The consequences of obesity on trauma, emergency surgery, and surgical critical care

The era of the acute care surgeon has arrived and this "new" specialty will be expected to provide trauma care, emergency surgery, and surgical critical care to a variety of patients arriving at their institution. With the exception of practicing bariatric surgeons, many general surgeons have limited experience caring for obese patients. Obese patients manifest unique physiology and pathophysiology, which can influence a surgeon's decision-making process. Following trauma, obese patients sustain different injuries than lean patients and have worse outcomes. Emergency surgery diseases may be difficult to diagnose in the obese patient and obesity is associated with increased complications in the postoperative patient. Caring for an obese patient in the surgical ICU presents a distinctive challenge and may require alterations in care. The following review should act as an overview of the pathophysiology of obesity and how obesity modifies the care of trauma, emergency surgery, and surgical critical care patients

Penetrating abdominal injuries: management controversies

Penetrating abdominal injuries have been traditionally managed by routine laparotomy. New understanding of trajectories, potential for organ injury, and correlation with advanced radiographic imaging has allowed a shift towards non-operative management of appropriate cases. Although a selective approach has been established for stab wounds, the management of abdominal gunshot wounds remains a matter of controversy. In this chapter we describe the rationale and methodology of selecting patients for non-operative management. We also discuss additional controversial issues, as related to antibiotic prophylaxis, management of asymptomatic thoracoabdominal injuries, and the use of colostomy vs. primary repair for colon injuries

Bologna Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction (ASBO): 2010 Evidence-Based Guidelines of the World Society of Emergency Surgery

Contains fulltext : 97685.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on diagnosis and management of ASBO. Initial conservative management is usually safe, however proper timing for discontinuing non operative treatment is still controversial. Open surgery or laparoscopy are used without standardized indications. METHODS: A panel of 13 international experts with interest and background in ASBO and peritoneal diseases, participated in a consensus conference during the 1st International Congress of the World Society of Emergency Surgery and 9th Peritoneum and Surgery Society meeting, in Bologna, July 1-3, 2010, for developing evidence-based recommendations for diagnosis and management of ASBO. Whenever was a lack of high-level evidence, the working group formulated guidelines by obtaining consensus. RECOMMENDATIONS: In absence of signs of strangulation and history of persistent vomiting or combined CT scan signs (free fluid, mesenteric oedema, small bowel faeces sign, devascularized bowel) patients with partial ASBO can be managed safely with NOM and tube decompression (either with long or NG) should be attempted. These patients are good candidates for Water Soluble Contrast Medium (WSCM) with both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. The appearance of water-soluble contrast in the colon on X-ray within 24 hours from administration predicts resolution. WSCM may be administered either orally or via NGT (50-150 ml) both immediately at admission or after an initial attempt of conservative treatment of 48 hours. The use of WSCM for ASBO is safe and reduces need for surgery, time to resolution and hospital stay.NOM, in absence of signs of strangulation or peritonitis, can be prolonged up to 72 hours. After 72 hours of NOM without resolution surgery is recommended.Patients treated non-operatively have shorter hospital stay, but higher recurrence rate and shorter time to re-admission, although the risk of new surgically treated episodes of ASBO is unchanged. Risk factors for recurrences are age <40 years and matted adhesions. WSCM does not affect recurrence rates or recurrences needing surgery when compared to traditional conservative treatment.Open surgery is the preferred method for surgical treatment of strangulating ASBO as well as after failed conservative management. In selected patients and with appropriate skills, laparoscopic approach can be attempted using open access technique. Access in the left upper quadrant should be safe. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis should be attempted preferably in case of first episode of SBO and/or anticipated single band. A low threshold for open conversion should be maintained.Peritoneal adhesions should be prevented. Hyaluronic acid-carboxycellulose membrane and icodextrin can reduce incidence of adhesions. Icodextrin may reduce the risk of re-obstruction. HA cannot reduce need of surgery

Outcomes of selective nonoperative management of civilian abdominal gunshot wounds: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background Although mandatory laparotomy has been standard of care for patients with abdominal gunshot wounds (GSWs) for decades, this approach is associated with non-therapeutic operations, morbidity, and long hospital stays. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to summarize outcomes of selective nonoperative management (SNOM) of civilian abdominal GSWs. Methods We searched electronic databases (March 1966–April 1, 2017) and reference lists of articles included in the systematic review for studies reporting outcomes of SNOM of civilian abdominal GSWs. We meta-analyzed the associated risks of SNOM-related failure (defined as laparotomy during hospital admission), mortality, and morbidity across included studies using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed by calculating I2 statistics and conducting tests of homogeneity. Results Of 7155 citations identified, we included 41 studies [n = 22,847 patients with abdominal GSWs, of whom 6777 (29.7%) underwent SNOM]. The pooled risk of failure of SNOM in hemodynamically stable patients without a reduced level of consciousness or signs of peritonitis was 7.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.9–10.1%; I2 = 92.6%, homogeneity p  0.99). In patients who failed SNOM, the pooled estimate of the risk of therapeutic laparotomy was 68.0% (95% CI = 58.3–77.7%; I2 = 91.5%; homogeneity p < 0.001). Risks of failure of SNOM were lowest in studies that evaluated patients with right thoracoabdomen (3.4%; 95% CI = 0–7.0%; I2 = 0%; homogeneity p = 0.45), flank (7.0%; 95% CI = 3.9–10.1%), and back (3.1%; 95% CI = 0–6.5%) GSWs and highest in those that evaluated patients with anterior abdomen (13.2%; 95% CI = 6.3–20.1%) GSWs. In patients who underwent mandatory abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT), the pooled risk of failure was 4.1% versus 8.3% in those who underwent selective CT (p = 0.08). The overall sample-size-weighted mean hospital length of stay among patients who underwent SNOM was 6 days versus 10 days if they failed SNOM or developed an in-hospital complication. Conclusions SNOM of abdominal GSWs is safe when conducted in hemodynamically stable patients without a reduced level of consciousness or signs of peritonitis. Failure of SNOM may be lower in patients with GSWs to the back, flank, or right thoracoabdomen and be decreased by mandatory use of abdominopelvic CT scans

Perforated and bleeding peptic ulcer : WSES guidelines

Background Peptic ulcer disease is common with a lifetime prevalence in the general population of 5-10% and an incidence of 0.1-0.3% per year. Despite a sharp reduction in incidence and rates of hospital admission and mortality over the past 30 years, complications are still encountered in 10-20% of these patients. Peptic ulcer disease remains a significant healthcare problem, which can consume considerable financial resources. Management may involve various subspecialties including surgeons, gastroenterologists, and radiologists. Successful management of patients with complicated peptic ulcer (CPU) involves prompt recognition, resuscitation when required, appropriate antibiotic therapy, and timely surgical/radiological treatment. Methods The present guidelines have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. To create these guidelines, a panel of experts was designed and charged by the board of the WSES to perform a systematic review of the available literature and to provide evidence-based statements with immediate practical application. All the statements were presented and discussed during the 5th WSES Congress, and for each statement, a consensus among the WSES panel of experts was reached. Conclusions The population considered in these guidelines is adult patients with suspected complicated peptic ulcer disease. These guidelines present evidence-based international consensus statements on the management of complicated peptic ulcer from a collaboration of a panel of experts and are intended to improve the knowledge and the awareness of physicians around the world on this specific topic. We divided our work into the two main topics, bleeding and perforated peptic ulcer, and structured it into six main topics that cover the entire management process of patients with complicated peptic ulcer, from diagnosis at ED arrival to post-discharge antimicrobial therapy, to provide an up-to-date, easy-to-use tool that can help physicians and surgeons during the decision-making process.Peer reviewe

Contemporary review of risk-stratified management in acute uncomplicated and complicated diverticulitis

BACKGROUND: Acute colonic diverticulitis is a common clinical condition. Severity of the disease is based on clinical, laboratory, and radiological investigations and dictates the need for medical or surgical intervention. Recent clinical trials have improved the understanding of the natural history of the disease resulting in new approaches to and better evidence for the management of acute diverticulitis. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library (years 2004-2015), MEDLINE (years 2004-2015), and EMBASE (years 2004-2015) databases. We used the search terms "diverticulitis, colonic" or "acute diverticulitis" or "divertic*" in combination with the terms "management," "antibiotics," "non-operative," or "surgery." Registers for clinical trials (such as the WHO registry and the https://clinicaltrials.gov/) were searched for ongoing, recruiting, or closed trials not yet published. RESULTS: Antibiotic treatment can be avoided in simple, non-complicated diverticulitis and outpatient management is safe. The management of complicated disease, ranging from a localized abscess to perforation with diffuse peritonitis, has changed towards either percutaneous or minimally invasive approaches in selected cases. The role of laparoscopic lavage without resection in perforated non-fecal diverticulitis is still debated; however, recent evidence from two randomised controlled trials has found a higher re-intervention in this group of patients. CONCLUSIONS: A shift in management has occurred towards conservative management in acute uncomplicated disease. Those with uncomplicated acute diverticulitis may be treated without antibiotics. For complicated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis, the use of peritoneal lavage appears to be non-superior to resection

Bologna guidelines for diagnosis and management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO): 2013 update of the evidence-based guidelines from the world society of emergency surgery ASBO working group

Peer reviewe