Evolving trends in the management of acute appendicitis during COVID-19 waves. The ACIE appy II study

Background: In 2020, ACIE Appy study showed that COVID-19 pandemic heavily affected the management of patients with acute appendicitis (AA) worldwide, with an increased rate of non-operative management (NOM) strategies and a trend toward open surgery due to concern of virus transmission by laparoscopy and controversial recommendations on this issue. The aim of this study was to survey again the same group of surgeons to assess if any difference in management attitudes of AA had occurred in the later stages of the outbreak. Methods: From August 15 to September 30, 2021, an online questionnaire was sent to all 709 participants of the ACIE Appy study. The questionnaire included questions on personal protective equipment (PPE), local policies and screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection, NOM, surgical approach and disease presentations in 2021. The results were compared with the results from the previous study. Results: A total of 476 answers were collected (response rate 67.1%). Screening policies were significatively improved with most patients screened regardless of symptoms (89.5% vs. 37.4%) with PCR and antigenic test as the preferred test (74.1% vs. 26.3%). More patients tested positive before surgery and commercial systems were the preferred ones to filter smoke plumes during laparoscopy. Laparoscopic appendicectomy was the first option in the treatment of AA, with a declined use of NOM. Conclusion: Management of AA has improved in the last waves of pandemic. Increased evidence regarding SARS-COV-2 infection along with a timely healthcare systems response has been translated into tailored attitudes and a better care for patients with AA worldwide

A decalogue to avoid routine ileostomy in selected patients with border line risk to develop anastomotic leakage after minimally invasive low-anterior resection. A pilot study

Purpose. Protective ileostomy (PI) during anterior resection (AR) for rectal cancer decreases the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL) and its subsequent complications, but it may itself be the cause of morbidity. The aim is to report our protocol in the management of selected patients with borderline risk to develop AL after laparoscopic AR and ghost ileostomy (GI) creation. Methods. Patients who underwent AR were stratified based on the risk to develop AL. Steps to avoid PI were splenic flexure mobilization, reduced pelvic bleeding, to employ different stapler charge if neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy is performed, to perform a horizontal section of the rectum, to evaluate the anastomotic vascularization with a fluorescence angiography, to perform a side-to-end anastomosis, intraoperative methylene blue test, pelvic and transanal drainage tubes placement, and the GI creation. After surgery, inflammatory blood markers were monitored to detect potential leakages. Results. Twelve patients were included. In one case, the specimen proximal section was changed after fluorescence angiography. There were no conversions in this group of patients. One postoperative AL occurred and was treated with radiological drainage placement, not being necessary to convert the GI. PI was avoided in 100% of cases. Conclusions. Patients' characteristics cannot be changed, but several steps were used to avoid routine PI creation. The present protocol could be a valuable option to avoid PI in selected patients. Further studies with a wider sample size, and defined criteria to stratify the patients based on the risk to develop AL, are required

Laparoscopic left hemicolectomy with ICG fluorescence angiography for diverticular disease in patient with intestinal malrotation. A video vignette

Intestinal malrotation (IM) is defined as a congenital incomplete rotation and fixation of the gastrointestinal tract. It is frequently asymptomatic and it is diagnosed incidentally during radiological tests. In these cases, surgery is a challenge for surgeons due to the intraoperative anatomical alterations observed. Moreover, an anomalous intestinal vascularization can be associated, so the development of new technologies to assess the anastomotic blood supply during surgery can be determinant to improve the postoperative results. We report a case of a 63-year-old woman who underwent to Computed Tomography scan for acute diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon and incidentally a type II IM is detected. Due to the several episodes of diverticulitis a surgery is planned. By laparoscopy, the IM is recognized, being the entire colon on the left and the entire small bowel on the right. A sigmoid segmental resection is performed dividing the sigmoid and the upper rectal arteries and the left parietocolic space. The left colon is then extracted and Indocyanine Green (ICG) fluorescent angiography was performed. Twenty cm of left colon were not vascularized and were further resected including the splenic angle and the adhesion between the left and right colon, together to the division of the inferior mesenteric vein and artery at its origin. After another angiography assessment an end-to-end anastomosis is performed with a circular stapler. The ICG fluorescent angiography is a useful, fast and safe test, mostly in complex cases in which the colon vascularization may be abnormal or the anatomy is difficult to identify This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Abdominal wall surgery in bariatric patients

Morbid obesity is one of the main factors related to hernia recurrences after an open repair, while laparoscopic approach has offered excellent results in this type of patients. Concomitant laparoscopic bariatric procedure and ventral hernia repair (VHR) with intraperitoneal mesh has been described as a safe option, but the need to place a mesh intraperitoneally has arisen some concerns. However, the literature does not show good results with the use of transfascial suture neither for primary closures nor with biological meshes. There is still not enough evidence to reach a consensus regarding when is the best time to perform the hernia repair on patients undergoing bariatric surgery, simultaneously or differing the hernia repair. For that reason, it seems that an individualized approach is recommended, informing the patient of the risks and benefits of each option. The type of bariatric surgery, the type and location of the hernia, previous surgery in case of an incisional hernia, symptoms related to the hernia and the surgical approach are factors to be analyzed. It is necessary to consider repairing simultaneously a ventral hernia (VH) in the patient who is going to undergo a bariatric procedure or differing it in order to perform simultaneously a concomitant repair (CR) and the dermolipectomy needed after weight loss. For this reason, only clear symptomatic hernias are recommended to be repair during the bariatric procedure. Finally, it is important to inform properly the patient about possible changes intraoperatively of the bariatric procedure because existing findings, especially due to the presence of adhesions

Extracorporeal Hand-Sewn vs. Intracorporeal Mechanic Anastomosis During Laparoscopic Right Colectomy.

To compare the outcomes of extracorporeal hand-sewn side-to-side isoperistaltic ileocolic anastomosis (EHSIA) versus intracorporeal mechanic side-to-side isoperistaltic ileocolic anastomosis (IMSIA) during laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for adenocarcinoma. This is a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis of prospectively collected data. Fifty-four patients who underwent surgery with EHSIA (intervention group) were paired with 54 patients who underwent surgery with IMSIA (control group) based on patients' demographics and type of surgery (standard right hemicolectomy or extended right hemicolectomy). Fifty-four patients were included for each group. Statistically significant differences between groups were not observed in patients' demographics and type of surgery. Conversion occurred in three patients of the intervention group due to intra-abdominal adhesions for previous surgery (5.6%) (p = 0.079). Median operative time was statistically significant shorter in the control group in comparison to the intervention group (85 and 117.5 minutes, respectively, p ≤ 0.0001). In both groups one anastomotic leakage was observed (1.9%) (Clavien-Dindo grade III-a). In the control group one patient (1.9%) underwent reintervention for acute postoperative anemia (Clavien-Dindo grade III-b). Median number of harvested lymph-nodes was 17 and 12 (p ≤ 0.0001), in the intervention and the control group, respectively. Median hospital stay was statistically significant lower in the control group in comparison to the intervention group (5 and 6.5 days, respectively, p ≤ 0.013). IMSIA showed lower operative time and hospital stay in comparison to EHSIA. Further randomized studies are required to draw definitive conclusions about the best anastomotic technique during laparoscopic right hemicolectomy

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

Evolving trends in the management of acute appendicitis during COVID-19 waves. The ACIE appy II study (vol 46, pg 2021, 2022)

N/

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

Global attitudes in the management of acute appendicitis during COVID-19 pandemic: ACIE Appy Study

Background: Surgical strategies are being adapted to face the COVID-19 pandemic. Recommendations on the management of acute appendicitis have been based on expert opinion, but very little evidence is available. This study addressed that dearth with a snapshot of worldwide approaches to appendicitis. Methods: The Association of Italian Surgeons in Europe designed an online survey to assess the current attitude of surgeons globally regarding the management of patients with acute appendicitis during the pandemic. Questions were divided into baseline information, hospital organization and screening, personal protective equipment, management and surgical approach, and patient presentation before versus during the pandemic. Results: Of 744 answers, 709 (from 66 countries) were complete and were included in the analysis. Most hospitals were treating both patients with and those without COVID. There was variation in screening indications and modality used, with chest X-ray plus molecular testing (PCR) being the commonest (19\ub78 per cent). Conservative management of complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis was used by 6\ub76 and 2\ub74 per cent respectively before, but 23\ub77 and 5\ub73 per cent, during the pandemic (both P < 0\ub7001). One-third changed their approach from laparoscopic to open surgery owing to the popular (but evidence-lacking) advice from expert groups during the initial phase of the pandemic. No agreement on how to filter surgical smoke plume during laparoscopy was identified. There was an overall reduction in the number of patients admitted with appendicitis and one-third felt that patients who did present had more severe appendicitis than they usually observe. Conclusion: Conservative management of mild appendicitis has been possible during the pandemic. The fact that some surgeons switched to open appendicectomy may reflect the poor guidelines that emanated in the early phase of SARS-CoV-2