Influenza del carsismo sulla falesia e negli ipogei di Roca Vecchia

ItNumerosi e frequenti crolli di blocchi di roccia interessano la falesia di Roca Vecchia e gli ipogei delle Grotte della Poesia. Le ricerche condotte hanno individuato i processi ed evidenziato le differenti azioni carsiche attive all'origine dei fenomeni gravitativi. In particolare, il mescolamento delle acque dolci meteoriche e di falda con quelle marine è causa di ipercarsismo chimico, molto aggressivo sul calcare. Altri processi ipercarsici derivano dall’idrodinamismo costiero che causa, specie nel sopratidale e intertidale, variazioni di umidità e salinità. Importanti risultano anche le azioni di bioerosione esercitate da organismi, specie in corrispondenza del solco di battente alla base della falesia. Di modesta entità risultano invece gli effetti delle azioni meccaniche dovute all'idrodinamismo costiero. Il carsismo contribuisce significativamente a determinare il "rapido" arretramento della linea di costa.EnSalento peninsula is one of the most interesting areas to study coastal karst in the Mediterranean Basin. This paper deals with analysis of geological, morphological and biological factors upon the evolution on the coastal slope and karst cave system ("Grotte della Poesia") of the Roca Vecchia area. The Roca Vecchia area is set up by highly weathered carbonate deposits which are interested by four joint systems. Several rockfalls have been observed along the coastal slope as well as inside the cave system. We notice that the shoreline has been retrograding.Different morphological processes and active karstic phenomena have been characterized. The mixing of fresh groundwater and rainfall with sea water causes "hyperkarst" conditions, as the brackish water dissolves more calcium carbonate. As well as humidity and salinity changes especially in the intermediate tide "band" cause rock dissolution.Moreover, many living beings are responsible for "biological karst" erosion on the notch at the foot of the slope. On the base of the field features, karst phenomena are among the main causes of the high rate of the retrograding shoreline along the Roca Vecchia coast

How future surgery will benefit from SARS-COV-2-related measures: a SPIGC survey conveying the perspective of Italian surgeons

COVID-19 negatively affected surgical activity, but the potential benefits resulting from adopted measures remain unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the change in surgical activity and potential benefit from COVID-19 measures in perspective of Italian surgeons on behalf of SPIGC. A nationwide online survey on surgical practice before, during, and after COVID-19 pandemic was conducted in March-April 2022 (NCT:05323851). Effects of COVID-19 hospital-related measures on surgical patients' management and personal professional development across surgical specialties were explored. Data on demographics, pre-operative/peri-operative/post-operative management, and professional development were collected. Outcomes were matched with the corresponding volume. Four hundred and seventy-three respondents were included in final analysis across 14 surgical specialties. Since SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, application of telematic consultations (4.1% vs. 21.6%; p < 0.0001) and diagnostic evaluations (16.4% vs. 42.2%; p < 0.0001) increased. Elective surgical activities significantly reduced and surgeons opted more frequently for conservative management with a possible indication for elective (26.3% vs. 35.7%; p < 0.0001) or urgent (20.4% vs. 38.5%; p < 0.0001) surgery. All new COVID-related measures are perceived to be maintained in the future. Surgeons' personal education online increased from 12.6% (pre-COVID) to 86.6% (post-COVID; p < 0.0001). Online educational activities are considered a beneficial effect from COVID pandemic (56.4%). COVID-19 had a great impact on surgical specialties, with significant reduction of operation volume. However, some forced changes turned out to be benefits. Isolation measures pushed the use of telemedicine and telemetric devices for outpatient practice and favored communication for educational purposes and surgeon-patient/family communication. From the Italian surgeons' perspective, COVID-related measures will continue to influence future surgical clinical practice

Colorectal Cancer Stage at Diagnosis Before vs During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy

IMPORTANCE Delays in screening programs and the reluctance of patients to seek medical attention because of the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 could be associated with the risk of more advanced colorectal cancers at diagnosis. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was associated with more advanced oncologic stage and change in clinical presentation for patients with colorectal cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This retrospective, multicenter cohort study included all 17 938 adult patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021 (pandemic period), and from January 1, 2018, to February 29, 2020 (prepandemic period), in 81 participating centers in Italy, including tertiary centers and community hospitals. Follow-up was 30 days from surgery. EXPOSURES Any type of surgical procedure for colorectal cancer, including explorative surgery, palliative procedures, and atypical or segmental resections. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was advanced stage of colorectal cancer at diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were distant metastasis, T4 stage, aggressive biology (defined as cancer with at least 1 of the following characteristics: signet ring cells, mucinous tumor, budding, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and lymphangitis), stenotic lesion, emergency surgery, and palliative surgery. The independent association between the pandemic period and the outcomes was assessed using multivariate random-effects logistic regression, with hospital as the cluster variable. RESULTS A total of 17 938 patients (10 007 men [55.8%]; mean [SD] age, 70.6 [12.2] years) underwent surgery for colorectal cancer: 7796 (43.5%) during the pandemic period and 10 142 (56.5%) during the prepandemic period. Logistic regression indicated that the pandemic period was significantly associated with an increased rate of advanced-stage colorectal cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95%CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .03), aggressive biology (OR, 1.32; 95%CI, 1.15-1.53; P < .001), and stenotic lesions (OR, 1.15; 95%CI, 1.01-1.31; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This cohort study suggests a significant association between the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the risk of a more advanced oncologic stage at diagnosis among patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer and might indicate a potential reduction of survival for these patients

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

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

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

The "DICA" endoscopic classification for diverticular disease of the colon shows a significant interobserver agreement among community endoscopists

BACKGROUND AND AIM: An endoscopic classification of Diverticular Disease (DD), called DICA (Diverticular Inflammation and Complication Assessment) is currently available. It scores severity of the disease as DICA 1, DICA 2 and DICA 3. Our aim was to assess the agreement levels for this classification among an endoscopist community setting. METHODS: A total of 66 endoscopists independently scored a set of DD endoscopic videos. The percentages of overall agreement on the DICA score and a free-marginal multirater kappa (κ) coefficient were reported as statistical measures of the inter-rater agreement. RESULTS: The overall agreement levels were: 70.2% for DICA 1, 70.5% for DICA 2, 81.3% for DICA 3. The free marginal κ was: 0.553 for DICA 1, 0.558 for DICA 2, 0.719 for DICA 3. The agreement levels among the expert group were: 78.8% for DICA 1, 80.2% for DICA 2, 88.5% for DICA 3. The free marginal κ among the expert group were: 0.682 for DICA 1, 0.712 for DICA 2, 0.828 for DICA 3. The agreement of expert raters on the single item of the DICA classification was superior to the agreement of the overall group. CONCLUSIONS: The overall inter-rater agreement for DICA score in this study ranges from moderate to good, with a significant improvement in the expert subgroup of raters. Diverticular Inflammation and Complication Assessment is a simple and reproducible endoscopic scoring system

The “dica” endoscopic classification for diverticular disease of the colon shows a significant interobserver agreement among community endoscopists

BACKGROUND AND AIM: An endoscopic classification of Diverticular Disease (DD), called DICA (Diverticular Inflammation and Complication Assessment) is currently available. It scores severity of the disease as DICA 1, DICA 2 and DICA 3. Our aim was to assess the agreement levels for this classification among an endoscopist community setting. METHODS: A total of 66 endoscopists independently scored a set of DD endoscopic videos. The percentages of overall agreement on the DICA score and a free-marginal multirater kappa (κ) coefficient were reported as statistical measures of the inter-rater agreement. RESULTS: The overall agreement levels were: 70.2% for DICA 1, 70.5% for DICA 2, 81.3% for DICA 3. The free marginal κ was: 0.553 for DICA 1, 0.558 for DICA 2, 0.719 for DICA 3. The agreement levels among the expert group were: 78.8% for DICA 1, 80.2% for DICA 2, 88.5% for DICA 3. The free marginal κ among the expert group were: 0.682 for DICA 1, 0.712 for DICA 2, 0.828 for DICA 3. The agreement of expert raters on the single item of the DICA classification was superior to the agreement of the overall group. CONCLUSIONS: The overall inter-rater agreement for DICA score in this study ranges from moderate to good, with a significant improvement in the expert subgroup of raters. Diverticular Inflammation and Complication Assessment is a simple and reproducible endoscopic scoring system

The COVID - AGICT study: COVID–19 and advanced gastro-intestinal cancer surgical treatment. A multicentric Italian study on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic impact on gastro-intestinal cancers surgical treatment during the 2020. Analysis of perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes

Background This Italian multicentric retrospective study aimed to investigate the possible changes in outcomes of patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method Our primary endpoint was to determine whether the pandemic scenario increased the rate of patients with colorectal, gastroesophageal, and pancreatic cancers resected at an advanced stage in 2020 compared to 2019. Considering different cancer staging systems, we divided tumors into early stages and advanced stages, using pathological outcomes. Furthermore, to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical outcomes, perioperative data of both 2020 and 2019 were also examined. Results Overall, a total of 8250 patients, 4370 (53%) and 3880 (47%) were surgically treated during 2019 and 2020 respectively, in 62 Italian surgical Units. In 2020, the rate of patients treated with an advanced pathological stage was not different compared to 2019 (P = 0.25). Nevertheless, the analysis of quarters revealed that in the second half of 2020 the rate of advanced cancer resected, tented to be higher compared with the same months of 2019 (P = 0.05). During the pandemic year ‘Charlson Comorbidity Index score of cancer patients (5.38 ± 2.08 vs 5.28 ± 2.22, P = 0.036), neoadjuvant treatments (23.9% vs. 19.5%, P < 0.001), rate of urgent diagnosis (24.2% vs 20.3%, P < 0.001), colorectal cancer urgent resection (9.4% vs. 7.37, P < 0.001), and the rate of positive nodes on the total nodes resected per surgery increased significantly (7 vs 9% - 2.02 ± 4.21 vs 2.39 ± 5.23, P < 0.001). Conclusions Although the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic did not influence the pathological stage of colorectal, gastroesophageal, and pancreatic cancers at the time of surgery, our study revealed that the pandemic scenario negatively impacted on several perioperative and post-operative outcomes

The MIS-COVID-AGICT Study: Trend of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Gastrointestinal Cancer Treatment During the First Waves of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy. Subgroup Analysis from the COVID-AGICT Study: COVID-19 and Advanced Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgical Treatment

Background: A preliminary analysis from the COVID-Advanced Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgical Treatment (AGICT) study showed that the rate of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for elective and urgent procedures did not decrease during the pandemic year. In this article, we aimed to perform a subgroup analysis using data from the COVID-AGICT study to evaluate the trend of MIS during the COVID-19 pandemic period in Italy.Methods: This study was conducted collecting data of MIS patients from the COVID-AGICT database. The primary endpoint was to demonstrate whether the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic scenario reduced MIS for elective treatment of gastrointestinal cancer (GIC) in Italy in 2020. The secondary endpoint was to evaluate the impact of the pandemic period on perioperative outcomes in the MIS group.Results: In the pandemic year, 62% of patients underwent surgery with a minimally invasive approach, compared to 63% in 2019 (P = .23). In 2020, the proportion of patients undergoing elective MIS decreased compared to the previous year (80% versus 82%, P = .04), and the rate of urgent MIS did not differ between the 2 years (31% and 33% in 2019 and 2020 - P = .66). Colorectal cancer was less likely to be treated with MIS approach during 2020 (78% versus 75%, P < .001). Conversely, the rate of MIS pancreatic resection was higher in 2020 (28% versus 22%, P < .002). Conversion to an open approach was lower in 2020 (7.2% versus 9.2% - P = .01). Major postoperative complications were similar in both years (11% versus 11%, P = .9).Conclusion: In conclusion, although MIS for elective treatment of GIC in Italy was reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic period, our study revealed that the overall proportion of MIS (elective and urgent) and postoperative outcomes were comparable to the prepandemic period