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

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Bariatric Surgery: Results from a Worldwide Survey

Background: The ongoing “coronavirus disease 19” (COVID-19) pandemic has had a strong effect on the delivery of surgical care worldwide. Elective surgeries have been canceled or delayed in order to reallocate resources to the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Currently, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on bariatric and metabolic surgical practice remains unclear. Methods: An internet-based online survey was performed among bariatric surgeons worldwide. The survey was sent to bariatric surgeons via the International Bariatric Club Facebook group and by electronic mail via the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and metabolic disorders (IFSO) secretariat to members of the associated national IFSO societies. Results: One hundred sixty-nine (n = 169) bariatric surgeons participated in the survey. The majority of the respondents postponed preoperative upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopies, appointments in the outpatient clinic and bariatric operations. Most surgeons performed video calls for follow-up appointments instead of meeting the patients in the outpatient clinics. Laparoscopy was still the preferred treatment for surgical emergencies, but a trend towards conservative treatment of acute appendicitis and acute cholecystitis was shown. Rapid preoperative COVID-19 testing availability was poor; therefore, routine screening of emergency bariatric cases was not widely provided. A wide variance occurred regarding precautions and personal protection equipment among the participants. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic showed a strong impact on bariatric surgical practice regarding surgical and outpatient planning as well as personnel management. Coordinated effort from the national bariatric societies should focus on strict implementation of the current recommendations regarding precaution measures and personal protection equipment. Further studies should evaluate how this impact will evolve in the near future. © 2020, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Outcomes After Revisional Bariatric Surgery Following a Failed Adjustable Gastric Band.

INTRODUCTION Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB)-related complications have been reported in significant numbers of patients often leading to band removal. Increasingly revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) is offered, most commonly either band to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (B-RYGB) or band to sleeve gastrectomy (B-SG). OBJECTIVES We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies to evaluate the efficacy of RBS following failed LAGB. METHODS Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and NHS Evidence were searched for English language studies assessing patients who had undergone LAGB and who subsequently underwent either B-RYGB or B-SG. RESULTS Thirty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. There were 2617 patients. B-RYGB was performed in 60.5% (n = 1583). There was one death within 30 days (0.0004%). The overall pooled morbidity rate was 13.2%. There was no difference between the B-RYGB and B-SG groups in morbidity, leak rate or return to theatre. Percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) following the revisional procedure for all patients combined at 6, 12 and 24 months was 44.5, 55.7 and 59.7%, respectively. There was no statistical difference in %EWL between B-RYGB and B-SG at any time point. The rates of remission of diabetes, hypertension and obstructive sleep apnoea were 46.5, 35.9 and 80.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) do not exist on this issue but the available observational evidence does suggest that RBS is associated with generally good outcomes similar to those experienced after primary surgery. Further, high-quality research, particularly RCTs, is required to assess long-term weight loss, comorbidity and quality of life outcomes