The weekend effect on the provision of Emergency Surgery before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: case-control analysis of a retrospective multicentre database

Introduction The concept of "weekend effect", that is, substandard healthcare during weekends, has never been fully demonstrated, and the different outcomes of emergency surgical patients admitted during weekends may be due to different conditions at admission and/or different therapeutic approaches. Aim of this international audit was to identify any change of pattern of emergency surgical admissions and treatments during weekends. Furthermore, we aimed at investigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the alleged "weekend effect". Methods The database of the CovidICE-International Study was interrogated, and 6263 patients were selected for analysis. Non-trauma, 18+ yo patients admitted to 45 emergency surgery units in Europe in the months of March-April 2019 and March-April 2020 were included. Demographic and clinical data were anonymised by the referring centre and centrally collected and analysed with a statistical package. This study was endorsed by the Association of Italian Hospital Surgeons (ACOI) and the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). Results Three-quarters of patients have been admitted during workdays and only 25.7% during weekends. There was no difference in the distribution of gender, age, ASA class and diagnosis during weekends with respect to workdays. The first wave of the COVID pandemic caused a one-third reduction of emergency surgical admission both during workdays and weekends but did not change the relation between workdays and weekends. The treatment was more often surgical for patients admitted during weekends, with no difference between 2019 and 2020, and procedures were more often performed by open surgery. However, patients admitted during weekends had a threefold increased risk of laparoscopy-to-laparotomy conversion (1% vs. 3.4%). Hospital stay was longer in patients admitted during weekends, but those patients had a lower risk of readmission. There was no difference of the rate of rescue surgery between weekends and workdays. Subgroup analysis revealed that interventional procedures for hot gallbladder were less frequently performed on patients admitted during weekends. Conclusions Our analysis revealed that demographic and clinical profiles of patients admitted during weekends do not differ significantly from workdays, but the therapeutic strategy may be different probably due to lack of availability of services and skillsets during weekends. The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic did not impact on this difference

Indications to laparoscopic cholecystectomy

The diffuse ultrasound examination for various abdominal diseases increased in the last decades the diagnosis of asymptomatic gallbladder diseases. High-quality data demonstrate that the majority of patients with asymptomatic gallstones will remain asymptomatic (only 2–4 % will develop symptoms annually) and that the complication rate in asymptomatic patients ranges from 0.3 to 3 % per year. Given the low incidence of symptoms development and complication rate per year in nontreated patients, prophylactic laparoscopic cholecystectomy is currently not recommended as standard treatment. N evertheless, according to the conclusion of 2009 Cochrane Review on LC in silent stones, there is no RCT or high-level studies which offer scientifi c evidence to refuse LC to asymptomatic gallbladder stone patients. There is no evidence to recommend prophylactic LC in asymptomatic gallbladder stone patients neither for diabetics, patients on long-term somatostatin, nor patients with porcelain gallbladder in Western countries. Also in patients with gallbladder stones >3 cm, there is not enough data available to recommend prophylactic LC to prevent gallbladder cancer. Nevertheless, recent data suggest that selective prophylactic LC is advisable in some subgroup of patients. Microcalculi and bile sludge in conjunction with a functioning gallbladder are more likely to predispose patients to calculi migration and subsequent onset of choledocholithiasis and acute pancreatitis. Incidental diagnosis of cholelithiasis in preoperative or intraoperative setting for other medical conditions can be treated laparoscopically in the same session if it does not add any risk of conversion and no prosthetic material is being used. A s the risk of sickling, in patients suffering from sickle cell anemia, is reduced by a laparoscopic approach, it should be the fi rst choice. Some ethnic groups and inhabitants of certain geographical areas are more likely to develop gallbladder cancer. Also specifi c ultrasound fi ndings, like selective mucosal calcifi cations, increase the risk of gallbladder cancer. These patients could benefi t from prophylactic LC. C ardiac-transplanted patients with asymptomatic cholelithiasis should undergo LC

Antibiotics-first strategy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in adults is associated with increased rates of peritonitis at surgery. A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing appendectomy and non-operative management with antibiotics

Background Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical diagnosis in young patients, with lifetime prevalence of about 7%. Debate remains on whether uncomplicated AA should be operated or not. Aim of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was to assess current evidence on antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated AA compared to standard surgical treatment. Methods Systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Google Scholar and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for randomized controlled trials comparing antibiotic therapy (AT) and surgical therapy-appendectomy (ST) for uncomplicated AA. Trials were reviewed for primary outcome measures: treatment efficacy based on 1 year follow-up, recurrence at 1 year follow-up, complicated appendicitis with peritonitis identified at the time of surgical operation and post-intervention complications. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay and period of sick leave. Results Five RCTs comparing AT and ST qualified for inclusion in meta-analysis, with 1.351 patients included: 632 in AT group and 719 in ST group. Higher rate of treatment efficacy based on 1 year follow-up was found in ST group (98.3% vs 75.9%, P < 0.0001), recurrence at 1 year was reported in 22.5% of patients treated with antibiotics. Rate of complicated appendicitis with peritonitis identified at time of surgical operation was higher in AT group (19.9% vs 8.5%, P = 0.02). No statistically significant differences were found when comparing AT and ST groups for the outcomes of overall post-intervention complications (4.3% vs 10.9%, P = 0.32), post-intervention complications based on the number of patients who underwent appendectomy (15.8% vs 10.9%, P = 0.35), length of hospital stay (3.24 ± 0.40 vs 2.88 ± 0.39, P = 0.13) and period of sick leave (8.91 ± 1.28 vs 10.27 ± 0.24, P = 0.06). Conclusions With significantly higher efficacy and low complication rates, appendectomy remains the most effective treatment for patients with uncomplicated AA. The subgroups of patients with uncomplicated AA where antibiotics can be more effective, should be accurately identified

Current status of laparoscopy for acute abdomen in Italy: a critical appraisal of 2012 clinical guidelines from two consecutive nationwide surveys with analysis of 271,323 cases over 5 years

Background: Several authors have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of laparoscopy in selected cases of abdominal emergencies. The aim of the study was to analyse the current Italian practice on the use of laparoscopy in abdominal emergencies and to evaluate the impact of the 2012 national guidelines on the daily surgical activity. Methods: Two surveys (42 closed-ended questions) on the use of laparoscopy in acute abdomen were conducted nationwide with an online questionnaire, respectively, before (2010) and after (2014) the national guidelines publication. Data from two surveys were compared using Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test, and data were considered significant when p &lt; 0.05. Results: Two-hundred and one and 234 surgical units answered to the surveys in 2010 and 2014, respectively. Out of 144,310 and 127,013 overall surgical procedures, 23,407 and 20,102, respectively, were abdominal emergency operations. Respectively 24.74 % (in 2010) versus 30.27 % (in 2014) of these emergency procedures were approached laparoscopically, p = 0.42. The adoption of laparoscopy increased in all the considered clinical scenarios, with statistical significance in acute appendicitis (44 vs. 64.7 %; p = 0.004). The percentage of units approaching Hinchey III acute diverticulitis with laparoscopy in 26–75 % of cases (14.0 vs. 29.7 %; p = 0.009), those with &gt;25 % of surgeons confident with laparoscopic approach to acute diverticulitis (29.9 vs. 54 %; p = 0.0009), the units with &gt;50 % of surgeons confident with laparoscopic approach to acute appendicitis, cholecystitis and perforated duodenal ulcer, all significantly increased in the time frame. The majority of respondents declared that the 2012 national guidelines influenced their clinical practice. Conclusions: The surveys showed an increasing use of laparoscopy for patients with abdominal emergencies. The 2012 national guidelines profoundly influenced the Italian surgical practice in the laparoscopic approach to the acute abdomen

Current status of laparoscopy for acute abdomen in Italy: a critical appraisal of 2012 clinical guidelines from two consecutive nationwide surveys with analysis of 271,323 cases over 5 years

Background Several authors have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of laparoscopy in selected cases of abdominal emergencies. The aim of the study was to analyse the current Italian practice on the use of laparoscopy in abdominal emergencies and to evaluate the impact of the 2012 national guidelines on the daily surgical activity. Methods Two surveys (42 closed-ended questions) on the use of laparoscopy in acute abdomen were conducted nationwide with an online questionnaire, respectively, before (2010) and after (2014) the national guidelines publication. Data from two surveys were compared using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test, and data were considered significant when p &lt; 0.05. Results Two-hundred and one and 234 surgical units answered to the surveys in 2010 and 2014, respectively. Out of 144,310 and 127,013 overall surgical procedures, 23,407 and 20,102, respectively, were abdominal emergency operations. Respectively 24.74 % (in 2010) versus 30.27 % (in 2014) of these emergency procedures were approached laparoscopically, p = 0.42. The adoption of laparoscopy increased in all the considered clinical scenarios, with statistical significance in acute appendicitis (44 vs. 64.7 %; p = 0.004). The percentage of units approaching Hinchey III acute diverticulitis with laparoscopy in 26-75 % of cases (14.0 vs. 29.7 %; p = 0.009), those with &gt; 25 % of surgeons confident with laparoscopic approach to acute diverticulitis (29.9 vs. 54 %; p = 0.0009), the units with &gt; 50 % of surgeons confident with laparoscopic approach to acute appendicitis, cholecystitis and perforated duodenal ulcer, all significantly increased in the time frame. The majority of respondents declared that the 2012 national guidelines influenced their clinical practice. Conclusions The surveys showed an increasing use of laparoscopy for patients with abdominal emergencies. The 2012 national guidelines profoundly influenced the Italian surgical practice in the laparoscopic approach to the acute abdomen

A prospective non-randomized controlled, multicenter trial comparing Appendectomy and Conservative Treatment for Patients with Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis (the ACTUAA study)

Purpose: Acute appendicitis (AA) is among the most common causes of lower abdominal pain and admissions to the emergency department. Over the past 20 years, there has been a renewed interest in the conservative management of uncomplicated AA, and several studies demonstrated that an antibiotic-first strategy is a viable treatment option for uncomplicated AA. The aim of this prospective non-randomized controlled, multicenter trial is to compare antibiotic therapy and emergency appendectomy as treatment for patients with uncomplicated AA confirmed by US and/or CT or MRI scan. Methods: All adult patients in the age range 18 to 65 years with suspected AA, consecutively admitted to the Surgical Department of the 13 participating Italian Hospitals, will be invited to take part in the study. A multicenter prospective collected registry developed by surgeons, radiologists, and pathologists with expertise in the diagnosis and treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis represents the best research method to assess the long-term role of antibiotics in the management of the disease. Comparison will be made between surgical and antibiotic-first approaches to uncomplicated AA through the analysis of the primary outcome measure of complication-free treatment success rate based on 1-year follow-up. Quality of life, length of hospital stay, pain evaluation, and time to return to normal activity will be evaluated as secondary outcome measures. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03080103

IPOD Study: Management of Acute Left Colonic Diverticulitis in Italian Surgical Departments

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the emergency management of acute left colonic diverticulitis (ALCD) has evolved dramatically despite lack of strong evidence. As a consequence, management strategies are frequently guided by surgeon's personal preference, rather than by scientific evidence. The primary aim of IPOD study (Italian Prospective Observational Diverticulitis study) is to describe both the diagnostic and treatment profiles of patients with ALCD in the Italian surgical departments. METHODS: IPOD study is a prospective observational study performed during a 6-month period (from April 1 2015 to September 1 2015) and including 89 Italian surgical departments. All consecutive patients with suspected clinical diagnosis of ALCD confirmed by imaging and seen by a surgeon were included in the study. The study was promoted by the Italian Society of Hospital Surgeons and the World Society of Emergency Surgery Italian chapter. RESULTS: Eleven hundred and twenty-five patients with a median age of 62 years [interquartile range (IQR), 51-74] were enrolled in the IPOD study. One thousand and fifty-four (93.7%) patients were hospitalized with a median duration of hospitalization of 7 days (IQR 5-10). Eight hundred and twenty-eight patients (73.6%) underwent medical treatment alone, 13 patients had percutaneous drainage (1.2%), and the other 284 (25.2%) patients underwent surgery as first treatment. Among 121 patients having diffuse peritonitis, 71 (58.7%) underwent Hartmann's resection. However, the Hartmann's resection was used even in patients with lower stages of ALCD (36/479; 7.5%) where other treatment options could be more adequate. CONCLUSIONS: The IPOD study demonstrates that in the Italian surgical departments treatment strategies for ALCD are often guided by the surgeon's personal preference

IPOD Study: Management of Acute Left Colonic Diverticulitis in Italian Surgical Departments.

Background: In recent years, the emergency management of acute left colonic diverticulitis (ALCD) has evolved dramatically despite lack of strong evidence. As a consequence, management strategies are frequently guided by surgeon’s personal preference, rather than by scientific evidence. The primary aim of IPOD study (Italian Prospective Observational Diverticulitis study) is to describe both the diagnostic and treatment profiles of patients with ALCD in the Italian surgical departments. Methods: IPOD study is a prospective observational study performed during a 6-month period (from April 1 2015 to September 1 2015) and including 89 Italian surgical departments. All consecutive patients with suspected clinical diagnosis of ALCD confirmed by imaging and seen by a surgeon were included in the study. The study was promoted by the Italian Society of Hospital Surgeons and the World Society of Emergency Surgery Italian chapter. Results: Eleven hundred and twenty-five patients with a median age of 62&nbsp;years [interquartile range (IQR), 51–74] were enrolled in the IPOD study. One thousand and fifty-four (93.7%) patients were hospitalized with a median duration of hospitalization of 7&nbsp;days (IQR 5–10). Eight hundred and twenty-eight patients (73.6%) underwent medical treatment alone, 13 patients had percutaneous drainage (1.2%), and the other 284 (25.2%) patients underwent surgery as first treatment. Among 121 patients having diffuse peritonitis, 71 (58.7%) underwent Hartmann’s resection. However, the Hartmann’s resection was used even in patients with lower stages of ALCD (36/479; 7.5%) where other treatment options could be more adequate. Conclusions: The IPOD study demonstrates that in the Italian surgical departments treatment strategies for ALCD are often guided by the surgeon’s personal preference