Ostomy closure rate during COVID-19 pandemic. An Italian multicentre observational study

During the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, most of the surgical procedures were performed for emergencies or oncologic reasons to the detriment of the remaining elective procedures for benign conditions. Ileostomy or colostomy creation are sequelae of oncologic or emergency colorectal surgery, but their closure does not fall within the definition of oncologic or emergency surgery. The aim of this retrospective multicentre observational study is to report the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the ostomy closure rate in Italy. Data regarding ileostomy and colostomy creation and closure from 24 Italian centres, during the study period (March 2020–February 2021) and during the control period (March 2019–February 2020) were collected. Three hospitals (12.5%) were COVID free. The number of colostomies and ileostomies created and closed in the same period was lower (-18.8% and-30%, respectively) in the study period in comparison to the control period (p = 0.1915 and p = 0.0001, respectively), such as the ostomies closed in the analysed periods but created before (colostomy-36.2% and ileostomy-7.4%, p = 0.2211 and p = 0.1319, respectively). Overall, a 19.5% reduction in ostomies closed occurred in the study period. Based on the present study, a reduction in ostomy closure rate occurred in Italy between March 2020 and February 2021. During the pandemic, the need to change the clinical practice probably prolonged deterioration of quality of life in patients with ostomies, increasing number of stomas that will never be closed, and related management costs, even if these issues have not been investigated in this study

Diversity and ethics in trauma and acute care surgery teams: results from an international survey

Background: Investigating the context of trauma and acute care surgery, the article aims at understanding the factors that can enhance some ethical aspects, namely the importance of patient consent, the perceptiveness of the ethical role of the trauma leader, and the perceived importance of ethics as an educational subject. Methods: The article employs an international questionnaire promoted by the World Society of Emergency Surgery. Results: Through the analysis of 402 fully filled questionnaires by surgeons from 72 different countries, the three main ethical topics are investigated through the lens of gender, membership of an academic or non-academic institution, an official trauma team, and a diverse group. In general terms, results highlight greater attention paid by surgeons belonging to academic institutions, official trauma teams, and diverse groups. Conclusions: Our results underline that some organizational factors (e.g., the fact that the team belongs to a university context or is more diverse) might lead to the development of a higher sensibility on ethical matters. Embracing cultural diversity forces trauma teams to deal with different mindsets. Organizations should, therefore, consider those elements in defining their organizational procedures. Level of evidence: Trauma and acute care teams work under tremendous pressure and complex circumstances, with their members needing to make ethical decisions quickly. The international survey allowed to shed light on how team assembly decisions might represent an opportunity to coordinate team member actions and increase performance

Correction to: Two years later: Is the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic still having an impact on emergency surgery? An international cross-sectional survey among WSES members

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is still ongoing and a major challenge for health care services worldwide. In the first WSES COVID-19 emergency surgery survey, a strong negative impact on emergency surgery (ES) had been described already early in the pandemic situation. However, the knowledge is limited about current effects of the pandemic on patient flow through emergency rooms, daily routine and decision making in ES as well as their changes over time during the last two pandemic years. This second WSES COVID-19 emergency surgery survey investigates the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on ES during the course of the pandemic. Methods: A web survey had been distributed to medical specialists in ES during a four-week period from January 2022, investigating the impact of the pandemic on patients and septic diseases both requiring ES, structural problems due to the pandemic and time-to-intervention in ES routine. Results: 367 collaborators from 59 countries responded to the survey. The majority indicated that the pandemic still significantly impacts on treatment and outcome of surgical emergency patients (83.1% and 78.5%, respectively). As reasons, the collaborators reported decreased case load in ES (44.7%), but patients presenting with more prolonged and severe diseases, especially concerning perforated appendicitis (62.1%) and diverticulitis (57.5%). Otherwise, approximately 50% of the participants still observe a delay in time-to-intervention in ES compared with the situation before the pandemic. Relevant causes leading to enlarged time-to-intervention in ES during the pandemic are persistent problems with in-hospital logistics, lacks in medical staff as well as operating room and intensive care capacities during the pandemic. This leads not only to the need for triage or transferring of ES patients to other hospitals, reported by 64.0% and 48.8% of the collaborators, respectively, but also to paradigm shifts in treatment modalities to non-operative approaches reported by 67.3% of the participants, especially in uncomplicated appendicitis, cholecystitis and multiple-recurrent diverticulitis. Conclusions: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic still significantly impacts on care and outcome of patients in ES. Well-known problems with in-hospital logistics are not sufficiently resolved by now; however, medical staff shortages and reduced capacities have been dramatically aggravated over last two pandemic years

Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis

Background Appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. The aim of this study was to determine whether existing risk prediction models can reliably identify patients presenting to hospital in the UK with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain who are at low risk of appendicitis. Methods A systematic search was completed to identify all existing appendicitis risk prediction models. Models were validated using UK data from an international prospective cohort study that captured consecutive patients aged 16–45 years presenting to hospital with acute RIF in March to June 2017. The main outcome was best achievable model specificity (proportion of patients who did not have appendicitis correctly classified as low risk) whilst maintaining a failure rate below 5 per cent (proportion of patients identified as low risk who actually had appendicitis). Results Some 5345 patients across 154 UK hospitals were identified, of which two‐thirds (3613 of 5345, 67·6 per cent) were women. Women were more than twice as likely to undergo surgery with removal of a histologically normal appendix (272 of 964, 28·2 per cent) than men (120 of 993, 12·1 per cent) (relative risk 2·33, 95 per cent c.i. 1·92 to 2·84; P < 0·001). Of 15 validated risk prediction models, the Adult Appendicitis Score performed best (cut‐off score 8 or less, specificity 63·1 per cent, failure rate 3·7 per cent). The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score performed best for men (cut‐off score 2 or less, specificity 24·7 per cent, failure rate 2·4 per cent). Conclusion Women in the UK had a disproportionate risk of admission without surgical intervention and had high rates of normal appendicectomy. Risk prediction models to support shared decision‐making by identifying adults in the UK at low risk of appendicitis were identified

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Is laparoscopic surgery really effective for the treatment of colon and rectal cancer in very elderly over 80&#160;years old? A prospective multicentric case&#8211;control assessment

Background: To evaluate the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery (LCS) for colon and rectal cancer in the very elderly over 80\ua0years old. Methods: We performed a prospective multicentric analysis comparing patients over 80 years (Group A) and patients between 60 and 69 years (Group B) undergoing LCS for cancer from January 2008 to December 2013. Colon and rectal cancers were analyzed separately. Comorbidity and complications were classified using the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and the Clavien\u2013Dindo system, respectively. Oncological parameters included tumor-free margins, number of lymph nodes harvested and circumferential resection margin. Results: Group A included 96 and 33 patients, and Group B 220 and 82 for colon and rectal cancers, respectively. Groups were similar except for ASA score and CCI, as expected. There was no significant difference in operative time [colon; rectum] (180[IQR 150\u2013200] vs 180[150\u2013210] min; NS\u2014180[160\u2013210] vs 180[165\u2013240] min; NS), estimated blood loss (50[25\u201375] vs 50[25\u2013120]\ua0mL; NS\u201450[0\u2013150] vs 50[25\u2013108.7]\ua0mL; NS) and conversion rate (2.1 vs 2.7\ua0%; NS\u20143.0 vs 2.4\ua0%; NS). Timing of first stool (3[2\u20133.25] vs 3[2\u20135] dd; NS\u20143[2\u20134] vs 3[2\u20135] dd; NS), length of stay (7[6\u20138] vs 7[6\u20138] dd; NS\u20148[8\u20139] vs 8[7\u20139] dd; NS) and readmission rate (1.0 vs 0.45\ua0%; NS\u20146.1 vs 1.2\ua0%; NS) were similar. Tumor-free margins were appropriate, and positivity of CRM is poor (6.1 vs 4.9; NS). We did not record significant differences in complications rate (47.9 vs 43.6\ua0%; NS\u201463.6 vs 52.4\ua0%; NS). Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery is effective for the treatment of colorectal cancer even in the very elderly. Age is not a risk factor or a limitation for LCS