EAES and SAGES 2018 consensus conference on acute diverticulitis management:evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice

Background Acute diverticulitis (AD) presents a unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenge for general surgeons. This collaborative project between EAES and SAGES aimed to summarize recent evidence and draw statements of recommendation to guide our members on comprehensive AD management. Methods Systematic reviews of the literature were conducted across six AD topics by an international steering group including experts from both societies. Topics encompassed the epidemiology, diagnosis, management of non-complicated and complicated AD as well as emergency and elective operative AD management. Consensus statements and recommendations were generated, and the quality of the evidence and recommendation strength rated with the GRADE system. Modified Delphi methodology was used to reach consensus among experts prior to surveying the EAES and SAGES membership on the recommendations and likelihood to impact their practice. Results were presented at both EAES and SAGES annual meetings with live re-voting carried out for recommendations with < 70% agreement. Results A total of 51 consensus statements and 41 recommendations across all six topics were agreed upon by the experts and submitted for members’ online voting. Based on 1004 complete surveys and over 300 live votes at the SAGES and EAES Diverticulitis Consensus Conference (DCC), consensus was achieved for 97.6% (40/41) of recommendations with 92% (38/41) agreement on the likelihood that these recommendations would change practice if not already applied. Areas of persistent disagreement included the selective use of imaging to guide AD diagnosis, recommendations against antibiotics in non-complicated AD, and routine colonic evaluation after resolution of non-complicated diverticulitis. Conclusion This joint EAES and SAGES consensus conference updates clinicians on the current evidence and provides a set of recommendations that can guide clinical AD management practice

Management of acute diverticulitis with pericolic free gas (ADIFAS): an international multicenter observational study

Background:There are no specific recommendations regarding the optimal management of this group of patients. The World Society of Emergency Surgery suggested a nonoperative strategy with antibiotic therapy, but this was a weak recommendation. This study aims to identify the optimal management of patients with acute diverticulitis (AD) presenting with pericolic free air with or without pericolic fluid. Methods:A multicenter, prospective, international study of patients diagnosed with AD and pericolic-free air with or without pericolic free fluid at a computed tomography (CT) scan between May 2020 and June 2021 was included. Patients were excluded if they had intra-abdominal distant free air, an abscess, generalized peritonitis, or less than a 1-year follow-up. The primary outcome was the rate of failure of nonoperative management within the index admission. Secondary outcomes included the rate of failure of nonoperative management within the first year and risk factors for failure. Results:A total of 810 patients were recruited across 69 European and South American centers; 744 patients (92%) were treated nonoperatively, and 66 (8%) underwent immediate surgery. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Hinchey II-IV on diagnostic imaging was the only independent risk factor for surgical intervention during index admission (odds ratios: 12.5, 95% CI: 2.4-64, P=0.003). Among patients treated nonoperatively, at index admission, 697 (94%) patients were discharged without any complications, 35 (4.7%) required emergency surgery, and 12 (1.6%) percutaneous drainage. Free pericolic fluid on CT scan was associated with a higher risk of failure of nonoperative management (odds ratios: 4.9, 95% CI: 1.2-19.9, P=0.023), with 88% of success compared to 96% without free fluid (P&lt;0.001). The rate of treatment failure with nonoperative management during the first year of follow-up was 16.5%. Conclusion:Patients with AD presenting with pericolic free gas can be successfully managed nonoperatively in the vast majority of cases. Patients with both free pericolic gas and free pericolic fluid on a CT scan are at a higher risk of failing nonoperative management and require closer observation

Systematic review of nonoperative versus operative treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis

Background To compare the risk of complications between initial nonoperative treatment and appendectomy of uncomplicated (simple) appendicitis in children. Methods Systematic literature search. Eligible for inclusion were both and randomized controlled trials and cohort studies including children in which the outcome of nonoperative treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis was reported with a minimum follow-up period of one year. Two authors extracted data independently and assessed quality. Primary outcome parameter was the percentage of children experiencing complications. Secondary outcomes were early failures, recurrent appendicitis and appendectomies, for all indications and on request. Results Five of the 2051 articles screened were eligible for inclusion, including 147 children (nonoperative treatment) and 173 children (appendectomy) with one year follow-up. Percentage of children experiencing complications ranged from 0 to 13% versus 0–17% for nonoperative and appendectomy, respectively. Nonoperative treatment avoided an appendectomy in 62–81% of the children after one year follow-up. Conclusion The evidence base for initial nonoperative treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children is by far insufficient. It suggests that the percentage of patients experiencing complications in the initial nonoperative treatment group is comparable to the appendectomy group, and it may avoid an appendectomy in the large majority of children after one year follow-up. Type of study Systematic review. Level of evidence 1

Surgical challenges and research priorities in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic: EAES membership survey

Background: Healthcare systems and general surgeons are being challenged by the current pandemic. The European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) aimed to evaluate surgeons’ experiences and perspectives, to identify gaps in knowledge, to record shortcomings in resources and to register research priorities. Methods: An ad hoc web-based survey of EAES members and affiliates was developed by the EAES Research Committee. The questionnaire consisted of 69 items divided into the following sections: (Ι) demographics, (II) institutional burdens and management strategies, and (III) analysis of resource, knowledge, and evidence gaps. Descriptive statistics were summarized as frequencies, medians, ranges, and interquartile ranges, as appropriate. Results: The survey took place between March 25th and April 16th with a total of 550 surgeons from 79 countries. Eighty-one percent had to postpone elective cases or suspend their practice and 35% assumed roles not related to their primary expertise. One-fourth of respondents reported having encountered abdominal pathologies in COVID-19-positive patients, most frequently acute appendicitis (47% of respondents). The effect of protective measures in surgical or endoscopic procedures on infected patients, the effect of endoscopic surgery on infected patients, and the infectivity of positive patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery were prioritized as knowledge gaps and research priorities. Conclusions: Perspectives and priorities of EAES members in the era of the pandemic are hereto summarized. Research evidence is urgently needed to effectively respond to challenges arisen from the pandemic

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