the laparoscopic groups (11.2% versus 2.2%, p < 0.001). Our results demonstrated that patients in the ASA II (58.1%), ASA III (68.7%) and ASA IV (88.5%) groups were operated with the traditional open technique in most of the cases. Only a small percentage of patients underwent laparoscopy for perforated gastro-duodenal ulcer repair (18.9%), adhesiolyses with/without small bowel resection (12.2%), and large bowel resection (10.7%). Conversion to open technique was associated with a higher mortality rate (11.1% versus 2.2%, p < 0.001) and overall morbidity (38.9% versus 22.1%, p = 0.001) compared with patients who did not undergo conversion. High creatinine (p < 0.001) and glycaemia (p = 0.006) levels, low hemoglobin levels (p < 0.001), oral anticoagulation therapy (p = 0.001), acute respiratory failure (p < 0.001), presence of malignancy (p = 0.001), SIRS (p < 0.001) and open surgical approach (p < 0.001) were associated with an increased risk of postoperative morbidity. Regardless of technical progress, elderly patients undergoing emergency surgery are at very high risk for in-hospital complications. A detailed analysis of complications and mortality in the present study showed that almost 9% of elderly patients died after surgery for acute abdomen, and over 32% developed complications

Augmented reality (AR) in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) training: where are we now in Italy? The Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery (SICE) ARMIS survey

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is a widespread approach in general surgery. Computer guiding software, such as the augmented reality (AR), the virtual reality (VR) and mixed reality (MR), has been proposed to help surgeons during MIS. This study aims to report these technologies' current knowledge and diffusion during surgical training in Italy. A web-based survey was developed under the aegis of the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery (SICE). Two hundred and seventeen medical doctors' answers were analyzed. Participants were surgeons (138, 63.6%) and residents in surgery (79, 36.4%). The mean knowledge of the role of the VR, AR and MR in surgery was 4.9 ± 2.4 (range 1-10). Most of the participants (122, 56.2%) did not have experience with any proposed technologies. However, although the lack of experience in this field, the answers about the functioning of the technologies were correct in most cases. Most of the participants answered that VR, AR and MR should be used more frequently for the teaching and training and during the clinical activity (170, 80.3%) and that such technologies would make a significant contribution, especially in training (183, 84.3%) and didactic (156, 71.9%). Finally, the main limitations to the diffusion of these technologies were the insufficient knowledge (182, 83.9%) and costs (175, 80.6%). Based on the present study, in Italy, the knowledge and dissemination of these technologies are still limited. Further studies are required to establish the usefulness of AR, VR and MR in surgical training

Surgeons’ practice and preferences for the anal fissure treatment: results from an international survey

The best nonoperative or operative anal fissure (AF) treatment is not yet established, and several options have been proposed. Aim is to report the surgeons' practice for the AF treatment. Thirty-four multiple-choice questions were developed. Seven questions were about to participants' demographics and, 27 questions about their clinical practice. Based on the specialty (general surgeon and colorectal surgeon), obtained data were divided and compared between two groups. Five-hundred surgeons were included (321 general and 179 colorectal surgeons). For both groups, duration of symptoms for at least 6 weeks is the most important factor for AF diagnosis (30.6%). Type of AF (acute vs chronic) is the most important factor which guide the therapeutic plan (44.4%). The first treatment of choice for acute AF is ointment application for both groups (59.6%). For the treatment of chronic AF, this data is confirmed by colorectal surgeons (57%), but not by the general surgeons who prefer the lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) (31.8%) (p = 0.0001). Botulin toxin injection is most performed by colorectal surgeons (58.7%) in comparison to general surgeons (20.9%) (p = 0.0001). Anal flap is mostly performed by colorectal surgeons (37.4%) in comparison to general surgeons (28.3%) (p = 0.0001). Fissurectomy alone is statistically significantly most performed by general surgeons in comparison to colorectal surgeons (57.9% and 43.6%, respectively) (p = 0.0020). This analysis provides useful information about the clinical practice for the management of a debated topic such as AF treatment. Shared guidelines and consensus especially focused on operative management are required to standardize the treatment and to improve postoperative results