Biliary Sepsis Due to Recurrent Acute Calculus Cholecystitis (ACC) in a High Surgical-Risk Elderly Patient: An Unexpected Complication

Acute calculus cholecystitis (ACC) is increasing in frequency within an ageing population, in which biliary tract infection, including cholecystitis and cholangitis, is the second most common cause of sepsis, with higher morbidity and mortality rates. Patient’s critical conditions, such as septic shock or anaesthesiology contraindication, may be reasons to avoid laparoscopic cholecystectomy—the first-line treatment of ACC—preferring gallbladder drainage. It can aid in patient’s stabilization with also the benefit of identifying the causative organism to establish a targeted antibiotic therapy, especially in patients at high risk for antimicrobial resistance such as healthcare-associated infection. Nevertheless, a recent randomized clinical trial showed that laparoscopic cholecystectomy can reduce the rate of major complications compared with percutaneous catheter drainage in critically ill patients too. On the other hand, among the possibilities to control biliary sepsis in non-operative management of ACC, according to recent meta-analysis, endoscopic gallbladder drainage showed better clinical success rate, and it is gaining popularity because of the potential advantage of allowing gallstones clearance to reduce recurrences of ACC. However, complications that may arise, although rare, can worsen an already weak clinical condition, as happened to the high surgical-risk elderly patient taken into account in our case report

Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy is widely adopted across nearly all surgical subspecialties in the elective setting. Initially finding indication in minor abdominal emergencies, it has gradually become the standard approach in the majority of elective general surgery procedures. Despite many technological advances and increasing acceptance, the laparoscopic approach remains underutilized in emergency general surgery and in abdominal trauma. Emergency laparotomy continues to carry a high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been a growing interest from emergency and trauma surgeons in adopting minimally invasive surgery approaches in the acute surgical setting. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a review of the literature to reach a consensus on the indications and benefits of a laparoscopic-first approach in patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies or abdominal trauma. METHODS: This position paper was developed according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee performed the literature review and drafted the position paper. An international panel of 54 experts then critically revised the manuscript and discussed it in detail, to develop a consensus on a position statement. RESULTS: A total of 323 studies (systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized clinical trial, retrospective comparative cohort studies, case series) have been selected from an initial pool of 7409 studies. Evidence demonstrates several benefits of the laparoscopic approach in stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgical emergencies or abdominal trauma. The selection of a stable patient seems to be of paramount importance for a safe adoption of a laparoscopic approach. In hemodynamically stable patients, the laparoscopic approach was found to be safe, feasible and effective as a therapeutic tool or helpful to identify further management steps and needs, resulting in improved outcomes, regardless of conversion. Appropriate patient selection, surgeon experience and rigorous minimally invasive surgical training, remain crucial factors to increase the adoption of laparoscopy in emergency general surgery and abdominal trauma. CONCLUSIONS: The WSES expert panel suggests laparoscopy as the first approach for stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma

Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma

Abstract Background Laparoscopy is widely adopted across nearly all surgical subspecialties in the elective setting. Initially finding indication in minor abdominal emergencies, it has gradually become the standard approach in the majority of elective general surgery procedures. Despite many technological advances and increasing acceptance, the laparoscopic approach remains underutilized in emergency general surgery and in abdominal trauma. Emergency laparotomy continues to carry a high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been a growing interest from emergency and trauma surgeons in adopting minimally invasive surgery approaches in the acute surgical setting. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a review of the literature to reach a consensus on the indications and benefits of a laparoscopic-first approach in patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies or abdominal trauma. Methods This position paper was developed according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee performed the literature review and drafted the position paper. An international panel of 54 experts then critically revised the manuscript and discussed it in detail, to develop a consensus on a position statement. Results A total of 323 studies (systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized clinical trial, retrospective comparative cohort studies, case series) have been selected from an initial pool of 7409 studies. Evidence demonstrates several benefits of the laparoscopic approach in stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgical emergencies or abdominal trauma. The selection of a stable patient seems to be of paramount importance for a safe adoption of a laparoscopic approach. In hemodynamically stable patients, the laparoscopic approach was found to be safe, feasible and effective as a therapeutic tool or helpful to identify further management steps and needs, resulting in improved outcomes, regardless of conversion. Appropriate patient selection, surgeon experience and rigorous minimally invasive surgical training, remain crucial factors to increase the adoption of laparoscopy in emergency general surgery and abdominal trauma. Conclusions The WSES expert panel suggests laparoscopy as the first approach for stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma

GOSAFE - Geriatric Oncology Surgical Assessment and Functional rEcovery after Surgery:early analysis on 977 patients

Objective: Older patients with cancer value functional outcomes as much as survival, but surgical studies lack functional recovery (FR) data. The value of a standardized frailty assessment has been confirmed, yet it's infrequently utilized due to time restrictions into everyday practice. The multicenter GOSAFE study was designed to (1) evaluate the trajectory of patients' quality of life (QoL) after cancer surgery (2) assess baseline frailty indicators in unselected patients (3) clarify the most relevant tools in predicting FR and clinical outcomes. This is a report of the study design and baseline patient evaluations. Materials & Methods: GOSAFE prospectively collected a baseline multidimensional evaluation before major elective surgery in patients (≥70 years) from 26 international units. Short−/mid−/long-term surgical outcomes were recorded with QoL and FR data. Results: 1003 patients were enrolled in a 26-month span. Complete baseline data were available for 977(97.4%). Median age was 78 years (range 70–94); 52.8% males. 968(99%) lived at home, 51.6% without caregiver. 54.4% had ≥ 3 medications, 5.9% none. Patients were dependent (ADL 20 s (5.2%) or ASAIII-IV (48.8%). Major comorbidities (CACI > 6) were detected in 36%; 20.9% of patients had cognitive impairment according to Mini-Cog. Conclusion: The GOSAFE showed that frailty is frequent in older patients undergoing cancer surgery. QoL and FR, for the first time, are going to be primary outcomes of a real-life observational study. The crucial role of frailty assessment is going to be addressed in the ability to predict postoperative outcomes and to correlate with QoL and FR

Excisional hemorrhoidectomy versus dearterialization with mucopexy for the treatment of grade III hemorrhoidal disease: the EMODART3 multicenter study

Background: Over the past few decades, several surgical approaches have been proposed to treat hemorrhoids. Objective: This multicenter study aimed to compare transanal hemorrhoidal artery ligation and conventional excisional hemorrhoidectomy for grade III hemorrhoidal disease. Design: Multicenter retrospective study. Settings: Any center belonging to the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery in which at least 30 surgical procedures per year for hemorrhoidal disease were performed was able to join the study. Patients: Clinical data from patients with Goligher's grade III hemorrhoidal disease who underwent excisional hemorrhoidectomy or hemorrhoidal artery ligation were retrospectively analyzed after a 24-month follow-up period. Main outcome measures: The primary aims were to evaluate the adoption of 2 different surgical techniques and to compare them in terms of symptoms, postoperative adverse events, and recurrences at a 24-month follow-up. Results: Data from 1681 patients were analyzed. The results of both groups were comparable in terms of postoperative clinical score by multiple regression analysis and matched case-control analysis. Patients who underwent excisional hemorrhoidectomy had a significantly higher risk of postoperative complication (adjusted OR = 1.58; p = 0.006). A secondary analysis highlighted that excisional hemorrhoidectomy performed with new devices and hemorrhoidal artery ligation reported a significantly lower risk for complications than excisional hemorrhoidectomy performed with traditional monopolar diathermy. At the 24-month follow-up assessment, recurrence was significantly higher in the hemorrhoidal artery ligation group (adjusted OR = 0.50; p = 0.001). A secondary analysis did not show a higher risk of recurrences based on the type of device. Limitations: The retrospective design and the self-reported nature of data from different centers. Conclusions: Hemorrhoidal artery ligation is an effective option for grade III hemorrhoidal disease; however, it is burdened by a high risk of recurrences. Excisional hemorrhoidectomy performed with newer devices is competitive in terms of postoperative complications

Predicting Functional Recovery and Quality of Life in Older Patients Undergoing Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Real-World Data From the International GOSAFE Study

PURPOSE The GOSAFE study evaluates risk factors for failing to achieve good quality of life (QoL) and functional recovery (FR) in older patients undergoing surgery for colon and rectal cancer.METHODS Patients age 70 years and older undergoing major elective colorectal surgery were prospectively enrolled. Frailty assessment was performed and outcomes, including QoL (EQ-5D-3L) recorded (3/6 months postoperatively). Postoperative FR was defined as a combination of Activity of Daily Living >= 5 + Timed Up & Go test <20 seconds + MiniCog >2.RESULTS Prospective complete data were available for 625/646 consecutive patients (96.9%; 435 colon and 190 rectal cancer), 52.6% men, and median age was 79.0 years (IQR, 74.6-82.9 years). Surgery was minimally invasive in 73% of patients (321/435 colon; 135/190 rectum). At 3-6 months, 68.9%-70.3% patients experienced equal/better QoL (72.8%-72.9% colon, 60.1%-63.9% rectal cancer). At logistic regression analysis, preoperative Flemish Triage Risk Screening Tool >= 2 (3-month odds ratio [OR], 1.68; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.73; P = .034, 6-month OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.06 to 2.75; P = .027) and postoperative complications (3-month OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.20 to 3.42; P = .008, 6-month OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.15 to 5.68; P = .02) are associated with decreased QoL after colectomy. Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) >= 2 is a strong predictor of postoperative QoL decline in the rectal cancer subgroup (OR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.45 to 9.92; P = .006). FR was reported by 254/323 (78.6%) patients with colon and 94/133 (70.6%) with rectal cancer. Charlson Age Comorbidity Index >= 7 (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.26 to 5.32; P = .009), ECOG >= 2 (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.36 to 7.20; P = .007 colon; OR, 4.61; 95% CI, 1.45 to 14.63; P = .009 rectal surgery), severe complications (OR, 17.33; 95% CI, 7.30 to 40.8; P < .001), fTRST >= 2 (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.40 to 5.25; P = .003), and palliative surgery (OR, 4.11; 95% CI, 1.29 to 13.07; P = .017) are risk factors for not achieving FR.CONCLUSION The majority of older patients experience good QoL and stay independent after colorectal cancer surgery. Predictors for failing to achieve these essential outcomes are now defined to guide patients' and families' preoperative counseling

Quality of life in older adults after major cancer surgery: the GOSAFE international study

Abstract Background Accurate quality of life (QoL) data and functional results after cancer surgery are lacking for older patients. The international, multicenter Geriatric Oncology Surgical Assessment and Functional rEcovery after Surgery (GOSAFE) Study compares QoL before and after surgery and identifies predictors of decline in QoL. Methods GOSAFE prospectively collected data before and after major elective cancer surgery on older adults (≥70 years). Frailty assessment was performed and postoperative outcomes recorded (30, 90, and 180 days postoperatively) together with QoL data by means of the three-level version of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L), including 2 components: an index (range = 0-1) generated by 5 domains (mobility, self-care, ability to perform the usual activities, pain or discomfort, anxiety or depression) and a visual analog scale. Results Data from 26 centers were collected (February 2017-March 2019). Complete data were available for 942/1005 consecutive patients (94.0%): 492 male (52.2%), median age 78 years (range = 70-95 years), and primary tumor was colorectal in 67.8%. A total 61.2% of all surgeries were via a minimally invasive approach. The 30-, 90-, and 180-day mortality was 3.7%, 6.3%, and 9%, respectively. At 30 and 180 days, postoperative morbidity was 39.2% and 52.4%, respectively, and Clavien-Dindo III-IV complications were 13.5% and 18.7%, respectively. The mean EQ-5D-3L index was similar before vs 3 months but improved at 6 months (0.79 vs 0.82; P < .001). Domains showing improvement were pain and anxiety or depression. A Flemish Triage Risk Screening Tool score greater than or equal to 2 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.13 to 2.21, P = .007), palliative surgery (OR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.01 to 4.52, P = .046), postoperative complications (OR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.19 to 3.18, P = .007) correlated with worsening QoL. Conclusions GOSAFE shows that older adults’ preoperative QoL is preserved 3 months after cancer surgery, independent of their age. Frailty screening tools, patient-reported outcomes, and goals-of-care discussions can guide decisions to pursue surgery and direct patients’ expectations

Time for a paradigm shift in shared decision-making in trauma and emergency surgery? Results from an international survey

Background Shared decision-making (SDM) between clinicians and patients is one of the pillars of the modern patient-centric philosophy of care. This study aims to explore SDM in the discipline of trauma and emergency surgery, investigating its interpretation as well as the barriers and facilitators for its implementation among surgeons. Methods Grounding on the literature on the topics of the understanding, barriers, and facilitators of SDM in trauma and emergency surgery, a survey was created by a multidisciplinary committee and endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). The survey was sent to all 917 WSES members, advertised through the society’s website, and shared on the society’s Twitter profile. Results A total of 650 trauma and emergency surgeons from 71 countries in five continents participated in the initiative. Less than half of the surgeons understood SDM, and 30% still saw the value in exclusively engaging multidisciplinary provider teams without involving the patient. Several barriers to effectively partnering with the patient in the decision-making process were identified, such as the lack of time and the need to concentrate on making medical teams work smoothly. Discussion Our investigation underlines how only a minority of trauma and emergency surgeons understand SDM, and perhaps, the value of SDM is not fully accepted in trauma and emergency situations. The inclusion of SDM practices in clinical guidelines may represent the most feasible and advocated solutions

Surgeons' perspectives on artificial intelligence to support clinical decision-making in trauma and emergency contexts: results from an international survey

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is gaining traction in medicine and surgery. AI-based applications can offer tools to examine high-volume data to inform predictive analytics that supports complex decision-making processes. Time-sensitive trauma and emergency contexts are often challenging. The study aims to investigate trauma and emergency surgeons' knowledge and perception of using AI-based tools in clinical decision-making processes. Methods: An online survey grounded on literature regarding AI-enabled surgical decision-making aids was created by a multidisciplinary committee and endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). The survey was advertised to 917 WSES members through the society's website and Twitter profile. Results: 650 surgeons from 71 countries in five continents participated in the survey. Results depict the presence of technology enthusiasts and skeptics and surgeons' preference toward more classical decision-making aids like clinical guidelines, traditional training, and the support of their multidisciplinary colleagues. A lack of knowledge about several AI-related aspects emerges and is associated with mistrust. Discussion: The trauma and emergency surgical community is divided into those who firmly believe in the potential of AI and those who do not understand or trust AI-enabled surgical decision-making aids. Academic societies and surgical training programs should promote a foundational, working knowledge of clinical AI