Surgical Treatment of Acute Recurrent Diverticulitis: Early Elective or Late Elective Surgery. An Analysis of 237 Patients

Background: The optimal timing of elective surgery in diverticulitis remains unclear. We attempted to investigate early elective versus late elective laparoscopic surgery in acute recurrent diverticulitis in a retrospective study. Method: Data of patients undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery for diverticulitis were retrospectively gathered, including Hinchey stages I-II a/b. the primary endpoint was in-hospital complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Secondary endpoints were surgical complications, operative time, conversion rate, and length of hospital stay. Results: Of 237 patients, 81 (34%) underwent early elective operation (group A) and 156 (66%) underwent late elective operation (group B). In-hospital complications developed in 32% in group A and in 34% in group B (risk difference 2%, 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI): −11%, 14%). Higher age (p=0.048) and borderline higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score (p=0.056) were risk factors for in-hospital complications. Severe surgical complications occurred in 9% of patients in group A and 10% in group B (risk difference 2%, 95% CI: −6%, 9%). Conversion rate was 9% in group A and 3% in group B (p=0.070). Severity of disease did not seem to have an impact on complications or length of hospital stay. The median postoperative hospital stay was 8days in both groups (interquartile range 6-10). Mean operative time was 220min (SD 64) in group A and 202min (SD 48) in group B. Conclusions: This is the first study comparing early versus late elective surgery for diverticulitis in terms of the postoperative outcome using a validated classification. Although the retrospective setting and large confidence intervals don't allow definitive recommendations, these results are of utmost importance for the design of future prospective, randomized controlled trial

Number of comorbidities and their impact on perioperative outcome and costs - a single centre cohort study

AIMS OF THE STUDY Multimorbidity is a growing global health problem, resulting in an increased perioperative risk for surgical patients. Data on both the prevalence of multimorbidity and its impact on perioperative outcome are limited. The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification uses only the single most severe systemic disease to define the ASA class and ignores multimorbidity. This study aimed to assess the number and type of all anaesthesia-relevant comorbidities and to analyse their impact on outcome and hospital costs. METHODS This cohort study is nested in the ClassIntra® validation study and includes only patients enrolled at the University Hospital of Basel. Approximately 30 patients per surgical discipline undergoing any type of in-hospital surgery were followed up until hospital discharge to record all intra- and postoperative adverse events. In addition, the type and severity of all perioperatively relevant comorbidities were extracted from the electronic medical record according to a predefined list. The primary endpoint was the number of all anaesthesia-relevant comorbidities by ASA class. Using structural equation models, the direct and indirect effects of comorbidities on costs were estimated after adjustment for the ASA class and further relevant confounders and mediators. RESULTS Of 320 enrolled patients, 27 were ASA I (8%), 150 ASA II (47%), 116 ASA III (36%) and 27 ASA IV (8%). The median number of comorbidities per patient was 5 (range 0-18), this number significantly increasing with higher ASA class: 1 comorbidity (95% CI 0.0-2.0) in ASA I, 4 comorbidities (3.8-4.2) in ASA II, 9 (8.1-9.9) in ASA III and 12 (10-14) in ASA IV patients. Independent of ASA class, each additional comorbidity increased hospital costs by EUR 1,198 (95% CI 288-2108) with almost identical proportions of direct and indirect effects. The number of anaesthesia-relevant comorbidities also increased postoperative complications and postoperative length of hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS Multimorbidity in perioperative patients is highly prevalent and has a relevant impact on hospital costs, independent of the ASA class. Incorporating multimorbidity into the ASA classification might be warranted to improve its predictive ability and support adequate reimbursement

Cerebral perfusion in sepsis-associated delirium

INTRODUCTION: The pathophysiology of sepsis-associated delirium is not completely understood and the data on cerebral perfusion in sepsis are conflicting. We tested the hypothesis that cerebral perfusion and selected serum markers of inflammation and delirium differ in septic patients with and without sepsis-associated delirium. METHODS: We investigated 23 adult patients with sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock with an extracranial focus of infection and no history of intracranial pathology. Patients were investigated after stabilisation within 48 hours after admission to the intensive care unit. Sepsis-associated delirium was diagnosed using the confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), blood flow velocity (FV) in the middle cerebral artery using transcranial Doppler, and cerebral tissue oxygenation using near-infrared spectroscopy were monitored for 1 hour. An index of cerebrovascular autoregulation was calculated from MAP and FV data. C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), S-100beta, and cortisol were measured during each data acquisition. RESULTS: Data from 16 patients, of whom 12 had sepsis-associated delirium, were analysed. There were no significant correlations or associations between MAP, cerebral blood FV, or tissue oxygenation and sepsis-associated delirium. However, we found a significant association between sepsis-associated delirium and disturbed autoregulation (P = 0.015). IL-6 did not differ between patients with and without sepsis-associated delirium, but we found a significant association between elevated CRP (P = 0.008), S-100beta (P = 0.029), and cortisol (P = 0.011) and sepsis-associated delirium. Elevated CRP was significantly correlated with disturbed autoregulation (Spearman rho = 0.62, P = 0.010). CONCLUSION: In this small group of patients, cerebral perfusion assessed with transcranial Doppler and near-infrared spectroscopy did not differ between patients with and without sepsis-associated delirium. However, the state of autoregulation differed between the two groups. This may be due to inflammation impeding cerebrovascular endothelial function. Further investigations defining the role of S-100beta and cortisol in the diagnosis of sepsis-associated delirium are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00410111

Impact of tutorial assistance in laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for acute recurrent diverticulitis

Purpose: Adequate training and close supervision by an experienced surgeon are crucial to assure the patient safety during laparoscopic training. This study evaluated the impact of tutorial assistance on the duration of surgery and postoperative complications after laparoscopic sigmoidectomy. Methods: The data from 235 patients undergoing laparoscopic sigmoidectomy were collected. Operating surgeons were classified as either residents/registrars (group A, tutorial assistance) or consultants operating autonomously (group B). Groups were compared concerning the duration of surgery and in-hospital complications using a multivariable regression model accounting for the most relevant confounders. Results: The median duration of the operation in group A (n=75) was 221min, and that in group B (n=160) 189min (p<0.001). The risk of developing any in-hospital complication (Clavien-Dindo classification I-V) was 36.0% in Group A and 32.5% in group B (95% CI −16.6, 9.6%). The risk of developing moderate to severe surgical complications (Clavien-Dindo classification II-V) was 16.0% in group A and 12.5% in group B (95% CI −13.3, 6.3%). Conclusions: We were unable to demonstrate a clear impact of tutorial assistance on the risk of postoperative complications. Although associated with a longer duration of surgery, laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for acute recurrent sigmoid diverticulitis conducted by a junior supervised surgeon appears to be a safe surgical modality

Bibliometric analysis of academic journal recommendations and requirements for surgical and anesthesiologic adverse events reporting.

BACKGROUND Standards for reporting surgical adverse events vary widely within the scientific literature. Failure to adequately capture adverse events hinders efforts to measure the safety of healthcare delivery and improve the quality of care. The aim of the present study is to assess the prevalence and typology of perioperative adverse event reporting guidelines among surgery and anesthesiology journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS In November 2021, three independent reviewers queried journal lists from the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) portal (www.scimagojr.com), a bibliometric indicator database for surgery and anesthesiology academic journals. Journal characteristics were summarized using SCImago, a bibliometric indicator database extracted from Scopus journal data. Quartile 1 (Q1) was considered the top quartile and Q4 bottom quartile based on the journal impact factor. Journal author guidelines were collected to determine whether adverse event reporting recommendations were included and, if so, the preferred reporting procedures. RESULTS Of 1,409 journals queried, 655 (46.5%) recommended surgical adverse event reporting. Journals most likely to recommend adverse event reporting were: 1) by category surgery (59.1%), urology (53.3%), and anesthesia (52.3%); 2) in top SJR quartiles (i.e. more influential); 3) by region, based in Western Europe (49.8%), North America (49.3%), and the Middle East (48.3%). CONCLUSIONS Surgery and anesthesiology journals do not consistently require or provide recommendations on perioperative adverse event reporting. Journal guidelines regarding adverse event reporting should be standardized and are needed to improve the quality of surgical adverse event reporting with the ultimate goal of improving patient morbidity and mortality

Bibliometric Analysis of Academic Journal Recommendations and Requirements for Surgical and Anesthesiologic Adverse Events Reporting

BACKGROUND: Standards for reporting surgical adverse events (AEs) vary widely within the scientific literature. Failure to adequately capture AEs hinders efforts to measure the safety of healthcare delivery and improve the quality of care. The aim of the present study is to assess the prevalence and typology of perioperative AE reporting guidelines among surgery and anesthesiology journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In November 2021, three independent reviewers queried journal lists from the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) portal (www.scimagojr.com), a bibliometric indicator database for surgery and anesthesiology academic journals. Journal characteristics were summarized using SCImago, a bibliometric indicator database extracted from Scopus journal data. Quartile 1 (Q1) was considered the top quartile and Q4 bottom quartile based on the journal impact factor. Journal author guidelines were collected to determine whether AE reporting recommendations were included and, if so, the preferred reporting procedures. RESULTS: Of 1409 journals queried, 655 (46.5%) recommended surgical AE reporting. Journals most likely to recommend AE reporting were: by category surgery (59.1%), urology (53.3%), and anesthesia (52.3%); in top SJR quartiles (i.e. more influential); by region, based in Western Europe (49.8%), North America (49.3%), and the Middle East (48.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery and anesthesiology journals do not consistently require or provide recommendations on perioperative AE reporting. Journal guidelines regarding AE reporting should be standardized and are needed to improve the quality of surgical AE reporting with the ultimate goal of improving patient morbidity and mortality