Splenectomy through the laparoscopic approach and how I do it

Scopul lucrării. Studierea cazurilor de splenectomie prin abord laparoscopic și clasic în vederea stabilirii cauzalității tip procedurăincidente perioperatorii și demonstrării superiorității abordului laparoscopic. Materiale și metode. Au fost selectate cazurile de splenectomie efectuate prin abord clasic și laparoscopic în Clinica de Chirurgie Colțea, perioada 01.01.2019-31.12.2022. Am revăzut filmările intraoperatorii, am evaluat factorii generali și locali asociați abordului chirurgical preferat. Rezultate. Au fost selectate 29 de cazuri, vârsta medie 54.8 ani, 72.4% femei, 27.6% barbati, 55.2% (16) cu multiple comorbidități: antecedente chirurgicale majore, insuficiența cardiacă, asmul bronșic sever etc. Cazurile au fost împărțite în 2 grupe: Gr. I- cu abord laparoscopic 34.5% (10), Gr. II- cu abord clasic 65.5% (19). Incidența comorbidităților a fost de 10% (1) în Gr.I, cu dimensiunea medie a splinei de 13.2 cm (min 8.5 cm, max 21 cm) și 84.2 % (16) în Gr.II cu dimensiunea medie a splinei de 20.4 cm (min 10 cm, max 34 cm). Doar în Gr.II au fost înregistrate sângerări intraoperatorii în 78.9% (15), iar in 15.8% (3) au fost complicații postoperatorii. Pacienții din Gr.I au avut o perioadă de spitalizare postoperatorie medie de 4 zile, iar cei din Gr. II de 7 zile și au fost externați cu o evoluție postoperatorie favorabilă. Concluzie. Abordul laparoscopic are aceleași indicații ca abordul clasic conform EAES, cu avantajul complicațiilor perioperatorii mult reduse și o spitalizare postoperatorie mai mică comparativ cu abordul clasic, iar în cazul echipelor experimentate este posibil abordul laparoscopic inclusiv la pacienții cu splenomegalii masive (>20cm), care poate fi asistat manual.Aim of study. Study of cases of splenectomy by laparoscopic and classic approach in order to establish causality type procedureperioperative incidents and demonstrate the superiority of the laparoscopic approach. Materials and methods. The cases of splenectomy performed by classical and laparoscopic approach in the Colțea Surgery Clinic, period 01.01.2019-31.12.2022, were selected. We reviewed intraoperative films, assessed general and local factors associated with the preferred surgical approach. Results. 29 cases were selected, average age 54.8 years, 72.4% women, 27.6% men, 55.2% (16) with multiple comorbidities: major surgical antecedents, heart failure, severe bronchial asthma, etc. The cases were divided into 2 groups: Gr. I- with laparoscopic approach 34.5% (10), Gr. II- with classic approach 65.5% (19). The incidence of comorbidities was 10% (1) in Gr.I, with mean spleen size of 13.2 cm (min 8.5 cm, max 21 cm) and 84.2% (16) in Gr.II with mean spleen size of 20.4 cm (min 10 cm, max 34 cm). Only in Gr.II, intraoperative bleeding was recorded in 78.9% (15), and in 15.8% (3) there were postoperative complications. The patients in Gr. I had an average postoperative hospitalization period of 4 days, and those in Gr. II of 7 days, and were discharged with a favorable postoperative evolution. Conclusions. The laparoscopic approach has the same indications as the classic one according to EAES, with the advantage of reduced perioperative complications and a shorter postoperative hospitalization, and in the case of experienced teams, the laparoscopic approach is possible, including patients with massive splenomegaly (>20cm), being manually assisted

Intraperitoneal drain placement and outcomes after elective colorectal surgery: international matched, prospective, cohort study

Despite current guidelines, intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery remains widespread. Drains were not associated with earlier detection of intraperitoneal collections, but were associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased risk of surgical-site infections.Background Many surgeons routinely place intraperitoneal drains after elective colorectal surgery. However, enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines recommend against their routine use owing to a lack of clear clinical benefit. This study aimed to describe international variation in intraperitoneal drain placement and the safety of this practice. Methods COMPASS (COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery) was a prospective, international, cohort study which enrolled consecutive adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery (February to March 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of intraperitoneal drain placement. Secondary outcomes included: rate and time to diagnosis of postoperative intraperitoneal collections; rate of surgical site infections (SSIs); time to discharge; and 30-day major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade at least III). After propensity score matching, multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to estimate the independent association of the secondary outcomes with drain placement. Results Overall, 1805 patients from 22 countries were included (798 women, 44.2 per cent; median age 67.0 years). The drain insertion rate was 51.9 per cent (937 patients). After matching, drains were not associated with reduced rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.33, 95 per cent c.i. 0.79 to 2.23; P = 0.287) or earlier detection (hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 0.33 to 2.31; P = 0.780) of collections. Although not associated with worse major postoperative complications (OR 1.09, 0.68 to 1.75; P = 0.709), drains were associated with delayed hospital discharge (HR 0.58, 0.52 to 0.66; P < 0.001) and an increased risk of SSIs (OR 2.47, 1.50 to 4.05; P < 0.001). Conclusion Intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery is not associated with earlier detection of postoperative collections, but prolongs hospital stay and increases SSI risk

Elective cancer surgery in COVID-19-free surgical pathways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: An international, multicenter, comparative cohort study

PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19–free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19–free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19–free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19–free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score–matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19–free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Elective Cancer Surgery in COVID-19-Free Surgical Pathways During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An International, Multicenter, Comparative Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS: Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION: Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Outcomes from elective colorectal cancer surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

This study aimed to describe the change in surgical practice and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mortality after surgical resection of colorectal cancer during the initial phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

Screening policies, preventive measures and in-hospital infection of COVID-19 in global surgical practices

Background In a surgical setting, COVID-19 patients may trigger in-hospital outbreaks and have worse postoperative outcomes. Despite these risks, there have been no consistent statements on surgical guidelines regarding the perioperative screening or management of COVID-19 patients, and we do not have objective global data that describe the current conditions surrounding this issue. This study aimed to clarify the current global surgical practice including COVID-19 screening, preventive measures and in-hospital infection under the COVID-19 pandemic, and to clarify the international gaps on infection control policies among countries worldwide.Methods During April 2-8, 2020, a cross-sectional online survey on surgical practice was distributed to surgeons worldwide through international surgical societies, social media and personal contacts. Main outcome and measures included preventive measures and screening policies of COVID-19 in surgical practice and centers' experiences of in-hospital COVID-19 infection. Data were analyzed by country's cumulative deaths number by April 8, 2020 (high risk, >5000; intermediate risk, 100-5000; low risk, <100).Results A total of 936 centers in 71 countries responded to the survey (high risk, 330 centers; intermediate risk, 242 centers; low risk, 364 centers). In the majority (71.9%) of the centers, local guidelines recommended preoperative testing based on symptoms or suspicious radiologic findings. Universal testing for every surgical patient was recommended in only 18.4% of the centers. In-hospital COVID-19 infection was reported from 31.5% of the centers, with higher rates in higher risk countries (high risk, 53.6%; intermediate risk, 26.4%; low risk, 14.8%; P<0.001). Of the 295 centers that experienced in-hospital COVID-19 infection, 122 (41.4%) failed to trace it and 58 (19.7%) reported the infection originating from asymptomatic patients/staff members. Higher risk countries adopted more preventive measures including universal testing, routine testing of hospital staff and use of dedicated personal protective equipment in operation theatres, but there were remarkable discrepancies across the countries.Conclusions This large international survey captured the global surgical practice under the COVID-19 pandemic and highlighted the insufficient preoperative screening of COVID-19 in the current surgical practice. More intensive screening programs will be necessary particularly in severely affected countries/institutions

Screening policies, preventive measures and in-hospital infection of COVID-19 in global surgical practices

Background: In a surgical setting, COVID-19 patients may trigger in-hospital outbreaks and have worse postoperative outcomes. Despite these risks, there have been no consistent statements on surgical guidelines regarding the perioperative screening or management of COVID-19 patients, and we do not have objective global data that describe the current conditions surrounding this issue. This study aimed to clarify the current global surgical practice including COVID-19 screening, preventive measures and in-hospital infection under the COVID-19 pandemic, and to clarify the international gaps on infection control policies among countries worldwide. Methods: During April 2-8, 2020, a cross-sectional online survey on surgical practice was distributed to surgeons worldwide through international surgical societies, social media and personal contacts. Main outcome and measures included preventive measures and screening policies of COVID-19 in surgical practice and centers' experiences of in-hospital COVID-19 infection. Data were analyzed by country's cumulative deaths number by April 8, 2020 (high risk, >5000; intermediate risk, 100-5000; low risk, <100). Results: A total of 936 centers in 71 countries responded to the survey (high risk, 330 centers; intermediate risk, 242 centers; low risk, 364 centers). In the majority (71.9%) of the centers, local guidelines recommended preoperative testing based on symptoms or suspicious radiologic findings. Universal testing for every surgical patient was recommended in only 18.4% of the centers. In-hospital COVID-19 infection was reported from 31.5% of the centers, with higher rates in higher risk countries (high risk, 53.6%; intermediate risk, 26.4%; low risk, 14.8%; P < 0.001). Of the 295 centers that experienced in-hospital COVID-19 infection, 122 (41.4%) failed to trace it and 58 (19.7%) reported the infection originating from asymptomatic patients/staff members. Higher risk countries adopted more preventive measures including universal testing, routine testing of hospital staff and use of dedicated personal protective equipment in operation theatres, but there were remarkable discrepancies across the countries. Conclusions: This large international survey captured the global surgical practice under the COVID-19 pandemic and highlighted the insufficient preoperative screening of COVID-19 in the current surgical practice. More intensive screening programs will be necessary particularly in severely affected countries/institutions