Supralevator abscess – clinic, diagnosis and treatment

INTRODUCTION: The supralevator abscess, though uncommon, is a significant issue in the emergent colorectal surgery, due to its atypical symptoms, surgical tactics and frequent postoperative failure.AIM: The aim of this article is to analyze the frequency, the diagnostic difficulties and the clinical features by improving the results of their treatment through the timely diagnosis and rational surgical tactics.MATERIALS AND METHODS: For a period of 15 years, from 2004 to 2018, a retrospective analysis of 845 urgently admitted patients, with an acute anorectal abscess (ARA) was done. Depending on the localization, we established four types of ARA: perianal – 392 patients (46.39%), ischiorectal – 287 patients (33.96%), intersphincteric – 93 patients (11.01%), and  supralevator – 73 patients (8.64%). Superficial localization was determined in 450 patients (53,25%) and deep - in 395 (46.75%). Males were 53 (72.60%) and females were 20 (27.40%), with a ratio of 2.65:1. The age of the patients varied between 17 to 85 years old, with an average age of 51.27 ± 8.43 years. The following operations were performed: single surgery in 39 patients (53.42%) - two incisions, revision, necrectomy, lavage and drainage №2, and in 34 reoperated patients (46.58%) – reincisions, revision, necrectomy and redrainage.  RESULTS: In all of the cases the early signs of a supralevator abscess were atypical, therefore timely diagnosis was exceptionally rare. After the formation of the purulent collection, an inflammatory intoxication syndrome with manifestations of sepsis was determined. The main diagnostic methods in patients with supralevator abscess were digital rectal examination, rectoscopy, anoscopy, transrectal ultrasound, CT and MRI of the pelvis. During the operation in 25 patients (34.25%) with supralevator abscess, a rubber seton ligature was placed through the internal opening for gradual tightening of the sphincter. There were no patients with a lethal outcome. CONCLUSION: The variety and atypical presentation of the supralevator abscess makes the diagnosis difficult, which may lead to delays of hospital admission and operative treatment. The timely and adequate removal of the purulent necrotic structures requires total necrectomy until full mechanical eradication, followed by daily control and proper follow-up of the postoperative period

Clinical presentation and diagnosis of colonic perforative peritonitis

INTRODUCTION: Colonic perforative peritonitis (CPP) is a life-threatening surgical emergency where timely diagnosis is of ultimate impact on outcome.MATERIALS AND METHODS: For a five-year period (2014 – 2018), 62 patients with CPP were treated in First Clinic of Surgery in St. George University Hospital - Plovdiv. Males were 48 (77.42%) and females 14 (22.58%), with a ratio of 3.4:1.Patients’ age ranged from 14 to 92 years, with an average age of 71 years ± 2.4.Colonic perforative peritonitis was more common in patients over 80 years of age (n=21; 33.87%). The main causes of CPP were: perforated colon diverticulitis (n=19), perforated colon cancer (n=18), perforation in incarceration (n=9), sigmoid volvulus (n=6), mesenteric ischemia (n=5) and miscellaneous (n=5). There were 12 patients with local peritonitis (19.36%), with diffuse peritonitis - 21 patients (33.87%), and with total peritonitis - 29 patients (46.77%). The following surgical procedures were performed: Hartmann’s procedure – 21, right hemicolectomy - 13, left hemicolectomy - 9, right hemicolectomy with ileostomy - 8,  diverticulectomy - 7,  colon excision and suture - 4.RESULTS: Twenty-four patients (38.71%) were вith subacute perforation type (38.71%), while 38 (61.29%) were with acute type.  Atypical clinical presentation with vague symptoms was found in 7 patients (11.29%). Early clinical symptoms in subacute and atypical forms of CPP were nonspecific.  According to the elapsed time from the beginning of the perforation to the operation, the patients were divided as follows: up to the 6th hour - 24 (38.71%), from the 6th to the 12th hour - 19 (30.65%), from the 12th to the 24th hour - 12 (19.35%), and over 24 hours - 7 (11.29%). Of the total 62 operated patients with CPP, 49 patients (79.03%) survived. Postoperative mortality was 20.97% (n=13) with an average age of 78.9 years.CONCLUSION:Early diagnosis of colonic perforation can be difficult, due to omissions and inaccuracies on admittion and follow-up. The correct and timely diagnosis of CPP is crucial for prompt surgery, lower morbidity and mortality and better outcome

Knowledge, awareness, and attitude towards infection prevention and management among surgeons: identifying the surgeon champion

Abstract Despite evidence supporting the effectiveness of best practices of infection prevention and management, many surgeons worldwide fail to implement them. Evidence-based practices tend to be underused in routine practice. Surgeons with knowledge in surgical infections should provide feedback to prescribers and integrate best practices among surgeons and implement changes within their team. Identifying a local opinion leader to serve as a champion within the surgical department may be important. The “surgeon champion” can integrate best clinical practices of infection prevention and management, drive behavior change in their colleagues, and interact with both infection control teams in promoting antimicrobial stewardship.https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/145433/1/13017_2018_Article_198.pd

WSES/GAIS/SIS-E/WSIS/AAST global clinical pathways for patients with intra-abdominal infections

Intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) are common surgical emergencies and have been reported as major contributors to non-trauma deaths in hospitals worldwide. The cornerstones of effective treatment of IAIs include early recognition, adequate source control, appropriate antimicrobial therapy, and prompt physiologic stabilization using a critical care environment, combined with an optimal surgical approach. Together, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery (GAIS), the Surgical Infection Society-Europe (SIS-E), the World Surgical Infection Society (WSIS), and the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) have jointly completed an international multi-society document in order to facilitate clinical management of patients with IAIs worldwide building evidence-based clinical pathways for the most common IAIs. An extensive non-systematic review was conducted using the PubMed and MEDLINE databases, limited to the English language. The resulting information was shared by an international task force from 46 countries with different clinical backgrounds. The aim of the document is to promote global standards of care in IAIs providing guidance to clinicians by describing reasonable approaches to the management of IAIs.Peer reviewe

It is time to define an organizational model for the prevention and management of infections along the surgical pathway : a worldwide cross-sectional survey

Background The objectives of the study were to investigate the organizational characteristics of acute care facilities worldwide in preventing and managing infections in surgery; assess participants' perception regarding infection prevention and control (IPC) measures, antibiotic prescribing practices, and source control; describe awareness about the global burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and IPC measures; and determine the role of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic on said awareness. Methods A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted contacting 1432 health care workers (HCWs) belonging to a mailing list provided by the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery. The self-administered questionnaire was developed by a multidisciplinary team. The survey was open from May 22, 2021, and June 22, 2021. Three reminders were sent, after 7, 14, and 21 days. Results Three hundred four respondents from 72 countries returned a questionnaire, with an overall response rate of 21.2%. Respectively, 90.4% and 68.8% of participants stated their hospital had a multidisciplinary IPC team or a multidisciplinary antimicrobial stewardship team. Local protocols for antimicrobial therapy of surgical infections and protocols for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis were present in 76.6% and 90.8% of hospitals, respectively. In 23.4% and 24.0% of hospitals no surveillance systems for surgical site infections and no monitoring systems of used antimicrobials were implemented. Patient and family involvement in IPC management was considered to be slightly or not important in their hospital by the majority of respondents (65.1%). Awareness of the global burden of AMR among HCWs was considered very important or important by 54.6% of participants. The COVID-19 pandemic was considered by 80.3% of respondents as a very important or important factor in raising HCWs awareness of the IPC programs in their hospital. Based on the survey results, the authors developed 15 statements for several questions regarding the prevention and management of infections in surgery. The statements may be the starting point for designing future evidence-based recommendations. Conclusion Adequacy of prevention and management of infections in acute care facilities depends on HCWs behaviours and on the organizational characteristics of acute health care facilities to support best practices and promote behavioural change. Patient involvement in the implementation of IPC is still little considered. A debate on how operationalising a fundamental change to IPC, from being solely the HCWs responsibility to one that involves a collaborative relationship between HCWs and patients, should be opened.Peer reviewe

It is time to define an organizational model for the prevention and management of infections along the surgical pathway: a worldwide cross-sectional survey

Background The objectives of the study were to investigate the organizational characteristics of acute care facilities worldwide in preventing and managing infections in surgery; assess participants' perception regarding infection prevention and control (IPC) measures, antibiotic prescribing practices, and source control; describe awareness about the global burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and IPC measures; and determine the role of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic on said awareness. Methods A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted contacting 1432 health care workers (HCWs) belonging to a mailing list provided by the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery. The self-administered questionnaire was developed by a multidisciplinary team. The survey was open from May 22, 2021, and June 22, 2021. Three reminders were sent, after 7, 14, and 21 days. Results Three hundred four respondents from 72 countries returned a questionnaire, with an overall response rate of 21.2%. Respectively, 90.4% and 68.8% of participants stated their hospital had a multidisciplinary IPC team or a multidisciplinary antimicrobial stewardship team. Local protocols for antimicrobial therapy of surgical infections and protocols for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis were present in 76.6% and 90.8% of hospitals, respectively. In 23.4% and 24.0% of hospitals no surveillance systems for surgical site infections and no monitoring systems of used antimicrobials were implemented. Patient and family involvement in IPC management was considered to be slightly or not important in their hospital by the majority of respondents (65.1%). Awareness of the global burden of AMR among HCWs was considered very important or important by 54.6% of participants. The COVID-19 pandemic was considered by 80.3% of respondents as a very important or important factor in raising HCWs awareness of the IPC programs in their hospital. Based on the survey results, the authors developed 15 statements for several questions regarding the prevention and management of infections in surgery. The statements may be the starting point for designing future evidence-based recommendations. Conclusion Adequacy of prevention and management of infections in acute care facilities depends on HCWs behaviours and on the organizational characteristics of acute health care facilities to support best practices and promote behavioural change. Patient involvement in the implementation of IPC is still little considered. A debate on how operationalising a fundamental change to IPC, from being solely the HCWs responsibility to one that involves a collaborative relationship between HCWs and patients, should be opened

Diversity and ethics in trauma and acute care surgery teams: results from an international survey

Background Investigating the context of trauma and acute care surgery, the article aims at understanding the factors that can enhance some ethical aspects, namely the importance of patient consent, the perceptiveness of the ethical role of the trauma leader, and the perceived importance of ethics as an educational subject. Methods The article employs an international questionnaire promoted by the World Society of Emergency Surgery. Results Through the analysis of 402 fully filled questionnaires by surgeons from 72 different countries, the three main ethical topics are investigated through the lens of gender, membership of an academic or non-academic institution, an official trauma team, and a diverse group. In general terms, results highlight greater attention paid by surgeons belonging to academic institutions, official trauma teams, and diverse groups. Conclusions Our results underline that some organizational factors (e.g., the fact that the team belongs to a university context or is more diverse) might lead to the development of a higher sensibility on ethical matters. Embracing cultural diversity forces trauma teams to deal with different mindsets. Organizations should, therefore, consider those elements in defining their organizational procedures. Level of evidence Trauma and acute care teams work under tremendous pressure and complex circumstances, with their members needing to make ethical decisions quickly. The international survey allowed to shed light on how team assembly decisions might represent an opportunity to coordinate team member actions and increase performance

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

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 < 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)

Physiological parameters for Prognosis in Abdominal Sepsis (PIPAS) Study : a WSES observational study

BackgroundTiming and adequacy of peritoneal source control are the most important pillars in the management of patients with acute peritonitis. Therefore, early prognostic evaluation of acute peritonitis is paramount to assess the severity and establish a prompt and appropriate treatment. The objectives of this study were to identify clinical and laboratory predictors for in-hospital mortality in patients with acute peritonitis and to develop a warning score system, based on easily recognizable and assessable variables, globally accepted.MethodsThis worldwide multicentre observational study included 153 surgical departments across 56 countries over a 4-month study period between February 1, 2018, and May 31, 2018.ResultsA total of 3137 patients were included, with 1815 (57.9%) men and 1322 (42.1%) women, with a median age of 47years (interquartile range [IQR] 28-66). The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 8.9%, with a median length of stay of 6days (IQR 4-10). Using multivariable logistic regression, independent variables associated with in-hospital mortality were identified: age > 80years, malignancy, severe cardiovascular disease, severe chronic kidney disease, respiratory rate >= 22 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure 4mmol/l. These variables were used to create the PIPAS Severity Score, a bedside early warning score for patients with acute peritonitis. The overall mortality was 2.9% for patients who had scores of 0-1, 22.7% for those who had scores of 2-3, 46.8% for those who had scores of 4-5, and 86.7% for those who have scores of 7-8.ConclusionsThe simple PIPAS Severity Score can be used on a global level and can help clinicians to identify patients at high risk for treatment failure and mortality.Peer reviewe