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

Boceprevir or telaprevir in hepatitis C virus chronic infection: The Italian real life experience

AIM: To check the safety and efficacy of boceprevir/ telaprevir with peginterferon/ribavirin for hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 in the real-world settings. METHODS: This study was a non-randomized, observational, prospective, multicenter. This study involved 47 centers in Italy. A database was prepared for the homogenous collection of the data, was used by all of the centers for data collection, and was updated continuously. All of the patients enrolled in this study were older than 18 years of age and were diagnosed with chronic infection due to HCV genotype 1. The HCV RNA testing was performed using COBAS-TaqMan2.0 (Roche, LLQ 25 IU/mL). RESULTS: All consecutively treated patients were included. Forty-seven centers enrolled 834 patients as follows: Male 64%; median age 57 (range 18-78), of whom 18.3% were over 65; mean body mass index 25.6 (range 16-39); genotype 1b (79.4%); diagnosis of cirrhosis (38.2%); and fibrosis F3/4 (71.2%). The following drugs were used: Telaprevir (66.2%) and PEG-IFN-alpha2a (67.6%). Patients were naïve (24.4%), relapsers (30.5%), partial responders (14.8%) and null responders (30.3%). Overall, adverse events (AEs) occurred in 617 patients (73.9%) during the treatment. Anemia was the most frequent AE (52.9% of cases), especially in cirrhotic. The therapy was stopped for 14.6% of the patients because of adverse events or virological failure (15%). Sustained virological response was achieved in 62.7% of the cases, but was 43.8% in cirrhotic patients over 65 years of age. CONCLUSION: In everyday practice, triple therapy is safe but has moderate efficacy, especially for patients over 65 years of age, with advanced fibrosis, nonresponders to peginterferon + ribavirin

A prospective cohort analysis of the prevalence and predictive factors of delayed discharge after laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Italy: the DeDiLaCo Study

Background: The concept of early discharge ≤24 hours after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (LC) is still doubted in Italy. This prospective multicentre study aims to analyze the prevalence of patients undergoing elective LC who experienced a delayed discharge >24 hours in an extensive Italian national database and identify potential limiting factors of early discharge after LC. Methods: This is a prospective observational multicentre study performed from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021 by 90 Italian surgical units. Results: A total of 4664 patients were included in the study. Clinical reasons were found only for 850 patients (37.7%) discharged >24 hours after LC. After excluding patients with nonclinical reasons for delayed discharge >24 hours, 2 groups based on the length of hospitalization were created: the Early group (≤24 h; 2414 patients, 73.9%) and the Delayed group (>24 h; 850 patients, 26.1%). At the multivariate analysis, ASA III class ( P <0.0001), Charlson's Comorbidity Index (P=0.001), history of choledocholithiasis (P=0.03), presence of peritoneal adhesions (P<0.0001), operative time >60 min (P<0.0001), drain placement (P<0.0001), pain ( P =0.001), postoperative vomiting (P=0.001) and complications (P<0.0001) were independent predictors of delayed discharge >24 hours. Conclusions: The majority of delayed discharges >24 hours after LC in our study were unrelated to the surgery itself. ASA class >II, advanced comorbidity, the presence of peritoneal adhesions, prolonged operative time, and placement of abdominal drainage were intraoperative variables independently associated with failure of early discharge

Surgeons’ practice and preferences for the anal fissure treatment: results from an international survey

The best nonoperative or operative anal fissure (AF) treatment is not yet established, and several options have been proposed. Aim is to report the surgeons' practice for the AF treatment. Thirty-four multiple-choice questions were developed. Seven questions were about to participants' demographics and, 27 questions about their clinical practice. Based on the specialty (general surgeon and colorectal surgeon), obtained data were divided and compared between two groups. Five-hundred surgeons were included (321 general and 179 colorectal surgeons). For both groups, duration of symptoms for at least 6 weeks is the most important factor for AF diagnosis (30.6%). Type of AF (acute vs chronic) is the most important factor which guide the therapeutic plan (44.4%). The first treatment of choice for acute AF is ointment application for both groups (59.6%). For the treatment of chronic AF, this data is confirmed by colorectal surgeons (57%), but not by the general surgeons who prefer the lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) (31.8%) (p = 0.0001). Botulin toxin injection is most performed by colorectal surgeons (58.7%) in comparison to general surgeons (20.9%) (p = 0.0001). Anal flap is mostly performed by colorectal surgeons (37.4%) in comparison to general surgeons (28.3%) (p = 0.0001). Fissurectomy alone is statistically significantly most performed by general surgeons in comparison to colorectal surgeons (57.9% and 43.6%, respectively) (p = 0.0020). This analysis provides useful information about the clinical practice for the management of a debated topic such as AF treatment. Shared guidelines and consensus especially focused on operative management are required to standardize the treatment and to improve postoperative results