World Journal of Emergency Surgery最新文献

Background: Less invasive alternatives than early cholecystectomy (EC) for acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) treatment have been spreading in recent years. We still lack a reliable tool to select high-risk patients who could benefit from these alternatives. Our study aimed to prospectively validate the Chole-risk score in predicting postoperative complications in patients undergoing EC for ACC compared with other preoperative risk prediction models.

Method: The S.P.Ri.M.A.C.C. study is a World Society of Emergency Surgery prospective multicenter observational study. From 1st September 2021 to 1st September 2022, 1253 consecutive patients admitted in 79 centers were included. The inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of ACC and to be a candidate for EC. A Cochran-Armitage test of the trend was run to determine whether a linear correlation existed between the Chole-risk score and a complicated postoperative course. To assess the accuracy of the analyzed prediction models-POSSUM Physiological Score (PS), modified Frailty Index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, American Society of Anesthesiologist score (ASA), APACHE II score, and ACC severity grade-receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was used to compare the diagnostic abilities.

Results: A 30-day major morbidity of 6.6% and 30-day mortality of 1.1% were found. Chole-risk was validated, but POSSUM PS was the best risk prediction model for a complicated course after EC for ACC (in-hospital mortality: AUC 0.94, p < 0.001; 30-day mortality: AUC 0.94, p < 0.001; in-hospital major morbidity: AUC 0.73, p < 0.001; 30-day major morbidity: AUC 0.70, p < 0.001). POSSUM PS with a cutoff of 25 (defined in our study as a 'Chole-POSSUM' score) was then validated in a separate cohort of patients. It showed a 100% sensitivity and a 100% negative predictive value for mortality and a 96-97% negative predictive value for major complications.

Conclusions: The Chole-risk score was externally validated, but the CHOLE-POSSUM stands as a more accurate prediction model. CHOLE-POSSUM is a reliable tool to stratify patients with ACC into a low-risk group that may represent a safe EC candidate, and a high-risk group, where new minimally invasive endoscopic techniques may find the most useful field of action.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrial.gov NCT04995380.

Background: During medical emergencies, intraosseous (IO) access and intravenous (IV) access are methods of administering therapies and medications to patients. Treating patients in emergency medical situations is a highly time sensitive practice; however, research into the optimal access method is limited and existing systematic reviews have only considered out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients. We focused on severe trauma patients and conducted a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and efficiency of intraosseous (IO) access compared to intravenous (IV) access for trauma resuscitation in prehospital care.

Materials and method: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, banque de données en santé publique and CNKI databases were searched for articles published between January 1, 2000, and January 31, 2023. Adult trauma patients were included, regardless of race, nationality, and region. OHCA patients and other types of patients were excluded. The experimental and control groups received IO and IV access, respectively, in the pre-hospital and emergency departments for salvage. The primary outcome was success rate on first attempt, which was defined as secure needle position in the marrow cavity or a peripheral vein, with normal fluid flow. Secondary outcomes included mean time to resuscitation, mean procedure time, and complications.

Results: Three reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies; meta-analyses were then performed using Review Manager (Version 5.4; Cochrane, Oxford, UK). The success rate on first attempt was significant higher for IO access than for IV access (RR = 1.46, 95% CI [1.16, 1.85], P = 0.001). The mean procedure time was significantly reduced (MD = - 5.67, 95% CI [- 9.26, - 2.07], P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in mean time to resuscitation (MD = - 1.00, 95% CI [- 3.18, 1.17], P = 0.37) and complications (RR = 1.22, 95% CI [0.14, 10.62], P = 0.86) between the IO and IV groups.

Conclusion: The success rate on first attempt of IO access was much higher than that of IV access for trauma patients, and the mean procedure time of IO access was significantly less when compared to IV access. Therefore, IO access should be suggested as an urgent vascular access for hypotensive trauma patients, especially those who are under severe shock.

Background: Despite acute appendicitis is one of the most common surgical emergencies, its aetiology remains incompletely understood.

Aim: This study aimed to assess the rate at which faecoliths were present in acute appendicitis treated with appendicectomy and whether their presence was associated with complicated appendicitis.

Methods: All adult patients who underwent appendicectomy for acute appendicitis in a 2 years period (January 2018 and December 2019) at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. The presence of a faecolith was identified by at least one of three methods: pre-operative CT scan, intraoperative identification, or histopathology report. Patients were grouped according to the presence or absence of a faecolith and demographics, type of appendicitis and surgical outcomes analysed. Complicated appendicitis was defined as appendicitis with perforation, gangrene and/or periappendicular abscess formation.

Results: A total of 1035 appendicectomies were performed with acute appendicitis confirmed in 860 (83%), of which 314 (37%) were classified as complicated appendicitis. Three hundred thirty-nine (35%) of the appendicitis cases had faecoliths (complicated 165/314 cases; 53%; uncomplicated 128/546; 23%, p < 0.001). The presence of a faecolith was associated with higher complications and a subsequent longer post-operative stay.

Conclusion: The rigorous methodology of this study has demonstrated a higher rate of faecolith presence in acute appendicitis than previously documented. It reinforces the association of faecoliths with a complicated disease course and the importance in prioritising emergency surgery and postoperative monitoring for complications.

Background: A new hemostatic sealant based on a N-hydroxy-succinimide polyoxazoline (NHS-POx) polymer was evaluated to determine hemostatic efficacy and long-term wound healing and adverse effects in a large animal model of parenchymal organ surgical bleeds.

Methods: Experiment 1 included 20 pigs that were treated with two NHS-POx patch prototypes [a gelatin fibrous carrier (GFC) with NHS-POx and an oxidized regenerated cellulose (ORC) with poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid)-NHS-POx:NU-POx (nucleophilically activated polyoxazoline)], a blank gelatin patch (GFC Blank), TachoSil^® and Veriset™ to stop moderate liver and spleen punch bleedings. After various survival periods (1-6 weeks), pigs were re-operated to evaluate patch degradation and parenchymal healing. During the re-operation, experiment 2 was performed: partial liver and spleen resections with severe bleeding, and hemostatic efficacy was evaluated under normal and heparinized conditions of the two previous prototypes and one additional NHS-POx patch. In the third experiment an improved NHS-POx patch (GATT-Patch; GFC-NHS-POx and added 20% as nucleophilically activated polyoxazoline; NU-POx) was compared with TachoSil^®, Veriset™ and GFC Blank on punch bleedings and partial liver and spleen resections for rapid (10s) hemostatic efficacy.

Results: NHS-POx-based patches showed better (GFC-NHS-POx 83.1%, ORC-PLGA-NHS-POx: NU-POx 98.3%) hemostatic efficacy compared to TachoSil^® (25.0%) and GFC Blank (43.3%), and comparable efficacy with Veriset™ (96.7%) on moderate standardized punch bleedings on liver and spleen. All patches demonstrated gradual degradation over 6 weeks with a reduced local inflammation rate and an improved wound healing. For severe bleedings under non-heparinized conditions, hemostasis was achieved in 100% for Veriset™, 40% for TachoSil and 80-100% for the three NHS-POx prototypes; similar differences between patches remained for heparinized conditions. In experiment 3, GATT-Patch, Veriset™, TachoSil and GFC Blank reached hemostasis after 10s in 100%, 42.8%, 7.1% and 14.3%, respectively, and at 3 min in 100%, 100%, 14.3% and 35.7%, respectively, on all liver and spleen punctures and resections.

Conclusions: NHS-POx-based patches, and particularly the GATT-Patch, are fast in achieving effective hemostatic sealing on standardized moderate and severe bleedings without apparent long-term adverse events.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning describe a broad range of algorithm types that can be trained based on datasets to make predictions. The increasing sophistication of AI has created new opportunities to apply these algorithms within within trauma care. Our paper overviews the current uses of AI along the continuum of trauma care, including injury prediction, triage, emergency department volume, assessment, and outcomes. Starting at the point of injury, algorithms are being used to predict severity of motor vehicle crashes, which can help inform emergency responses. Once on the scene, AI can be used to help emergency services triage patients remotely in order to inform transfer location and urgency. For the receiving hospital, these tools can be used to predict trauma volumes in the emergency department to help allocate appropriate staffing. After patient arrival to hospital, these algorithms not only can help to predict injury severity, which can inform decision-making, but also predict patient outcomes to help trauma teams anticipate patient trajectory. Overall, these tools have the capability to transform trauma care. AI is still nascent within the trauma surgery sphere, but this body of the literature shows that this technology has vast potential. AI-based predictive tools in trauma need to be explored further through prospective trials and clinical validation of algorithms.

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the results of posterior component separation (CS) and transversus abdominis muscle release (TAR) with retro-muscular mesh reinforcement in patients with primary abdominal wall dehiscence (AWD). The secondary aims were to detect the incidence of postoperative surgical site occurrence and risk factors of incisional hernia (IH) development following AWD repair with posterior CS with TAR reinforced by retromuscular mesh.

Methods: Between June 2014 and April 2018, 202 patients with grade IA primary AWD (Björck's first classification) following midline laparotomies were treated using posterior CS with TAR release reinforced by a retro-muscular mesh in a prospective multicenter cohort study.

Results: The mean age was 42 ± 10 years, with female predominance (59.9%). The mean time from index surgery (midline laparotomy) to primary AWD was 7 ± 3 days. The mean vertical length of primary AWD was 16 ± 2 cm. The median time from primary AWD occurrence to posterior CS + TAR surgery was 3 ± 1 days. The mean operative time of posterior CS + TAR was 95 ± 12 min. No recurrent AWD occurred. Surgical site infections (SSI), seroma, hematoma, IH, and infected mesh occurred in 7.9%, 12.4%, 2%, 8.9%, and 3%, respectively. Mortality was reported in 2.5%. Old age, male gender, smoking, albumin level < 3.5 gm%, time from AWD to posterior CS + TAR surgery, SSI, ileus, and infected mesh were significantly higher in IH. IH rate was 0.5% and 8.9% at two and three years, respectively. In multivariate logistic regression analyses, the predictors of IH were time from AWD till posterior CS + TAR surgical intervention, ileus, SSI, and infected mesh.

Conclusion: Posterior CS with TAR reinforced by retro-muscular mesh insertion resulted in no AWD recurrence, low IH rates, and low mortality of 2.5%. Trial registration Clinical trial: NCT05278117.

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) between clinicians and patients is one of the pillars of the modern patient-centric philosophy of care. This study aims to explore SDM in the discipline of trauma and emergency surgery, investigating its interpretation as well as the barriers and facilitators for its implementation among surgeons.

Methods: Grounding on the literature on the topics of the understanding, barriers, and facilitators of SDM in trauma and emergency surgery, a survey was created by a multidisciplinary committee and endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). The survey was sent to all 917 WSES members, advertised through the society's website, and shared on the society's Twitter profile.

Results: A total of 650 trauma and emergency surgeons from 71 countries in five continents participated in the initiative. Less than half of the surgeons understood SDM, and 30% still saw the value in exclusively engaging multidisciplinary provider teams without involving the patient. Several barriers to effectively partnering with the patient in the decision-making process were identified, such as the lack of time and the need to concentrate on making medical teams work smoothly.

Discussion: Our investigation underlines how only a minority of trauma and emergency surgeons understand SDM, and perhaps, the value of SDM is not fully accepted in trauma and emergency situations. The inclusion of SDM practices in clinical guidelines may represent the most feasible and advocated solutions.

Background: Common bile duct exploration (CBDE) is safe and effective for managing choledocholithiasis, but most US general surgeons have limited experience with CBDE and are uncomfortable performing this procedure in practice. Surgical trainee exposure to CBDE is limited, and their learning curve for achieving autonomous, practice-ready performance has not been previously described. This study tests the hypothesis that receipt of one or more prior CBDE operative performance assessments, combined with formative feedback, is associated with greater resident operative performance and autonomy.

Methods: Resident and attending assessments of resident operative performance and autonomy were obtained for 189 laparoscopic or open CBDEs performed at 28 institutions. Performance and autonomy were graded along validated ordinal scales. Cases in which the resident had one or more prior CBDE case evaluations (n = 48) were compared with cases in which the resident had no prior evaluations (n = 141).

Results: Compared with cases in which the resident had no prior CBDE case evaluations, cases with a prior evaluation had greater proportions of practice-ready or exceptional performance ratings according to both residents (27% vs. 11%, p = .009) and attendings (58% vs. 19%, p < .001) and had greater proportions of passive help or supervision only autonomy ratings according to both residents (17% vs. 4%, p = .009) and attendings (69% vs. 32%, p < .01).

Conclusions: Residents with at least one prior CBDE evaluation and formative feedback demonstrated better operative performance and received greater autonomy than residents without prior evaluations, underscoring the propensity of feedback to help residents achieve autonomous, practice-ready performance for rare operations.

Background: Hematologic patients requiring abdominal emergency surgery are considered to be a high-risk population based on disease- and treatment-related immunosuppression. However, the optimal surgical therapy and perioperative management of patients with abdominal emergency surgery in patients with coexisting hematological malignancies remain unclear.

Methods: We here report a single-center retrospective analysis aimed to investigate the impact of abdominal emergency surgery due to clinically suspected gastrointestinal perforation (group A), intestinal obstruction (group B), or acute cholecystitis (group C) on mortality and morbidity of patients with coexisting hematological malignancies. All patients included in this retrospective single-center study were identified by screening for the ICD 10 diagnostic codes for gastrointestinal perforation, intestinal obstruction, and ischemia and acute cholecystitis. In addition, a keyword search was performed in the database of all pathology reports in the given time frame.

Results: A total of 56 patients were included in this study. Gastrointestinal perforation and intestinal obstruction occurred in 26 and 13 patients, respectively. Of those, 21 patients received a primary gastrointestinal anastomosis, and anastomotic leakage (AL) occurred in 33.3% and resulted in an AL-related 30-day mortality rate of 80%. The only factor associated with higher rates of AL was sepsis before surgery. In patients with suspected acute cholecystitis, postoperative bleeding events requiring abdominal packing occurred in three patients and lead to overall perioperative morbidity of 17.6% and surgery-related 30-day mortality of 5.9%.

Conclusion: In patients with known or suspected hematologic malignancies who require emergency abdominal surgery due to gastrointestinal perforation or intestinal obstruction, a temporary or permanent stoma might be preferred to a primary intestinal anastomosis.

Background: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS), including laparoscopic and robotic approaches, is widely adopted in elective digestive surgery, but selectively used for surgical emergencies. The present position paper summarizes the available evidence concerning the learning curve to achieve proficiency in emergency MIS and provides five expert opinion statements, which may form the basis for developing standardized curricula and training programs in emergency MIS.

Methods: This position paper was conducted according to the World Society of Emergency Surgery methodology. A steering committee and an international expert panel were involved in the critical appraisal of the literature and the development of the consensus statements.

Results: Thirteen studies regarding the learning curve in emergency MIS were selected. All but one study considered laparoscopic appendectomy. Only one study reported on emergency robotic surgery. In most of the studies, proficiency was achieved after an average of 30 procedures (range: 20-107) depending on the initial surgeon's experience. High heterogeneity was noted in the way the learning curve was assessed. The experts claim that further studies investigating learning curve processes in emergency MIS are needed. The emergency surgeon curriculum should include a progressive and adequate training based on simulation, supervised clinical practice (proctoring), and surgical fellowships. The results should be evaluated by adopting a credentialing system to ensure quality standards. Surgical proficiency should be maintained with a minimum caseload and constantly evaluated. Moreover, the training process should involve the entire surgical team to facilitate the surgeon's proficiency.

Conclusions: Limited evidence exists concerning the learning process in laparoscopic and robotic emergency surgery. The proposed statements should be seen as a preliminary guide for the surgical community while stressing the need for further research.