Pooled analysis of WHO Surgical Safety Checklist use and mortality after emergency laparotomy

Background The World Health Organization (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist has fostered safe practice for 10 years, yet its place in emergency surgery has not been assessed on a global scale. The aim of this study was to evaluate reported checklist use in emergency settings and examine the relationship with perioperative mortality in patients who had emergency laparotomy. Methods In two multinational cohort studies, adults undergoing emergency laparotomy were compared with those having elective gastrointestinal surgery. Relationships between reported checklist use and mortality were determined using multivariable logistic regression and bootstrapped simulation. Results Of 12 296 patients included from 76 countries, 4843 underwent emergency laparotomy. After adjusting for patient and disease factors, checklist use before emergency laparotomy was more common in countries with a high Human Development Index (HDI) (2455 of 2741, 89.6 per cent) compared with that in countries with a middle (753 of 1242, 60.6 per cent; odds ratio (OR) 0.17, 95 per cent c.i. 0.14 to 0.21, P <0001) or low (363 of 860, 422 per cent; OR 008, 007 to 010, P <0.001) HDI. Checklist use was less common in elective surgery than for emergency laparotomy in high-HDI countries (risk difference -94 (95 per cent c.i. -11.9 to -6.9) per cent; P <0001), but the relationship was reversed in low-HDI countries (+121 (+7.0 to +173) per cent; P <0001). In multivariable models, checklist use was associated with a lower 30-day perioperative mortality (OR 0.60, 0.50 to 073; P <0.001). The greatest absolute benefit was seen for emergency surgery in low- and middle-HDI countries. Conclusion Checklist use in emergency laparotomy was associated with a significantly lower perioperative mortality rate. Checklist use in low-HDI countries was half that in high-HDI countries.Peer reviewe

WSES Jerusalem guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis

Acute appendicitis (AA) is among the most common cause of acute abdominal pain. Diagnosis of AA is challenging; a variable combination of clinical signs and symptoms has been used together with laboratory findings in several scoring systems proposed for suggesting the probability of AA and the possible subsequent management pathway. The role of imaging in the diagnosis of AA is still debated, with variable use of US, CT and MRI in different settings worldwide. Up to date, comprehensive clinical guidelines for diagnosis and management of AA have never been issued. In July 2015, during the 3rd World Congress of the WSES, held in Jerusalem (Israel), a panel of experts including an Organizational Committee and Scientific Committee and Scientific Secretariat, participated to a Consensus Conference where eight panelists presented a number of statements developed for each of the eight main questions about diagnosis and management of AA. The statements were then voted, eventually modified and finally approved by the participants to The Consensus Conference and lately by the board of co-authors. The current paper is reporting the definitive Guidelines Statements on each of the following topics: 1) Diagnostic efficiency of clinical scoring systems, 2) Role of Imaging, 3) Non-operative treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis, 4) Timing of appendectomy and in-hospital delay, 5) Surgical treatment 6) Scoring systems for intra-operative grading of appendicitis and their clinical usefulness 7) Non-surgical treatment for complicated appendicitis: abscess or phlegmon 8) Pre-operative and post-operative antibiotics.Peer reviewe

Therapeutic Delay and Survival After Surgery for Cancer of the Pancreatic Head With or Without Preoperative Biliary Drainage

Objective: To evaluate the relation between delay in surgery because of preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) and survival in patients scheduled for surgery for pancreatic head cancer. Background: Patients with obstructive jaundice due to pancreatic head cancer can undergo PBD. The associated delay of surgery can lead to more advanced cancer stages at surgical exploration, affecting resection rate and survival. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial to compare PBD with early surgery (ES) for pancreatic head cancer for complications. We obtained Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival for patients with pathology-proven malignancy and compared survival functions of ES and PBD groups using log-rank test statistics. Multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to evaluate the prognostic role of time to surgery for overall survival. Results: Mean times from randomization to surgery were 1.2 (0.9-1.5) and 5.1 (4.8-5.5) weeks in the ES and PBD groups, respectively (P < 0.001). In the ES group, 60 (67%) of 89 patients underwent resection, versus 53 (58%) of 91 patients in the PBD group (P = 0.20). Median survival after randomization was 12.2 (9.1-15.4) months in the ES group versus 12.7 (8.9-16.6) months in the PBD group (P = 0.91). A longer time to surgery was significantly associated with slightly lower mortality rate after surgery (hazard ratio = 0.90, 95% CI, 0.83-0.97), when taking into account resection, bilirubin, complications, pancreatic adenocarcinoma, tumor-positive lymph nodes, and microscopically residual disease. Conclusions: In patients with pancreatic head cancer, the delay in surgery associated with PBD does not impair or benefit survival rate. (Ann Surg 2010;252:840-849