Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) treatment: an Italian nationwide propensity score-matched cohort study investigating laparoscopic vs open approach

BackgroundPerforated peptic ulcer (PPU) remain a surgical emergency accounting for 37% of all peptic ulcer-related deaths. Surgery remains the standard of care. The benefits of laparoscopic approach have been well-established even in the elderly. However, because of inconsistent results with specific regard to some technical aspects of such technique surgeons questioned the adoption of laparoscopic approach. This leads to choose the type of approach based on personal experience. The aim of our study was to critically appraise the use of the laparoscopic approach in PPU treatment comparing it with open procedure.MethodsA retrospective study with propensity score matching analysis of patients underwent surgical procedure for PPU was performed. Patients undergoing PPU repair were divided into: Laparoscopic approach (LapA) and Open approach (OpenA) groups and clinical-pathological features of patients in the both groups were compared.ResultsA total of 453 patients underwent PPU simple repair. Among these, a LapA was adopted in 49% (222/453 patients). After propensity score matching, 172 patients were included in each group (the LapA and the OpenA). Analysis demonstrated increased operative times in the OpenA [OpenA: 96.4 +/- 37.2 vs LapA 88.47 +/- 33 min, p = 0.035], with shorter overall length of stay in the LapA group [OpenA 13 +/- 12 vs LapA 10.3 +/- 11.4 days p = 0.038]. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality [OpenA 26 (15.1%) vs LapA 18 (10.5%), p = 0.258]. Focusing on morbidity, the overall rate of 30-day postoperative morbidity was significantly lower in the LapA group [OpenA 67 patients (39.0%) vs LapA 37 patients (21.5%) p = 0.002]. When stratified using the Clavien-Dindo classification, the severity of postoperative complications was statistically different only for C-D 1-2.ConclusionsBased on the present study, we can support that laparoscopic suturing of perforated peptic ulcers, apart from being a safe technique, could provide significant advantages in terms of postoperative complications and hospital stay

Gastro-intestinal emergency surgery: Evaluation of morbidity and mortality. Protocol of a prospective, multicenter study in Italy for evaluating the burden of abdominal emergency surgery in different age groups. (The GESEMM study)

Gastrointestinal emergencies (GE) are frequently encountered in emergency department (ED), and patients can present with wide-ranging symptoms. more than 3 million patients admitted to US hospitals each year for EGS diagnoses, more than the sum of all new cancer diagnoses. In addition to the complexity of the urgent surgical patient (often suffering from multiple co-morbidities), there is the unpredictability and the severity of the event. In the light of this, these patients need a rapid decision-making process that allows a correct diagnosis and an adequate and timely treatment. The primary endpoint of this Italian nationwide study is to analyze the clinicopathological findings, management strategies and short-term outcomes of gastrointestinal emergency procedures performed in patients over 18. Secondary endpoints will be to evaluate to analyze the prognostic role of existing risk-scores to define the most suitable scoring system for gastro-intestinal surgical emergency. The primary outcomes are 30-day overall postoperative morbidity and mortality rates. Secondary outcomes are 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality rates, stratified for each procedure or cause of intervention, length of hospital stay, admission and length of stay in ICU, and place of discharge (home or rehabilitation or care facility). In conclusion, to improve the level of care that should be reserved for these patients, we aim to analyze the clinicopathological findings, management strategies and short-term outcomes of gastrointestinal emergency procedures performed in patients over 18, to analyze the prognostic role of existing risk-scores and to define new tools suitable for EGS. This process could ameliorate outcomes and avoid futile treatments. These results may potentially influence the survival of many high-risk EGS procedure

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

Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio predicts risk of nodal involvement in T1 colorectal cancer patients

Background: Risk of nodal involvement in T1 colorectal cancer is assessed by tumor histological features. In several tumors, the ratio between neutrophils and lymphocytes (NLR) or platelets and lymphocytes (PLR) have been applied to lymph-node metastases prediction. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of NLR, derived NLR (dNLR) and PLR in predicting nodal involvement in T1 colorectal cancers. METHODS: NLR, dNLR and PLR in surgical resected T1 colorectal cancers were retrospectively calculated and analysed in nodal positive and negative cases. RESULTS: Data regarding 102 patients were considered. Nodal involvement rate was 10.8%. NLR values were higher in node positive patients (P=0.04). A trend toward significance (P=0.05) was found for higher dNLR values and positive nodal status. For NLR, ROC curve analysis allowed to choose a predictive cut-off value of 3.7 (AUC of 0.69; 95% CI: 0.48-0.89). Nodal positivity was reported in 71.5% of high NLR patients; only two N0 cases (28.5%) were registered in high NLR group (P<0.001). The logistic regression analysis aimed to evidence the predictive role of high NLR in node positivity resulted in a significant OR of 37.1 (P<0.0001; 95% CI: 0.48-0.89). NLR allowed to distinguish N0 from N1 patients in 99.4% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: NLR<3.7 was associated with lower risk of lymph-node metastases in T1 colorectal cancer patients. NLR could be used with histopathological data to identify patients at lower risk of nodal metastases

Detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma by ex vivo magnetic levitation of plasma protein‐coated nanoparticles

Pancreatic Ductal Adeno Carcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most lethal malignancies worldwide, and the development of sensitive and specific technologies for its early diagnosis is vital to reduce morbidity and mortality rates. In this proof‐of‐concept study, we demonstrate the diagnostic ability of magnetic levitation (MagLev) to detect PDAC by using levitation of graphene oxide (GO) nanoparticles (NPs) decorated by a biomolecular corona of human plasma proteins collected from PDAC and non‐oncological patients (NOP). Levitation profiles of corona‐coated GO NPs injected in a MagLev device filled with a paramagnetic solution of dysprosium(III) nitrate hydrate in water enables to distinguish PDAC patients from NOP with 80% specificity, 100% sensitivity, and global classification accuracy of 90%. Our findings indicate that Maglev could be a robust and instrumental tool for the early detection of PDAC and other cancers

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) for rectal cancer surgery: Does elective diverting ileostomy really protect? An observational retrospective cohort study

AIMS: Elective diverting ileostomy may reduce consequences of anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME); however, its safety is debated because of morbidity related to stoma creation and closure. We aimed to investigate the impact of diverting ileostomy on clinical behavior of anastomotic leakage and complications related to stoma itself. MATERIAL OF THE STUDY: We retrospectively evaluated 150 L-TMEs with (Group 1, 100 patients) or without (Group 2, 50 patients) elective ileostomy for rectal cancer. RESULTS: Overall anastomotic fistula rate was 26% without significant differences between the two groups (28% in the Group 1 and 22% in the Group 2, respectively). In all the series, NAD was significantly associated with higher risk of postoperative complications (OR=2.14, p=0.02). In Group 2, NAD particularly increased the risk of anastomotic fistula (OR=6.6, p=0.014). Instead, patients of Group 1 showed higher odd of post-operative complications (OR: 3.8; CI 95%: 1.8483-8.0492; p=0.0003) and notably 79 (79%) developed complications related to the ileostomy itself (hydroelectrolytic, metabolic and peristomal skin disorders). Moreover, thirty-two (32%) ileostomies were never reversed; among the reversed patients, 27 (39.7%) developed at least one postoperative complication and in 9 (33.3%) cases an urgent re-intervention was needed. DISCUSSION: Diverting ileostomy may mitigate clinical behavior of anastomotic leakage after L-TME. However, there is non-negligible morbidity of stoma creation and closure. CONCLUSION: Diverting ileostomy should be selectively considered in higher risk patients as those who received NAD