Management of inflammatory bowel disease in the emergency setting: the MIBODI international survey and evidence-based practices

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the WSES-AAST guidelines in clinical practice and to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of emergency surgeons in managing the complications of ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD). Methods: The MIBODI survey is a cross-sectional study among WSES members designed as an international web-based survey, according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys, to collect data on emergency surgeons’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices concerning the management of patients presenting with acute complications of CD and UC. The questionnaire was composed of 30 questions divided into five sections: (1) demographic data, (2) primary evaluation, (3) non-operative management, (4) operative management, and (5) perianal sepsis management. Results: Two hundred and forty-two surgeons from 48 countries agreed to participate in the survey. The response rate was 24.2% (242/1000 members on WSES mail list). Emergency surgeons showed high adherence to recommendations for 6 of the 21 assessed items, with a “correct” response rate greater than or equal to 60%, according to WSES-AAST recommendations. Nine critical issues were highlighted, with correct answers at a rate of less than 50%. Conclusions: Inflammatory bowel disease is a complex disease that requires a multidisciplinary approach with close collaboration between gastroenterologists and surgeons. Emergency surgeons play a crucial role in managing complications related to IBD. One year after publication, the MIBODI study showed significant global implementation of the WSES-AAST guidelines in clinical practice, offering an imperative tool in the improved management of IBD in emergency and urgent settings

Acute diverticulitis management: evolving trends among Italian surgeons. A survey of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR)

Acute diverticulitis (AD) is associated with relevant morbidity/mortality and is increasing worldwide, thus becoming a major issue for national health systems. AD may be challenging, as clinical relevance varies widely, ranging from asymptomatic picture to life-threatening conditions, with continuously evolving diagnostic tools, classifications, and management. A 33-item-questionnaire was administered to residents and surgeons to analyze the actual clinical practice and to verify the real spread of recent recommendations, also by stratifying surgeons by experience. CT-scan remains the mainstay of AD assessment, including cases presenting with recurrent mild episodes or women of child-bearing age. Outpatient management of mild AD is slowly gaining acceptance. A conservative management is preferred in non-severe cases with extradigestive air or small/non-radiologically drainable abscesses. In severe cases, a laparoscopic approach is preferred, with a non-negligible number of surgeons confident in performing emergency complex procedures. Surgeons are seemingly aware of several options during emergency surgery for AD, since the rate of Hartmann procedures does not exceed 50% in most environments and damage control surgery is spreading in life-threatening cases. Quality of life and history of complicated AD are the main indications for delayed colectomy, which is mostly performed avoiding the proximal vessel ligation, mobilizing the splenic flexure and performing a colorectal anastomosis. ICG is spreading to check anastomotic stumps’ vascularization. Differences between the two experience groups were found about the type of investigation to exclude colon cancer (considering the experience only in terms of number of colectomies performed), the size of the peritoneal abscess to be drained, practice of damage control surgery and the attitude towards colovesical fistula

Association between multimorbidity and postoperative mortality in patients undergoing major surgery: a prospective study in 29 countries across Europe

BackgroundMultimorbidity poses a global challenge to healthcare delivery. This study aimed to describe the prevalence of multimorbidity, common disease combinations and outcomes in a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.MethodsThis was a pre-planned analysis of a prospective, multicentre, international study investigating cardiovascular complications after major abdominal surgery conducted in 446 hospitals in 29 countries across Europe. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality. The secondary outcome measure was the incidence of complications within 30 days of surgery.ResultsOf 24,227 patients, 7006 (28.9%) had one long-term condition and 10,486 (43.9%) had multimorbidity (two or more long-term health conditions). The most common conditions were primary cancer (39.6%); hypertension (37.9%); chronic kidney disease (17.4%); and diabetes (15.4%). Patients with multimorbidity had a higher incidence of frailty compared with patients <= 1 long-term health condition. Mortality was higher in patients with one long-term health condition (adjusted odds ratio 1.93 (95%CI 1.16-3.23)) and multimorbidity (adjusted odds ratio 2.22 (95%CI 1.35-3.64)). Frailty and ASA physical status 3-5 mediated an estimated 31.7% of the 30-day mortality in patients with one long-term health condition (adjusted odds ratio 1.30 (95%CI 1.12-1.51)) and an estimated 36.9% of the 30-day mortality in patients with multimorbidity (adjusted odds ratio 1.61 (95%CI 1.36-1.91)). There was no improvement in 30-day mortality in patients with multimorbidity who received pre-operative medical assessment.ConclusionsMultimorbidity is common and outcomes are poor among surgical patients across Europe. Addressing multimorbidity in elective and emergency patients requires innovative strategies to account for frailty and disease control. The development of such strategies, that integrate care targeting whole surgical pathways to strengthen current systems, is urgently needed for multimorbid patients. Interventional trials are warranted to determine the effectiveness of targeted management for surgical patients with multimorbidity

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

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

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

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

Impact of postoperative cardiovascular complications on 30‐day mortality after major abdominal surgery: an international prospective cohort study

Cardiovascular complications after major surgery are associated with increases in morbidity and mortality. There is confusion over definitions of cardiac injury or complications, and variability in the assessment and management of patients. This international prospective cohort study aimed to define the incidence and timing of these complications and to investigate their impact on 30-day all-cause mortality. We performed a prospective, international cohort study between January 2022 and May 2022. Data were collected on consecutive patients undergoing major abdominal surgery in 446 hospitals from 28 countries across Europe. The primary outcome measure was cardiovascular complications as defined by the Standardised Endpoints for Perioperative Medicine-Core Outcome Measures for Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care initiative up to 30 days after surgery. The secondary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality. This study included 24,203 patients, of whom 611 (2.5%) developed cardiovascular complications. In total, 458 (1.9%) patients died within 30 days of surgery, of which 123 (26.9%) deaths were judged to be cardiac-related. Mortality rates were higher in patients who developed postoperative cardiovascular complications than in those who did not (19.8% vs. 1.4%), which persisted after risk adjustment (hazard ratio (95%CI) 4.15 (3.14-5.48)). We estimated an absolute risk reduction (95%CI) of 0.4 (0.3-0.5) in mortality in the absence of all cardiovascular complications. This would confer a relative risk reduction in mortality of 21.1% if all cardiovascular complications were prevented. Postoperative cardiovascular complications are relatively common and occur early after major abdominal surgery. However, over 1 in 5 postoperative deaths were attributable to these complications, highlighting an important area for future randomised trials

Outcomes of gynecologic cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: an international, multicenter, prospective CovidSurg-Gynecologic Oncology Cancer study

BACKGROUND: The CovidSurg-Cancer Consortium aimed to explore the impact of COVID-19 in surgical patients and services for solid cancers at the start of the pandemic. The CovidSurg-Gynecologic Oncology Cancer subgroup was particularly concerned about the magnitude of adverse outcomes caused by the disrupted surgical gynecologic cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic, which are currently unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the changes in care and short-term outcomes of surgical patients with gynecologic cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that the COVID-19 pandemic had led to a delay in surgical cancer care, especially in patients who required more extensive surgery, and such delay had an impact on cancer outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: This was a multicenter, international, prospective cohort study. Consecutive patients with gynecologic cancers who were initially planned for nonpalliative surgery, were recruited from the date of first COVID-19-related admission in each participating center for 3 months. The follow-up period was 3 months from the time of the multidisciplinary tumor board decision to operate. The primary outcome of this analysis is the incidence of pandemic-related changes in care. The secondary outcomes included 30-day perioperative mortality and morbidity and a composite outcome of unresectable disease or disease progression, emergency surgery, and death. RESULTS: We included 3973 patients (3784 operated and 189 nonoperated) from 227 centers in 52 countries and 7 world regions who were initially planned to have cancer surgery. In 20.7% (823/3973) of the patients, the standard of care was adjusted. A significant delay (>8 weeks) was observed in 11.2% (424/3784) of patients, particularly in those with ovarian cancer (213/1355; 15.7%; P<.0001). This delay was associated with a composite of adverse outcomes, including disease progression and death (95/424; 22.4% vs 601/3360; 17.9%; P<1/4>.024) compared with those who had operations within 8 weeks of tumor board decisions. One in 13 (189/2430; 7.9%) did not receive their planned operations, in whom 1 in 20 (5/189; 2.7%) died and 1 in 5 (34/189; 18%) experienced disease progression or death within 3 months of multidisciplinary team board decision for surgery. Only 22 of the 3778 surgical patients (0.6%) acquired perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infections; they had a longer postoperative stay (median 8.5 vs 4 days; P<.0001), higher predefined surgical morbidity (14/22; 63.6% vs 717/3762; 19.1%; P<.0001) and mortality (4/22; 18.2% vs 26/3762; 0.7%; P<.0001) rates than the uninfected cohort. CONCLUSION: One in 5 surgical patients with gynecologic cancer worldwide experienced management modifications during the COVID-19 pandemic. Significant adverse outcomes were observed in those with delayed or cancelled operations, and coordinated mitigating strategies are urgently needed

Knowledge, attitudes and practices of using Indocyanine Green (ICG) fluorescence in emergency surgery: an international web-based survey in the ARtificial Intelligence in Emergency and trauma Surgery (ARIES)-WSES project

Fluorescence imaging is a real-time intraoperative navigation modality to enhance surgical vision and it can guide emergency surgeons while performing difficult, high-risk surgical procedures. The aim of this study is to assess current knowledge, attitudes, and practices of emergency surgeons in the use of indocyanine green (ICG) in emergency settings. Between March 08, 2023 and April 10, 2023, a questionnaire composed of 27 multiple choice and open-ended questions was sent to 200 emergency surgeons who had previously joined the ARtificial Intelligence in Emergency and trauma Surgery (ARIES) project promoted by the WSES. The questionnaire was developed by an emergency surgeon with an interest in advanced technologies and artificial intelligence. The response rate was 96% (192/200). Responders affirmed that ICG fluorescence can support the performance of difficult surgical procedures in the emergency setting, particularly in the presence of severe inflammation and in evaluating bowel viability. Nevertheless, there were concerns regarding accessibility and availability of fluorescence imaging in emergency settings. Eighty-seven out of 192 (45.3%) respondents have a fluorescence imaging system of vision for both elective and emergency surgical procedures; 32.3% of respondents have this system solely for elective procedures; 21.4% of respondents do not have this system, 15% do not have experience with it, and 38% do not use this imaging in emergency surgery. Less than 1% (2/192) affirmed that ICG fluorescence changed always their intraoperative decision-making. Precision surgery effectively tailors surgical interventions to individual patient characteristics using advanced technology, data analysis and artificial intelligence. ICG fluorescence can serve as a valid and safe tool to guide emergency surgery in different scenarios, such as intestinal ischemia and severe acute cholecystitis. Due to the lack of high-level evidence within this field, a consensus of expert emergency surgeons is needed to encourage stakeholders to increase the availability of fluorescence imaging systems and to support emergency surgeons in implementing ICG fluorescence in their daily practice

Knowledge, attitudes and practices of using Indocyanine Green (ICG) fluorescence in emergency surgery: an international web-based survey in the ARtificial Intelligence in Emergency and trauma Surgery (ARIES)—WSES project

Fluorescence imaging is a real-time intraoperative navigation modality to enhance surgical vision and it can guide emergency surgeons while performing difficult, high-risk surgical procedures. The aim of this study is to assess current knowledge, attitudes, and practices of emergency surgeons in the use of indocyanine green (ICG) in emergency settings. Between March 08, 2023 and April 10, 2023, a questionnaire composed of 27 multiple choice and open-ended questions was sent to 200 emergency surgeons who had previously joined the ARtificial Intelligence in Emergency and trauma Surgery (ARIES) project promoted by the WSES. The questionnaire was developed by an emergency surgeon with an interest in advanced technologies and artificial intelligence. The response rate was 96% (192/200). Responders affirmed that ICG fluorescence can support the performance of difficult surgical procedures in the emergency setting, particularly in the presence of severe inflammation and in evaluating bowel viability. Nevertheless, there were concerns regarding accessibility and availability of fluorescence imaging in emergency settings. Eighty-seven out of 192 (45.3%) respondents have a fluorescence imaging system of vision for both elective and emergency surgical procedures; 32.3% of respondents have this system solely for elective procedures; 21.4% of respondents do not have this system, 15% do not have experience with it, and 38% do not use this imaging in emergency surgery. Less than 1% (2/192) affirmed that ICG fluorescence changed always their intraoperative decision-making. Precision surgery effectively tailors surgical interventions to individual patient characteristics using advanced technology, data analysis and artificial intelligence. ICG fluorescence can serve as a valid and safe tool to guide emergency surgery in different scenarios, such as intestinal ischemia and severe acute cholecystitis. Due to the lack of high-level evidence within this field, a consensus of expert emergency surgeons is needed to encourage stakeholders to increase the availability of fluorescence imaging systems and to support emergency surgeons in implementing ICG fluorescence in their daily practice