The impact of EAES Fellowship Programme:a five-year review and evaluation

Background: The European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) fellowship programme was established in 2014, allowing nine surgeons annually to obtain experience and skills in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) from specialist centres across the Europe and United States. It aligns with the strategic focus of EAES Education and Training Committee on enabling Learning Mobility opportunities. To assess the impact of the programme, a survey was conducted aiming to evaluate the experience and impact of the programme and receive feedback for improvements.Methods: A survey using a 5-point Likert scale was used to evaluate clinical, education and research experience. The impact on acquisition of new technical skills, change in clinical practice and ongoing collaboration with the host institute was assessed. The fellows selected between 2014 and 2018 were included. Ratings were analysed in percentage; thematic analysis was applied to the free-text feedbacks using qualitative analysis.Results: All the fellows had good access to observing in operating theatres and 70.6% were able to assist. 91.2% participated in educational activities and 23.5% were able to contribute through teaching. 44.1% participated in research activities and 41.2% became an author/co-author of a publication from the host. 97.1% of fellows stated that their operative competency had increased, 94.3% gained new surgical skills and 85.7% was able to introduce new techniques in their hospitals. 74.29% agreed that the clinical experience led to a change in their practices. The most commonly suggested improvements were setting realistic target in clinical and research areas, increasing fellowship duration, and maximising theatre assisting opportunities. Nevertheless, 100% of fellows would recommend the fellowship to their peers.Conclusion: EAES fellowship programme has shown a positive impact on acquiring and adopting new MIS techniques. To further refine the programme, an individualised approach should be adopted to set achievable learning objectives in clinical skills, education and research.</p

Infected pancreatic necrosis: outcomes and clinical predictors of mortality. A post hoc analysis of the MANCTRA-1 international study

: The identification of high-risk patients in the early stages of infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) is critical, because it could help the clinicians to adopt more effective management strategies. We conducted a post hoc analysis of the MANCTRA-1 international study to assess the association between clinical risk factors and mortality among adult patients with IPN. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify prognostic factors of mortality. We identified 247 consecutive patients with IPN hospitalised between January 2019 and December 2020. History of uncontrolled arterial hypertension (p = 0.032; 95% CI 1.135-15.882; aOR 4.245), qSOFA (p = 0.005; 95% CI 1.359-5.879; aOR 2.828), renal failure (p = 0.022; 95% CI 1.138-5.442; aOR 2.489), and haemodynamic failure (p = 0.018; 95% CI 1.184-5.978; aOR 2.661), were identified as independent predictors of mortality in IPN patients. Cholangitis (p = 0.003; 95% CI 1.598-9.930; aOR 3.983), abdominal compartment syndrome (p = 0.032; 95% CI 1.090-6.967; aOR 2.735), and gastrointestinal/intra-abdominal bleeding (p = 0.009; 95% CI 1.286-5.712; aOR 2.710) were independently associated with the risk of mortality. Upfront open surgical necrosectomy was strongly associated with the risk of mortality (p &lt; 0.001; 95% CI 1.912-7.442; aOR 3.772), whereas endoscopic drainage of pancreatic necrosis (p = 0.018; 95% CI 0.138-0.834; aOR 0.339) and enteral nutrition (p = 0.003; 95% CI 0.143-0.716; aOR 0.320) were found as protective factors. Organ failure, acute cholangitis, and upfront open surgical necrosectomy were the most significant predictors of mortality. Our study confirmed that, even in a subgroup of particularly ill patients such as those with IPN, upfront open surgery should be avoided as much as possible. Study protocol registered in ClinicalTrials.Gov (I.D. Number NCT04747990)

EAES Recommendations for Recovery Plan in Minimally Invasive Surgery Amid COVID-19 Pandemic

Background: COVID-19 pandemic presented an unexpected challenge for the surgical community in general and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) specialists in particular. This document aims to summarize recent evidence and experts’ opinion and formulate recommendations to guide the surgical community on how to best organize the recovery plan for surgical activity across different sub-specialities after the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Recommendations were developed through a Delphi process for establishment of expert consensus. Domain topics were formulated and subsequently subdivided into questions pertinent to different surgical specialities following the COVID-19 crisis. Sixty-five experts from 24 countries, representing the entire EAES board, were invited. Fifty clinicians and six engineers accepted the invitation and drafted statements based on specific key questions. Anonymous voting on the statements was performed until consensus was achieved, defined by at least 70% agreement. Results: A total of 92 consensus statements were formulated with regard to safe resumption of surgery across eight domains, addressing general surgery, upper GI, lower GI, bariatrics, endocrine, HPB, abdominal wall and technology/research. The statements addressed elective and emergency services across all subspecialties with specific attention to the role of MIS during the recovery plan. Eighty-four of the statements were approved during the first round of Delphi voting (91.3%) and another 8 during the following round after substantial modification, resulting in a 100% consensus. Conclusion: The recommendations formulated by the EAES board establish a framework for resumption of surgery following COVID-19 pandemic with particular focus on the role of MIS across surgical specialities. The statements have the potential for wide application in the clinical setting, education activities and research work across different healthcare systems

Discharge protocol in acute pancreatitis: an international survey and cohort analysis.

There are several overlapping clinical practice guidelines in acute pancreatitis (AP), however, none of them contains suggestions on patient discharge. The Hungarian Pancreatic Study Group (HPSG) has recently developed a laboratory data and symptom-based discharge protocol which needs to be validated. (1) A survey was conducted involving all members of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) to understand the characteristics of international discharge protocols. (2) We investigated the safety and effectiveness of the HPSG-discharge protocol. According to our international survey, 87.5% (49/56) of the centres had no discharge protocol. Patients discharged based on protocols have a significantly shorter median length of hospitalization (LOH) (7 (5;10) days vs. 8 (5;12) days) p < 0.001), and a lower rate of readmission due to recurrent AP episodes (p = 0.005). There was no difference in median discharge CRP level among the international cohorts (p = 0.586). HPSG-protocol resulted in the shortest LOH (6 (5;9) days) and highest median CRP (35.40 (13.78; 68.40) mg/l). Safety was confirmed by the low rate of readmittance (n = 35; 5%). Discharge protocol is necessary in AP. The discharge protocol used in this study is the first clinically proven protocol. Developing and testifying further protocols are needed to better standardize patients' care

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