Patient outcomes following surgical management of thyroid nodules classified as Bethesda category III (AUS/FLUS)

Introduction: The Bethesda classification system for reporting thyroid cytopathology is the standard for interpreting fine needle aspirate (FNA). Because of its heterogeneity and inconsistent reporting, atypia of undetermined significance or follicular lesion of undetermined significance (AUS/FLUS), known as Bethesda category III, is the most controversial category. Thyroid nodules that fall within Bethesda categories III–IV have an overall risk of malignancy of between 15 and 40%. The aim of this study was to determine the malignancy rate in Bethesda III nodules. Material and methods: A retrospective study was performed for 1166 patients who underwent thyroid surgery for multinodular goitre (MNG) or solitary nodular goitre (SNG) in our institution between June 2010 and May 2020. Data retrieved included demographic characteristics of the patients, FNB cytology, thyroid function test results, type of thyroidectomy, and final histology results. Results: During the study period, 29.5% (344/1166) of patients with an FNA categorized as AUS/FLUS underwent thyroid surgery. Of these 344 patients, 190 were diagnosed with MNG and 154 with SNG. Incidental malignancy was found in 35 of 190 cases of MNG (18.42%) and 31 of 154 cases of SNG (20.13%). The most common malignant tumour type in either category was the follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma. Conclusions: The current study demonstrates that patients with a FNA categorized as AUS/FLUS may have a higher risk of malignancy than traditionally believed. Reconsideration may be necessary to guidelines that recommend observation or repeat FNA in this category of patients

Thyroid abscess as a complication of percutaneous ethanol ablation of cystic thyroid nodules

Not required for Clinical Vignette

Risk of surgical site infections after colorectal surgery and the most frequent pathogens isolated: a prospective single-centre observational study

Aim To identify risk factors for developing surgical site infections (SSIs) based on a prospective study of patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Methods Between November 2019 and January 2021, 133 patients underwent elective operation for colorectal cancer in our institution. The following variables were recorded for each patient: age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification (ASA class), duration of surgery, wound classification, skin preparation regimens, surgical approach, comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, chronic steroid use), and pathogens responsible for surgical site infection. Univariate analysis was performed using χ2 tests for categorical variables. Results A total of 65 males and 68 females were enrolled. Postoperative SSI was diagnosed in 29 (21.8%) cases. Fifty five patients were >70 years old, and SSIs were significantly more frequent in this group (p=0.033). There were 92 patients with BMI <30kg/m2 and 87 with ASA class ≤2; SSIs occurred significantly less frequently in these patients (p=0.021 and p=0.028, respectively). Open surgery was performed in 113 patients; 35 (out of 113; 31%) wound infections were classified as contaminated or dirty, and SSI occurred more often in these two groups (p=0.048 and p=0.037, respectively). Nineteen patients had diabetes and 36 used steroids continuously; SSI was significantly more frequent in these patients (p=0.021 and p=0.049, respectively). Conclusion Following colorectal cancer procedures SSIs were significantly more common among patients over 70 years old, BMI≥30kg/m2 , ASA score>2, with diabetes and chronic steroid use, undergoing open, dirty or contaminated surgery. Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. were the two most common pathogens isolated

Surgical Therapy of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: State of the Art Liver Resection

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents the third most common cause of cancer-related death, showing incremental growth rates throughout the last decades. HCC requires multidisciplinary approach in a group of patients suffering from underlying chronic liver disease, usually in the setting of cirrhosis. The mainstay of treatment in resectable cases is surgery, with anatomic and non-anatomic liver resections widely implemented, as well as liver transplantation in well-selected individuals. Nowadays, there is a variety of liver parenchyma transection devices used by hepatobiliary surgeons in specialized centers, which has significantly improved postoperative outcomes in HCC patients. Therefore, hepatectomy is considered safe and feasible and should be the main therapeutic option for HCC patients, candidates for resection. Liver resection utilizing cavitron ultrasonic aspirator in combination with bipolar radiofrequency ablation is safe and effective for the treatment of HCC with favorable clinical and oncological outcomes

Colorectal neoplastic emergencies in immunocompromised patients: preliminary result from the Web-based International Register of Emergency Surgery and Trauma (WIRES-T trial)

Association of advanced age, neoplastic disease and immunocompromission (IC) may lead to surgical emergencies. Few data exist about this topic. Present study reports the preliminary data from the WIRES-T trial about patients managed for colorectal neoplastic emergencies in immunocompromised patients. The required data were taken from a prospective observational international register. The study was approved by the Ethical Committee with approval n. 17575; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03643718. 839 patients were collected; 753 (80.7%) with mild-moderate IC and 86 (10.3%) with severe. Median age was 71.9 years and 73 years, respectively, in the two groups. The causes of mild-moderate IC were reported such malignancy (753-100%), diabetes (103-13.7%), malnutrition (26-3.5%) and uremia (1-0.1%), while severe IC causes were steroids treatment (14-16.3%); neutropenia (7-8.1%), malignancy on chemotherapy (71-82.6%). Preoperative risk classification were reported as follow: mild-moderate: ASA 1-14 (1.9%); ASA 2-202 (26.8%); ASA 3-341 (45.3%); ASA 4-84 (11.2%); ASA 5-7 (0.9%); severe group: ASA 1-1 patient (1.2%); ASA 2-16 patients (18.6%); ASA 3-41 patients (47.7%); ASA 4-19 patients (22.1%); ASA 5-3 patients (3.5%); lastly, ASA score was unavailable for 105 cases (13.9%) in mild-moderate group and in 6 cases (6.9%) in severe group. All the patients enrolled underwent urgent/emergency surgery Damage control approach with open abdomen was adopted in 18 patients. Mortality was 5.1% and 12.8%, respectively, in mild-moderate and severe groups. Long-term survival data: in mild-moderate disease-free survival (median, IQR) is 28 (10-91) and in severe IC, it is 21 (10-94). Overall survival (median, IQR) is 44 (18-99) and 26 (20-90) in mild-moderate and severe, respectively; the same is for post-progression survival (median, IQR) 29 (16-81) and 28, respectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed as the only factor influencing mortality in mild-moderate and severe IC is the ASA score. Colorectal neoplastic emergencies in immunocompromised patients are more frequent in elderly. Sigmoid and right colon are the most involved. Emergency surgery is at higher risk of complication and mortality; however, management in dedicated emergency surgery units is necessary to reduce disease burden and to optimize results by combining oncological and acute care principles. This approach may improve outcomes to obtain clinical advantages for patients like those observed in elective scenario. Lastly, damage control approach seems feasible and safe in selected patients

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

Global disparities in surgeons’ workloads, academic engagement and rest periods: the on-calL shIft fOr geNEral SurgeonS (LIONESS) study

: The workload of general surgeons is multifaceted, encompassing not only surgical procedures but also a myriad of other responsibilities. From April to May 2023, we conducted a CHERRIES-compliant internet-based survey analyzing clinical practice, academic engagement, and post-on-call rest. The questionnaire featured six sections with 35 questions. Statistical analysis used Chi-square tests, ANOVA, and logistic regression (SPSS® v. 28). The survey received a total of 1.046 responses (65.4%). Over 78.0% of responders came from Europe, 65.1% came from a general surgery unit; 92.8% of European and 87.5% of North American respondents were involved in research, compared to 71.7% in Africa. Europe led in publishing research studies (6.6 ± 8.6 yearly). Teaching involvement was high in North America (100%) and Africa (91.7%). Surgeons reported an average of 6.7 ± 4.9 on-call shifts per month, with European and North American surgeons experiencing 6.5 ± 4.9 and 7.8 ± 4.1 on-calls monthly, respectively. African surgeons had the highest on-call frequency (8.7 ± 6.1). Post-on-call, only 35.1% of respondents received a day off. Europeans were most likely (40%) to have a day off, while African surgeons were least likely (6.7%). On the adjusted multivariable analysis HDI (Human Development Index) (aOR 1.993) hospital capacity &gt; 400 beds (aOR 2.423), working in a specialty surgery unit (aOR 2.087), and making the on-call in-house (aOR 5.446), significantly predicted the likelihood of having a day off after an on-call shift. Our study revealed critical insights into the disparities in workload, access to research, and professional opportunities for surgeons across different continents, underscored by the HDI

Outcomes of elective liver surgery worldwide: a global, prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study

Background: The outcomes of liver surgery worldwide remain unknown. The true population-based outcomes are likely different to those vastly reported that reflect the activity of highly specialized academic centers. The aim of this study was to measure the true worldwide practice of liver surgery and associated outcomes by recruiting from centers across the globe. The geographic distribution of liver surgery activity and complexity was also evaluated to further understand variations in outcomes. Methods: LiverGroup.org was an international, prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study following the Global Surgery Collaborative Snapshot Research approach with a 3-month prospective, consecutive patient enrollment within January–December 2019. Each patient was followed up for 90 days postoperatively. All patients undergoing liver surgery at their respective centers were eligible for study inclusion. Basic demographics, patient and operation characteristics were collected. Morbidity was recorded according to the Clavien–Dindo Classification of Surgical Complications. Country-based and hospital-based data were collected, including the Human Development Index (HDI). (NCT03768141). Results: A total of 2159 patients were included from six continents. Surgery was performed for cancer in 1785 (83%) patients. Of all patients, 912 (42%) experienced a postoperative complication of any severity, while the major complication rate was 16% (341/2159). The overall 90-day mortality rate after liver surgery was 3.8% (82/2,159). The overall failure to rescue rate was 11% (82/ 722) ranging from 5 to 35% among the higher and lower HDI groups, respectively. Conclusions: This is the first to our knowledge global surgery study specifically designed and conducted for specialized liver surgery. The authors identified failure to rescue as a significant potentially modifiable factor for mortality after liver surgery, mostly related to lower Human Development Index countries. Members of the LiverGroup.org network could now work together to develop quality improvement collaboratives

Goodbye Hartmann trial: a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study on the current use of a surgical procedure developed a century ago

Background: Literature suggests colonic resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) instead of Hartmann's procedure (HP) for the treatment of left-sided colonic emergencies. We aim to evaluate the surgical options globally used to treat patients with acute left-sided colonic emergencies and the factors that leading to the choice of treatment, comparing HP and RPA. Methods: This is a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. A total 1215 patients with left-sided colonic emergencies who required surgery were included from 204 centers during the period of March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020. with a 1-year follow-up. Results: 564 patients (43.1%) were females. The mean age was 65.9 ± 15.6&nbsp;years. HP was performed in 697 (57.3%) patients and RPA in 384 (31.6%) cases. Complicated acute diverticulitis was the most common cause of left-sided colonic emergencies (40.2%), followed by colorectal malignancy (36.6%). Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3b) were higher in the HP group (P &lt; 0.001). 30-day mortality was higher in HP patients (13.7%), especially in case of bowel perforation and diffused peritonitis. 1-year follow-up showed no differences on ostomy reversal rate between HP and RPA. (P = 0.127). A backward likelihood logistic regression model showed that RPA was preferred in younger patients, having low ASA score (≤ 3), in case of large bowel obstruction, absence of colonic ischemia, longer time from admission to surgery, operating early at the day working hours, by a surgeon who performed more than 50 colorectal resections. Conclusions: After 100&nbsp;years since the first Hartmann's procedure, HP remains the most common treatment for left-sided colorectal emergencies. Treatment's choice depends on patient characteristics, the time of surgery and the experience of the surgeon. RPA should be considered as the gold standard for surgery, with HP being an exception

Infected pancreatic necrosis: outcomes and clinical predictors of mortality. A post hoc analysis of the MANCTRA-1 international study

: The identification of high-risk patients in the early stages of infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) is critical, because it could help the clinicians to adopt more effective management strategies. We conducted a post hoc analysis of the MANCTRA-1 international study to assess the association between clinical risk factors and mortality among adult patients with IPN. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify prognostic factors of mortality. We identified 247 consecutive patients with IPN hospitalised between January 2019 and December 2020. History of uncontrolled arterial hypertension (p = 0.032; 95% CI 1.135-15.882; aOR 4.245), qSOFA (p = 0.005; 95% CI 1.359-5.879; aOR 2.828), renal failure (p = 0.022; 95% CI 1.138-5.442; aOR 2.489), and haemodynamic failure (p = 0.018; 95% CI 1.184-5.978; aOR 2.661), were identified as independent predictors of mortality in IPN patients. Cholangitis (p = 0.003; 95% CI 1.598-9.930; aOR 3.983), abdominal compartment syndrome (p = 0.032; 95% CI 1.090-6.967; aOR 2.735), and gastrointestinal/intra-abdominal bleeding (p = 0.009; 95% CI 1.286-5.712; aOR 2.710) were independently associated with the risk of mortality. Upfront open surgical necrosectomy was strongly associated with the risk of mortality (p &lt; 0.001; 95% CI 1.912-7.442; aOR 3.772), whereas endoscopic drainage of pancreatic necrosis (p = 0.018; 95% CI 0.138-0.834; aOR 0.339) and enteral nutrition (p = 0.003; 95% CI 0.143-0.716; aOR 0.320) were found as protective factors. Organ failure, acute cholangitis, and upfront open surgical necrosectomy were the most significant predictors of mortality. Our study confirmed that, even in a subgroup of particularly ill patients such as those with IPN, upfront open surgery should be avoided as much as possible. Study protocol registered in ClinicalTrials.Gov (I.D. Number NCT04747990)