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 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 < 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 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.

The Operating Room management for emergency Surgical Activity (ORSA) study: a WSES international survey.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances and improvements in the management of surgical patients, emergency and trauma surgery is associated with high morbidity and mortality. This may be due in part to delays in definitive surgical management in the operating room (OR). There is a lack of studies focused on OR prioritization and resource allocation in emergency surgery. The Operating Room management for emergency Surgical Activity (ORSA) study was conceived to assess the management of operating theatres and resources from a global perspective among expert international acute care surgeons. METHOD: The ORSA study was conceived as an international web survey. The questionnaire was composed of 23 multiple-choice and open questions. Data were collected over 3 months. Participation in the survey was voluntary and anonymous. RESULTS: One hundred forty-seven emergency and acute care surgeons answered the questionnaire; the response rate was 58.8%. The majority of the participants come from Europe. One hundred nineteen surgeons (81%; 119/147) declared to have at least one emergency OR in their hospital; for the other 20/147 surgeons (13.6%), there is not a dedicated emergency operating room. Forty-six (68/147)% of the surgeons use the elective OR to perform emergency procedures during the day. The planning of an emergency surgical procedure is done by phone by 70% (104/147) of the surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: There is no dedicated emergency OR in the majority of hospitals internationally. Elective surgical procedures are usually postponed or even cancelled to perform emergency surgery. It is a priority to validate an effective universal triaging and scheduling system to allocate emergency surgical procedures. The new Timing in Acute Care Surgery (TACS) was recently proposed and validated by a Delphi consensus as a clear and reproducible triage tool to timely perform an emergency surgical procedure according to the clinical severity of the surgical disease. The new TACS needs to be prospectively validated in clinical practice. Logistics have to be assessed using a multi-disciplinary approach to improve patients' safety, optimise the use of resources, and decrease costs.

The new timing in acute care surgery (new TACS) classification: a WSES Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Timely access to the operating room for emergency general surgery (EGS) indications remains a challenge across the globe, largely driven by operating room availability and staffing constraints. The "timing in acute care surgery" (TACS) classification was previously published to introduce a new tool to triage the timely and appropriate access of EGS patients to the operating room. However, the clinical and operational effectiveness of the TACS classification has not been investigated in subsequent validation studies. This study aimed to improve the TACS classification and provide further consensus around the appropriate use of the new TACS classification through a standardized Delphi approach with international experts. METHODS: This is a validation study of the new TACS by a selected international panel of experts using the Delphi method. The TACS questionnaire was designed as a web-based survey. The consensus agreement level was established to be ≥ 75%. The collective consensus agreement was defined as the sum of the percentage of the highest Likert scale levels (4-5) out of all participants. Surgical emergency diseases and correlated clinical scenarios were defined for each of the proposed classes. Subsequent rounds were carried out until a definitive level of consensus was reached. Frequencies and percentages were calculated to determine the degree of agreement for each surgical disease. RESULTS: Four polling rounds were carried out. The new TACS classification provides 6 colour-code classes correlated to a precise timing to surgery, defined scenarios and surgical condition. The WHITE colour-code class was introduced to rapidly (within a week) reschedule cancelled or postponed surgical procedures. Haemodynamic stability is the main tool to stratify patients for immediate surgery or not in the presence of sepsis/septic shock. Fifty-one surgical diseases were included in the different colour-code classes of priority. CONCLUSION: The new TACS classification is a comprehensive, simple, clear and reproducible triage system which can be used to assess the severity of the patient and the surgical disease, to reduce the time to access to the operating room, and to manage the emergency surgical patients within a "safe" timeframe. By including well-defined surgical diseases in the different colour-code classes of priority, validated through a Delphi consensus, the new TACS improves communication among surgeons, between surgeons and anaesthesiologists and decreases conflicts and waste and waiting time in accessing the operating room for emergency surgical patients.

The ChoCO-W prospective observational global study: Does COVID-19 increase gangrenous cholecystitis?

BACKGROUND: The incidence of the highly morbid and potentially lethal gangrenous cholecystitis was reportedly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of the ChoCO-W study was to compare the clinical findings and outcomes of acute cholecystitis in patients who had COVID-19 disease with those who did not. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected over 6 months (October 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021) with 1-month follow-up. In October 2020, Delta variant of SARS CoV-2 was isolated for the first time. Demographic and clinical data were analyzed and reported according to the STROBE guidelines. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients who had COVID-19 were compared with those who did not. RESULTS: A total of 2893 patients, from 42 countries, 218 centers, involved, with a median age of 61.3 (SD: 17.39) years were prospectively enrolled in this study; 1481 (51%) patients were males. One hundred and eighty (6.9%) patients were COVID-19 positive, while 2412 (93.1%) were negative. Concomitant preexisting diseases including cardiovascular diseases (p < 0.0001), diabetes (p < 0.0001), and severe chronic obstructive airway disease (p = 0.005) were significantly more frequent in the COVID-19 group. Markers of sepsis severity including ARDS (p < 0.0001), PIPAS score (p < 0.0001), WSES sepsis score (p < 0.0001), qSOFA (p < 0.0001), and Tokyo classification of severity of acute cholecystitis (p < 0.0001) were significantly higher in the COVID-19 group. The COVID-19 group had significantly higher postoperative complications (32.2% compared with 11.7%, p < 0.0001), longer mean hospital stay (13.21 compared with 6.51 days, p < 0.0001), and mortality rate (13.4% compared with 1.7%, p < 0.0001). The incidence of gangrenous cholecystitis was doubled in the COVID-19 group (40.7% compared with 22.3%). The mean wall thickness of the gallbladder was significantly higher in the COVID-19 group [6.32 (SD: 2.44) mm compared with 5.4 (SD: 3.45) mm; p < 0.0001]. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of gangrenous cholecystitis is higher in COVID patients compared with non-COVID patients admitted to the emergency department with acute cholecystitis. Gangrenous cholecystitis in COVID patients is associated with high-grade Clavien-Dindo postoperative complications, longer hospital stay and higher mortality rate. The open cholecystectomy rate is higher in COVID compared with non -COVID patients. It is recommended to delay the surgical treatment in COVID patients, when it is possible, to decrease morbidity and mortality rates. COVID-19 infection and gangrenous cholecystistis are not absolute contraindications to perform laparoscopic cholecystectomy, in a case by case evaluation, in expert hands.

Survival Study: International Multicentric Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases (SIMMILR-2).

Introduction: Study: International Multicentric Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases (SIMMILR-CRLM) was a propensity score matched (PSM) study that reported short-term outcomes of patients with CRLM who met the Milan criteria and underwent either open (OLR), laparoscopic (LLR) or robotic liver resection (RLR). This study, designated as SIMMILR-2, reports the long-term outcomes from that initial study, now referred to as SIMMILR-1. Methods: Data regarding neoadjuvant chemotherapeutic (NC) and neoadjuvant biological (NB) treatments received were collected, and Kaplan−Meier curves reporting the 5-year overall (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) for OLR, LLR and RLR were created for patients who presented with synchronous lesions only, as there was insufficient follow-up for patients with metachronous lesions. Results: A total of 73% of patients received NC and 38% received NB in the OLR group compared to 70% and 28% in the LLR group, respectively (p = 0.5 and p = 0.08). A total of 82% of patients received NC and 40% received NB in the OLR group compared to 86% and 32% in the RLR group, respectively (p > 0.05). A total of 71% of patients received NC and 53% received NB in the LLR group compared to 71% and 47% in the RLR group, respectively (p > 0.05). OS at 5 years was 34.8% after OLR compared to 37.1% after LLR (p = 0.4), 34.3% after OLR compared to 46.9% after RLR (p = 0.4) and 30.3% after LLR compared to 46.9% after RLR (p = 0.9). RFS at 5 years was 12.1% after OLR compared to 20.7% after LLR (p = 0.6), 33.3% after OLR compared to 26.3% after RLR (p = 0.6) and 22.7% after LLR compared to 34.6% after RLR (p = 0.6). Conclusions: When comparing OLR, LLR and RLR, the OS and RFS were all similar after utilization of the Milan criteria and PSM. Biological agents tended to be utilized more in the OLR group when compared to the LLR group, suggesting that highly aggressive tumors are still managed through an open approach.

Operative management of acute abdomen after bariatric surgery in the emergency setting: the OBA guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting with acute abdominal pain that occurs after months or years following bariatric surgery may present for assessment and management in the local emergency units. Due to the large variety of surgical bariatric techniques, emergency surgeons have to be aware of the main functional outcomes and long-term surgical complications following the most performed bariatric surgical procedures. The purpose of these evidence-based guidelines is to present a consensus position from members of the WSES in collaboration with IFSO bariatric experienced surgeons, on the management of acute abdomen after bariatric surgery focusing on long-term complications in patients who have undergone laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. METHOD: A working group of experienced general, acute care, and bariatric surgeons was created to carry out a systematic review of the literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) and to answer the PICO questions formulated after the Operative management in bariatric acute abdomen survey. The literature search was limited to late/long-term complications following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. CONCLUSIONS: The acute abdomen after bariatric surgery is a common cause of admission in emergency departments. Knowledge of the most common late/long-term complications (> 4 weeks after surgical procedure) following sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and their anatomy leads to a focused management in the emergency setting with good outcomes and decreased morbidity and mortality rates. A close collaboration between emergency surgeons, radiologists, endoscopists, and anesthesiologists is mandatory in the management of this group of patients in the emergency setting.

Study: International Multicentric Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases (SIMMILR-CRLM).

(1) Background: Here we report on a retrospective study of an international multicentric cohort after minimally invasive liver resection (SIMMILR) of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) from six centers. (2) Methods: Resections were divided by the approach used: open liver resection (OLR), laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and robotic liver resection (RLR). Patients with macrovascular invasion, more than three metastases measuring more than 3 cm or a solitary metastasis more than 5 cm were excluded, and any remaining heterogeneity found was further analyzed after propensity score matching (PSM) to decrease any potential bias. (3) Results: Prior to matching, 566 patients underwent OLR, 462 LLR and 36 RLR for CRLM. After PSM, 142 patients were in each group of the OLR vs. LLR group and 22 in the OLR vs. RLR and 21 in the LLR vs. RLR groups. Blood loss, hospital stay, and morbidity rates were all highly statistically significantly increased in the OLR compared to the LLR group, 636 mL vs. 353 mL, 9 vs. 5 days and 25% vs. 6%, respectively (p < 0.001). Only blood loss was significantly decreased when RLR was compared to OLR and LLR, 250 mL vs. 597 mL, and 224 mL vs. 778 mL, p < 0.008 and p < 0.04, respectively. (4) Conclusions: SIMMILR indicates that minimally invasive approaches for CRLM that follow the Milan criteria may have short term advantages. Notably, larger studies with long-term follow-up comparing robotic resections to both OLR and LLR are still needed.

Knowledge, attitude, and practice of artificial intelligence in emergency and trauma surgery, the ARIES project: an international web-based survey.

AIM: We aimed to evaluate the knowledge, attitude, and practices in the application of AI in the emergency setting among international acute care and emergency surgeons. METHODS: An online questionnaire composed of 30 multiple choice and open-ended questions was sent to the members of the World Society of Emergency Surgery between 29th May and 28th August 2021. The questionnaire was developed by a panel of 11 international experts and approved by the WSES steering committee. RESULTS: 200 participants answered the survey, 32 were females (16%). 172 (86%) surgeons thought that AI will improve acute care surgery. Fifty surgeons (25%) were trained, robotic surgeons and can perform it. Only 19 (9.5%) were currently performing it. 126 (63%) surgeons do not have a robotic system in their institution, and for those who have it, it was mainly used for elective surgery. Only 100 surgeons (50%) were able to define different AI terminology. Participants thought that AI is useful to support training and education (61.5%), perioperative decision making (59.5%), and surgical vision (53%) in emergency surgery. There was no statistically significant difference between males and females in ability, interest in training or expectations of AI (p values 0.91, 0.82, and 0.28, respectively, Mann-Whitney U test). Ability was significantly correlated with interest and expectations (p < 0.0001 Pearson rank correlation, rho 0.42 and 0.47, respectively) but not with experience (p = 0.9, rho - 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of artificial intelligence in the emergency and trauma setting is still in an early phase. The support of emergency and trauma surgeons is essential for the progress of AI in their setting which can be augmented by proper research and training programs in this area.

Artificial intelligence in surgery: the emergency surgeon's perspective (the ARIES project).

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been developed and implemented in healthcare with the valuable potential to reduce health, social, and economic inequities, help actualize universal health coverage, and improve health outcomes on a global scale. The application of AI in emergency surgery settings could improve clinical practice and operating rooms management by promoting consistent, high-quality decision making while preserving the importance of bedside assessment and human intuition as well as respect for human rights and equitable surgical care, but ethical and legal issues are slowing down surgeons' enthusiasm. Emergency surgeons are aware that prioritizing education, increasing the availability of high AI technologies for emergency and trauma surgery, and funding to support research projects that use AI to provide decision support in the operating room are crucial to create an emergency "intelligent" surgery.

The use of Permacol® biological mesh for complex abdominal wall repair.

BACKGROUND: Complex abdominal wall repair (CAWR) remains challenging, especially in contaminated fields where the use of a synthetic mesh is associated with prohibitively complication rates. Consequently, biological mesh has been proposed as an alternative. The aim of our study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of using Permacol® in patients who had CAWR. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the files of patients who had CAWR using the Permacol® mesh. Analysis included patients' preoperative characteristics, procedural parameters, and early and late post-operative complications including mainly recurrence. A multivariate regression model was performed to determine factors that influence 24-months recurrence rate. RESULTS: Between January 2009 and December 2018, 75 patients. The most common indication was hernia in a contaminated field (48.0%) and abdominal wall defect greater than 10 cm in diameter (36%). Overall, 44% of our patients were Centers for Disease Control (CDC) class II or III and 81.3% fall into category II or III according to the Ventral Hernia Working Group (VHWG) classification. Recurrence rate of our series was 9.3%. Complete fascial closure was achieved in 60 patients (80%). Upon univariate analysis complete fascial closure, posterior component separation, seroma drainage, BMI>30 kg/m2 and age >65 years, VHWD grade >2, DINDO CLAVIEN class >2 affected the recurrence rate at 2 years follow-up. When subcutaneous drains are placed prophylactically, recurrence rates drop from 38.7% (5/14) to 3.3% (2/61 patients) when drains are placed at the time of operation (P=0.02). Only fascial closure affected the 24-months recurrence rate on multivariate analysis (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Permacol® surgical implant use for CAWR is safe with a relatively low rate of hernia recurrence at 2 years. Prophylactic subcutaneous drain placement may reduce the risk of hernia recurrence. The presence of contaminated fields does not appear to influence hernia recurrence when Permacol® is used, in fact, the only factor that affects recurrence rate at 24-months on multivariate analysis is completeness of the fascial closure.

Artificial Intelligence Surgery: How Do We Get to Autonomous Actions in Surgery?

Most surgeons are skeptical as to the feasibility of autonomous actions in surgery. Interestingly, many examples of autonomous actions already exist and have been around for years. Since the beginning of this millennium, the field of artificial intelligence (AI) has grown exponentially with the development of machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), computer vision (CV) and natural language processing (NLP). All of these facets of AI will be fundamental to the development of more autonomous actions in surgery, unfortunately, only a limited number of surgeons have or seek expertise in this rapidly evolving field. As opposed to AI in medicine, AI surgery (AIS) involves autonomous movements. Fortuitously, as the field of robotics in surgery has improved, more surgeons are becoming interested in technology and the potential of autonomous actions in procedures such as interventional radiology, endoscopy and surgery. The lack of haptics, or the sensation of touch, has hindered the wider adoption of robotics by many surgeons; however, now that the true potential of robotics can be comprehended, the embracing of AI by the surgical community is more important than ever before. Although current complete surgical systems are mainly only examples of tele-manipulation, for surgeons to get to more autonomously functioning robots, haptics is perhaps not the most important aspect. If the goal is for robots to ultimately become more and more independent, perhaps research should not focus on the concept of haptics as it is perceived by humans, and the focus should be on haptics as it is perceived by robots/computers. This article will discuss aspects of ML, DL, CV and NLP as they pertain to the modern practice of surgery, with a focus on current AI issues and advances that will enable us to get to more autonomous actions in surgery. Ultimately, there may be a paradigm shift that needs to occur in the surgical community as more surgeons with expertise in AI may be needed to fully unlock the potential of AIS in a safe, efficacious and timely manner.

WSES-AAST guidelines: management of inflammatory bowel disease in the emergency setting.

BACKGROUND: Despite the current therapeutic options for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease, surgery is still frequently required in the emergency setting, although the number of cases performed seems to have decreased in recent years. The World Society of Emergency Surgery decided to debate in a consensus conference of experts, the main pertinent issues around the management of inflammatory bowel disease in the emergent situation, with the need to provide focused guidelines for acute care and emergency surgeons. METHOD: A group of experienced surgeons and gastroenterologists were nominated to develop the topics assigned and answer the questions addressed by the Steering Committee of the project. Each expert followed a precise analysis and grading of the studies selected for review. Statements and recommendations were discussed and voted at the Consensus Conference of the 6th World Society of Emergency Surgery held in Nijmegen (The Netherlands) in June 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Complicated inflammatory bowel disease requires a multidisciplinary approach because of the complexity of this patient group and disease spectrum in the emergency setting, with the aim of obtaining safe surgery with good functional outcomes and a decreasing stoma rate where appropriate.

The management of surgical patients in the emergency setting during COVID-19 pandemic: the WSES position paper.

BACKGROUND: Since the COVID-19 pandemic has occurred, nations showed their unpreparedness to deal with a mass casualty incident of this proportion and severity, which resulted in a tremendous number of deaths even among healthcare workers. The World Society of Emergency Surgery conceived this position paper with the purpose of providing evidence-based recommendations for the management of emergency surgical patients under COVID-19 pandemic for the safety of the patient and healthcare workers. METHOD: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) through the MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and SCOPUS databases. Synthesis of evidence, statements and recommendations were developed in accordance with the GRADE methodology. RESULTS: Given the limitation of the evidence, the current document represents an effort to join selected high-quality articles and experts' opinion. CONCLUSIONS: The aim of this position paper is to provide an exhaustive guidelines to perform emergency surgery in a safe and protected environment for surgical patients and for healthcare workers under COVID-19 and to offer the best management of COVID-19 patients needing for an emergency surgical treatment. We recommend screening for COVID-19 infection at the emergency department all acute surgical patients who are waiting for hospital admission and urgent surgery. The screening work-up provides a RT-PCR nasopharyngeal swab test and a baseline (non-contrast) chest CT or a chest X-ray or a lungs US, depending on skills and availability. If the COVID-19 screening is not completed we recommend keeping the patient in isolation until RT-PCR swab test result is not available, and to manage him/she such as an overt COVID patient. The management of COVID-19 surgical patients is multidisciplinary. If an immediate surgical procedure is mandatory, whether laparoscopic or via open approach, we recommend doing every effort to protect the operating room staff for the safety of the patient.

The management of surgical patients in the emergency setting during COVID-19 pandemic: the WSES position paper

Since the COVID-19 pandemic has occurred, nations showed their unpreparedness to deal with a mass casualty incident of this proportion and severity, which resulted in a tremendous number of deaths even among healthcare workers. The World Society of Emergency Surgery conceived this position paper with the purpose of providing evidence-based recommendations for the management of emergency surgical patients under COVID-19 pandemic for the safety of the patient and healthcare workers. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) through the MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and SCOPUS databases. Synthesis of evidence, statements and recommendations were developed in accordance with the GRADE methodology. Given the limitation of the evidence, the current document represents an effort to join selected high-quality articles and experts' opinion. The aim of this position paper is to provide an exhaustive guidelines to perform emergency surgery in a safe and protected environment for surgical patients and for healthcare workers under COVID-19 and to offer the best management of COVID-19 patients needing for an emergency surgical treatment. We recommend screening for COVID-19 infection at the emergency department all acute surgical patients who are waiting for hospital admission and urgent surgery. The screening work-up provides a RT-PCR nasopharyngeal swab test and a baseline (non-contrast) chest CT or a chest X-ray or a lungs US, depending on skills and availability. If the COVID-19 screening is not completed we recommend keeping the patient in isolation until RT-PCR swab test result is not available, and to manage him/she such as an overt COVID patient. The management of COVID-19 surgical patients is multidisciplinary. If an immediate surgical procedure is mandatory, whether laparoscopic or via open approach, we recommend doing every effort to protect the operating room staff for the safety of the patient.

Risk factors for necrotic cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic: the ChoCO-WSES prospective collaborative study's experience.

Objectives: During the COVID-19 pandemic, several studies have reported a decrease in in the admission surgical patients and emergency surgical procedures, and an increase in more severe septic surgical diseases, such as necrotic cholecystitis. It was probably due to to a critical delay in time-to- diagnosis and time-to-intervention resulting to limited access to the operating theatres as well as intensive care units. Early laparoscopic cholecystec- tomy is the standard of care for acute cholecystitis. Moreover early data from COVID-19 pandemic reported an increase in the incidence of necrotic cholecystitis among COVID-19 patients. The ChoCO-W prospective observational collaborative study was conceived to investigate the incidence and management of acute cholecystitis under the COVID-19 pandemic. Material and Methods: The present research protocol was. conceived and designed as a prospective observational international collaborative study focusing on the management of patients with to the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis under the COVID-19 pandemic. The study obtained the approval of the local Ethics Committee (Nimes, France) and meet and conform to the standards outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Eligible patients will be prospectively enrolled in the recruitment period and data entered in an online case report form. Results: The ChoCO-W study will be the largest prospective study carried out during the first period of the COVID-19 pandemic with the aim to inves- tigate the management of patients with acute cholecystitis, in the lack of studies focusing on COVID-19 positive patients. Conclusion: The ChoCO-W study is conceived to be the largest prospective study to assess the management of patients presenting with acute chol- ecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic and risk factors correlated with necrotic cholecystitis to improve the management of high-risk patients.

Current management of acute left colon diverticulitis: What have Italian surgeons learned after the IPOD study?

The acute left diverticulitis is a common problem encountered by surgeons in the acute setting. Some years ago, the Italian Prospective Observational Diverticulitis (IPOD) study showed several disputes in managing acute left colon diverticulitis in Italian surgical department. The aim of this study is to check the compliance of Italian surgeons with clinical evidence-based guidelines in non-university hospitals. A 21 multiple-choice questions survey was sent to the Italian Society of Hospital Surgeons (ACOI) mailing list members, from the 1st April 2019 to 6th June 2019. One hundred and seventy-four Italian general surgeons (the ACOI collaborative diverticulitis group) joined the project and answered to the survey. The response rate was 7% (174/2500 ACOI members). Despite current international guidelines about the management of acute diverticulitis, several controversies have emerged from the analysis of this survey in the clinical practice of Italian surgeons, resulting from their low compliance with evidence-based recommendations.

The experience of the minimally invasive (MI) fellowship-trained (FT) hepatic-pancreatic and biliary (HPB) surgeon: could the outcome of MI pancreatoduodenectomy for peri-ampullary tumors be better than open?

BACKGROUND: Although early series focused on benign disease, minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) might be particularly suited for malignancy. Unlike their predecessors, fellowship-trained (FT) Hepatic-Pancreatic and Biliary (HPB) surgeons usually have equal skills in approaching peri-ampullary tumors (PT) either openly or via minimally invasive (MI) techniques. METHOD: We retrospectively reviewed a MI-HPB-FT surgeon's 10-year experience with PD. A sub-analysis of malignant PT was also done (MIPD-PT vs. OPD-PT). The primary endpoint was to assess postoperative mortality and morbidity. Secondary endpoints included operative parameters, length of hospital stay, and survival analysis. Moreover, we addressed practice pattern changes for a surgeon straight out of training with no previous experience of independent surgery. RESULTS: From December 2007-February 2018, one MI-HPB-FT performed a total of 100 PDs, including 57 MIPDs and 43 open PDs (OPDs). In both groups, over 70% of PDs were undertaken for malignancy. Eight patients with borderline resectable pancreatic ductal cancer (PDC) were in the OPD-PT group (as compared to only 2 in the MIPD-PT group) (p = 0.07). Estimated mean blood loss and length of stay were less in the MIPD-PT group (345 mL and 12 days) as compared to the OPD-PT group (971 mL and 16 days), p < 0.001 and p = 0.007, respectively. However, the mean operative time was longer for the MIPD-PT (456 min) as compared to the OPD-PT (371 min), p < 0.001. Thirty and 90-day mortality was 2.6%/5.1% after MIPD-PT compared to 0%/3.2% after OPD-PT, respectively, p = 1. Overall 30-/90-day morbidity rates were similar at 41.0%/43.6% after MIPD-PT and 35.5%/41.9% after OPD-PT, respectively, p = 0.8 and 1. Complete resection (R0) rates were not statistically different, 97.4% after MIPD-PT compared to 87.0% after OPD-PT (p = 0.2). After MIPD and OPD for malignant PT, overall 1, 3 and 5-year survival rates, and median survival were 82.5%, 59.6% and 46.3% and 38 months as compared to 52.5%, 15.7% and 10.5% and 13 months, respectively (p = 0.01). In the MIDP-PT group, recurrence free survival (RFS) at 1, 3 and 5 years and median RFS were 69.1%, 41.9% and 33.5% and 26 months as compared to 50.4%, 6.3% and 6.3% and 13 months, in the OPD-PT group, respectively (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: FT HPB Surgeons who begin their practice with the ability to do both MI and OPD may preferentially approach resectable peri-ampullary tumors minimally invasively. This may result in decreased blood loss decreased length of hospital stays. Despite longer operative time, the improved visualization of MI techniques may enable superior R0 rates when compared to historical open controls. Moreover, combined with quicker initiation of adjuvant chemotherapeutic treatments, this may eventually result in improved survival.