Components separation technique is feasible for assisting delayed primary fascial closure of open abdomen

Background and aims: The goal after open abdomen treatment is to reach primary fascial closure. Modern negative pressure wound therapy systems are sometimes inefficient for this purpose. This retrospective chart analysis describes the use of the components separation' method in facilitating primary fascial closure after open abdomen. Material and methods: A total of 16 consecutive critically ill surgical patients treated with components separation during open abdomen management were analyzed. No patients were excluded. Results: Primary fascial closure was achieved in 75% (12/16). Components separation was performed during ongoing open abdomen treatment in 7 patients and at the time of delayed primary fascial closure in 9 patients. Of the former, 3/7 (43%) patients reached primary fascial closure, whereas all 9 patients in the latter group had successful fascial closure without major complications (p=0.019). Conclusion: Components separation is a useful method in contributing to successful primary fascial closure in patients treated for open abdomen. Best results were obtained when components separation was performed simultaneously with primary fascial closure at the end of the open abdomen treatment.Peer reviewe

Compliance with evidence-based clinical guidelines in the management of acute biliary pancreatitis: the MANCTRA-1 study protocol

Despite existing evidence-based practice guidelines for the management of biliary acute pancreatitis (AP), the clinical compliance with recommendations is overall poor. Studies in this field have identified significant discrepancies between evidence-based recommendations and daily clinical practice. The most commonly reported gaps between clinical practice and AP guidelines include the indications for CT scan, need and timing of artificial nutritional support, indications for antibiotics, and surgical/endoscopic management of biliary AP. The MANCTRA-1 (coMpliAnce with evideNce-based cliniCal guidelines in the managemenT of acute biliaRy pancreAtitis) study is aiming to identify the areas for quality improvement that will require new implementation strategies. The study primary objective is to evaluate which items of the current AP guidelines are commonly disregarded and if they correlate with negative clinical outcomes according to the different clinical presentations of the disease. We attempt to summarize the main areas of sub-optimal care due to the lack of compliance with current guidelines to provide the basis for introducing a number of bundles in AP patients' management to be implemented during the next years. The MANCTRA-1 study is an international multicenter, retrospective cohort study with the purpose to assess the outcomes of patients admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of biliary AP and the compliance of surgeons worldwide to the most up-to-dated international guidelines on biliary AP. ClinicalTrials.Gov ID Number: NCT04747990, Date: February 23, 2021. Protocol Version V2.2

Decompressive laparotomy with temporary abdominal closure versus percutaneous puncture with placement of abdominal catheter in patients with abdominal compartment syndrome during acute pancreatitis: background and design of multicenter, randomised, controlled study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Development of abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) in patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) has a strong impact on the course of disease. Number of patients with this complication increases during the years due more aggressive fluid resuscitation, much bigger proportion of patients who is treated conservatively or by minimal invasive approach, and efforts to delay open surgery. There have not been standard recommendations for a surgical or some other interventional treatment of patients who develop ACS during the SAP. The aim of DECOMPRESS study was to compare decompresive laparotomy with temporary abdominal closure and percutaneus puncture with placement of abdominal catheter in these patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>One hundred patients with ACS will be randomly allocated to two groups: I) decompresive laparotomy with temporary abdominal closure or II) percutaneus puncture with placement of abdominal catheter. Patients will be recruited from five hospitals in Belgrade during two years period. The primary endpoint is the mortality rate within hospitalization. Secondary endpoints are time interval between intervention and resolving of organ failure and multi organ dysfunction syndrome, incidence of infectious complications and duration of hospital and ICU stay. A total sample size of 100 patients was calculated to demonstrate that decompresive laparotomy with temporary abdominal closure can reduce mortality rate from 60% to 40% with 80% power at 5% alfa.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>DECOMPRESS study is designed to reveal a reduction in mortality and major morbidity by using decompresive laparotomy with temporary abdominal closure in comparison with percutaneus puncture with placement of abdominal catheter in patients with ACS during SAP.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NTC00793715</p

Do young patients with high clinical suspicion of appendicitis really need cross-sectional imaging? Proceedings from a highly controversial debate among the experts' panel of 2020 WSES Jerusalem guidelines

Peer reviewe

Multidisciplinary management of elderly patients with rectal cancer: recommendations from the SICG (Italian Society of Geriatric Surgery), SIFIPAC (Italian Society of Surgical Pathophysiology), SICE (Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and new technologies), and the WSES (World Society of Emergency Surgery) International Consensus Project

Background and aims: Although rectal cancer is predominantly a disease of older patients, current guidelines do not incorporate optimal treatment recommendations for the elderly and address only partially the associated specific challenges encountered in this population. This results in a wide variation and disparity in delivering a standard of care to this subset of patients. As the burden of rectal cancer in the elderly population continues to increase, it is crucial to assess whether current recommendations on treatment strategies for the general population can be adopted for the older adults, with the same beneficial oncological and functional outcomes. This multidisciplinary experts’ consensus aims to refine current rectal cancer-specific guidelines for the elderly population in order to help to maximize rectal cancer therapeutic strategies while minimizing adverse impacts on functional outcomes and quality of life for these patients. Methods: The discussion among the steering group of clinical experts and methodologists from the societies’ expert panel involved clinicians practicing in general surgery, colorectal surgery, surgical oncology, geriatric oncology, geriatrics, gastroenterologists, radiologists, oncologists, radiation oncologists, and endoscopists. Research topics and questions were formulated, revised, and unanimously approved by all experts in two subsequent modified Delphi rounds in December 2020–January 2021. The steering committee was divided into nine teams following the main research field of members. Each conducted their literature search and drafted statements and recommendations on their research question. Literature search has been updated up to 2020 and statements and recommendations have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. A modified Delphi methodology was implemented to reach agreement among the experts on all statements and recommendations. Conclusions: The 2021 SICG-SIFIPAC-SICE-WSES consensus for the multidisciplinary management of elderly patients with rectal cancer aims to provide updated evidence-based statements and recommendations on each of the following topics: epidemiology, pre-intervention strategies, diagnosis and staging, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, surgery, watch and wait strategy, adjuvant chemotherapy, synchronous liver metastases, and emergency presentation of rectal cancer

2016 WSES guidelines on acute calculous cholecystitis (vol 11, 25, 2016)

Non peer reviewe

Complicated intra-abdominal infections worldwide: the definitive data of the CIAOW Study.

The CIAOW study (Complicated intra-abdominal infections worldwide observational study) is a multicenter observational study underwent in 68 medical institutions worldwide during a six-month study period (October 2012-March 2013). The study included patients older than 18 years undergoing surgery or interventional drainage to address complicated intra-abdominal infections (IAIs).1898 patients with a mean age of 51.6 years (range 18-99) were enrolled in the study. 777 patients (41%) were women and 1,121 (59%) were men. Among these patients, 1,645 (86.7%) were affected by community-acquired IAIs while the remaining 253 (13.3%) suffered from healthcare-associated infections. Intraperitoneal specimens were collected from 1,190 (62.7%) of the enrolled patients.827 patients (43.6%) were affected by generalized peritonitis while 1071 (56.4%) suffered from localized peritonitis or abscesses.The overall mortality rate was 10.5% (199/1898).According to stepwise multivariate analysis (PR = 0.005 and PE = 0.001), several criteria were found to be independent variables predictive of mortality, including patient age (OR = 1.1; 95%CI = 1.0-1.1; p &lt; 0.0001), the presence of small bowel perforation (OR = 2.8; 95%CI = 1.5-5.3; p &lt; 0.0001), a delayed initial intervention (a delay exceeding 24 hours) (OR = 1.8; 95%CI = 1.5-3.7; p &lt; 0.0001), ICU admission (OR = 5.9; 95%CI = 3.6-9.5; p &lt; 0.0001) and patient immunosuppression (OR = 3.8; 95%CI = 2.1-6.7; p &lt; 0.0001). © 2014 Sartelli et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Duodeno-pancreatic and extrahepatic biliary tree trauma: WSES-AAST guidelines

Duodeno-pancreatic and extrahepatic biliary tree injuries are rare in both adult and pediatric trauma patients, and due to their anatomical location, associated injuries are very common. Mortality is primarily related to associated injuries, but morbidity remains high even in isolated injuries. Optimal management of duodeno-bilio-pancreatic injuries is dictated primarily by hemodynamic stability, clinical presentation, and grade of injury. Endoscopic and percutaneous interventions have increased the ability to non-operatively manage these injuries. Late diagnosis and treatment are both associated to increased morbidity and mortality. Sequelae of late presentations of pancreatic injury and complications of severe pancreatic trauma are also increasingly addressed endoscopically and with interventional radiology procedures. However, for moderate and severe extrahepatic biliary and severe duodeno-pancreatic injuries, immediate operative intervention is preferred as associated injuries are frequent and commonly present with hemodynamic instability or peritonitis. The aim of this paper is to present the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) duodenal, pancreatic, and extrahepatic biliary tree trauma management guidelines

Defining Major Surgery: A Delphi Consensus Among European Surgical Association (ESA) Members

Background: Major surgery is a term frequently used but poorly defined. The aim of the present study was to reach a consensus in the definition of major surgery within a panel of expert surgeons from the European Surgical Association (ESA). Methods: A 3-round Delphi process was performed. All ESA members were invited to participate in the expert panel. In round 1, experts were inquired by open- and closed-ended questions on potential criteria to define major surgery. Results were analyzed and presented back anonymously to the panel within next rounds. Closed-ended questions in round 2 and 3 were either binary or statements to be rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strong disagreement) to 5 (strong agreement). Participants were sent 3 reminders at 2-week intervals for each round. 70% of agreement was considered to indicate consensus. Results: Out of 305 ESA members, 67 (22%) answered all the 3 rounds. Significant comorbidities were the only preoperative factor retained to define major surgery (78%). Vascular clampage or organ ischemia (92%), high intraoperative blood loss (90%), high noradrenalin requirements (77%), long operative time (73%) and perioperative blood transfusion (70%) were procedure-related factors that reached consensus. Regarding postoperative factors, systemic inflammatory response (76%) and the need for intensive or intermediate care (88%) reached consensus. Consequences of major surgery were high morbidity (>30% overall) and mortality (>2%). Conclusion: ESA experts defined major surgery according to extent and complexity of the procedure, its pathophysiological consequences and consecutive clinical outcomes