Impact of hospital volume on failure to rescue for complications requiring reoperation after elective colorectal surgery: multicentre propensity score-matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: It has previously been reported that there are similar reoperation rates after elective colorectal surgery but higher failure-to-rescue (FTR) rates in low-volume hospitals (LVHs) versus high-volume hospitals (HVHs). This study assessed the effect of hospital volume on reoperation rate and FTR after reoperation following elective colorectal surgery in a matched cohort. METHODS: Population-based retrospective multicentre cohort study of adult patients undergoing reoperation for a complication after an elective, non-centralized colorectal operation between 2006 and 2017 in 11 hospitals. Hospitals were divided into either HVHs (3 hospitals, median ≥126 resections per year) or LVHs (8 hospitals, <126 resections per year). Patients were propensity score-matched (PSM) for baseline characteristics as well as indication and type of elective surgery. Primary outcome was FTR. RESULTS: A total of 6428 and 3020 elective colorectal resections were carried out in HVHs and LVHs, of which 217 (3.4%) and 165 (5.5%) underwent reoperation (P < 0.001), respectively. After PSM, 142 patients undergoing reoperation remained in both HVH and LVH groups for final analyses. FTR rate was 7.7% in HVHs and 10.6% in LVHs (P = 0.410). The median Comprehensive Complication Index was 21.8 in HVHs and 29.6 in LVHs (P = 0.045). There was no difference in median ICU-free days, length of stay, the risk for permanent ostomy or overall survival between the groups. CONCLUSION: The reoperation rate and postoperative complication burden was higher in LVHs with no significant difference in FTR compared with HVHs.

Pre-hospital management and patient-related factors affecting access to the surgical care of appendicitis - a survey study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Long pre-hospital delay substantially increases the likelihood of perforated appendicitis. This study aimed to find patient-related factors affecting this delay. METHODS: A survey was conducted for patients with acute appendicitis after appendectomy. The participants were asked about their path to the surgical center and socioeconomic status. Variables affecting delays and the rate of complicated appendicitis were analyzed. RESULTS: The study included 510 patients; 157 (31%) had complicated appendicitis with a median prehospital delay of 42 h. In patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, the delay was 21 h, p < .001. Forty-six (29%) patients with complicated appendicitis were not referred to the hospital after the first doctor's visit. The multivariate analysis discovered factors associated with long pre-hospital delay: age 40-64 years (OR 1.63 (95% CI 1.06-2.52); compared to age 18-39), age more than 64 years (OR 2.84 (95% CI 1.18-6.80); compared to age 18-39), loss of appetite (OR 2.86 (95% CI 1.64-4.98)), fever (OR 1.66 (95% CI 1.08-2.57)), non-referral by helpline nurse (OR 2.02 (95% CI 1.15-3.53)) and non-referral at first doctors visit (OR 2.16 (95% CI 1.32-3.53)). Age 40-64 years (OR 2.41 (95% CI 1.50-3.88)), age more than 64 years (OR 8.79 (95% CI 2.19-35.36)), fever (OR 1.83 (95% CI 1.15-2.89)) and non-referral at first doctors visit (OR 1.90 (95% CI 1.14-3.14)) were also risk factors for complicated appendicitis. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced age, fever and failure to suspect acute appendicitis in primary care are associated with prolonged pre-hospital delay and complicated appendicitis.

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 2023 MANCTRA Acute Biliary Pancreatitis Care Bundle: A Joint Effort Between Human Knowledge and Artificial Intelligence (ChatGPT) to Optimize the Care of Patients With Acute Biliary Pancreatitis in Western Countries.

OBJECTIVE: To generate an up-to-date bundle to manage acute biliary pancreatitis using an evidence-based, artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted GRADE method. BACKGROUND: A care bundle is a set of core elements of care that are distilled from the most solid evidence-based practice guidelines and recommendations. METHODS: The research questions were addressed in this bundle following the PICO criteria. The working group summarized the effects of interventions with the strength of recommendation and quality of evidence applying the GRADE methodology. ChatGPT AI system was used to independently assess the quality of evidence of each element in the bundle, together with the strength of the recommendations. RESULTS: The 7 elements of the bundle discourage antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis, support the use of a full-solid diet in patients with mild to moderately severe acute biliary pancreatitis, and recommend early enteral nutrition in patients unable to feed by mouth. The bundle states that endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography should be performed within the first 48 to 72 hours of hospital admission in patients with cholangitis. Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be performed in patients with mild acute biliary pancreatitis. When operative intervention is needed for necrotizing pancreatitis, this should start with the endoscopic step-up approach. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a new care bundle with 7 key elements for managing patients with acute biliary pancreatitis. This new bundle, whose scientific strength has been increased thanks to the alliance between human knowledge and AI from the new ChatGPT software, should be introduced to emergency departments, wards, and intensive care units.

Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy is widely adopted across nearly all surgical subspecialties in the elective setting. Initially finding indication in minor abdominal emergencies, it has gradually become the standard approach in the majority of elective general surgery procedures. Despite many technological advances and increasing acceptance, the laparoscopic approach remains underutilized in emergency general surgery and in abdominal trauma. Emergency laparotomy continues to carry a high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been a growing interest from emergency and trauma surgeons in adopting minimally invasive surgery approaches in the acute surgical setting. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a review of the literature to reach a consensus on the indications and benefits of a laparoscopic-first approach in patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies or abdominal trauma. METHODS: This position paper was developed according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee performed the literature review and drafted the position paper. An international panel of 54 experts then critically revised the manuscript and discussed it in detail, to develop a consensus on a position statement. RESULTS: A total of 323 studies (systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized clinical trial, retrospective comparative cohort studies, case series) have been selected from an initial pool of 7409 studies. Evidence demonstrates several benefits of the laparoscopic approach in stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgical emergencies or abdominal trauma. The selection of a stable patient seems to be of paramount importance for a safe adoption of a laparoscopic approach. In hemodynamically stable patients, the laparoscopic approach was found to be safe, feasible and effective as a therapeutic tool or helpful to identify further management steps and needs, resulting in improved outcomes, regardless of conversion. Appropriate patient selection, surgeon experience and rigorous minimally invasive surgical training, remain crucial factors to increase the adoption of laparoscopy in emergency general surgery and abdominal trauma. CONCLUSIONS: The WSES expert panel suggests laparoscopy as the first approach for stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.

Enhanced perioperative care in emergency general surgery: the WSES position paper.

Enhanced perioperative care protocols become the standard of care in elective surgery with a significant improvement in patients' outcome. The key element of the enhanced perioperative care protocol is the multimodal and interdisciplinary approach targeted to the patient, focused on a holistic approach to reduce surgical stress and improve perioperative recovery. Enhanced perioperative care in emergency general surgery is still a debated topic with little evidence available. The present position paper illustrates the existing evidence about perioperative care in emergency surgery patients with a focus on each perioperative intervention in the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative phase. For each item was proposed and approved a statement by the WSES collaborative group.

The open abdomen in trauma, acute care, and vascular and endovascular surgery: comprehensive, expert, narrative review.

BACKGROUND: The open abdomen is an innovation that greatly improved surgical understanding of damage control, temporary abdominal closure, staged abdominal reconstruction, viscera and enteric fistula care, and abdominal wall reconstruction. This article provides an evidence-informed, expert, comprehensive narrative review of the open abdomen in trauma, acute care, and vascular and endovascular surgery. METHODS: A group of 12 international trauma, acute care, and vascular and endovascular surgery experts were invited to review current literature and important concepts surrounding the open abdomen. RESULTS: The open abdomen may be classified using validated systems developed by a working group in 2009 and modified by the World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome-The Abdominal Compartment Society in 2013. It may be indicated in major trauma, intra-abdominal sepsis, vascular surgical emergencies, and severe acute pancreatitis; to facilitate second look laparotomy or avoid or treat abdominal compartment syndrome; and when the abdominal wall cannot be safely closed. Temporary abdominal closure and staged abdominal reconstruction methods include a mesh/sheet, transabdominal wall dynamic fascial traction, negative pressure wound therapy, and hybrid negative pressure wound therapy and dynamic fascial traction. This last method likely has the highest primary fascial closure rates. Direct peritoneal resuscitation is currently an experimental strategy developed to improve primary fascial closure rates and reduce complications in those with an open abdomen. Primary fascial closure rates may be improved by early return to the operating room; limiting use of crystalloid fluids during the surgical interval; and preventing and/or treating intra-abdominal hypertension, enteric fistulae, and intra-abdominal collections after surgery. The majority of failures of primary fascial closure and enteroatmospheric fistula formation may be prevented using effective temporary abdominal closure techniques, providing appropriate resuscitation fluids and nutritional support, and closing the abdomen as early as possible. CONCLUSION: Subsequent stages of the innovation of the open abdomen will likely involve the design and conduct of prospective studies to evaluate appropriate indications for its use and effectiveness and safety of the above components of open abdomen management.

Role of preoperative in-hospital delay on appendiceal perforation while awaiting appendicectomy (PERFECT): a Nordic, pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Appendicectomy remains the standard treatment for appendicitis. No international consensus exists on the surgical urgency for acute uncomplicated appendicitis, and recommendations vary from surgery without delay to surgery within 24 h. Longer in-hospital delay has been thought to increase the risk of perforation and further morbidity. Therefore, we aimed to compare the rate of appendiceal perforation in patients undergoing appendicectomy scheduled to two different urgencies (<8 h vs <24 h). METHODS: In this pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority, parallel, randomised controlled trial in two hospitals in Finland and one in Norway, patients (aged ≥18 years) with presumed uncomplicated acute appendicitis were randomly assigned (1:1) to an appendicectomy scheduled within 8 h or within 24 h to determine whether longer in-hospital delay (time between randomisation and surgical incision) is not inferior to shorter delay. Patients were excluded in cases of pregnancy, suspicion of perforated appendicitis (C-reactive protein level of ≥100 mg/L, fever >38·5°C, signs of complicated appendicitis on imaging studies, or clinical generalised peritonitis), or other reasons requiring prompt surgery. The recruiters were on-duty surgeons who decided to proceed with the appendicectomy. The randomisation sequence was generated using block randomisation with randomly varying block sizes and stratified by hospital districts; neither physicians nor patients were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was perforated appendicitis diagnosed during surgery analysed in all patients who received an appendicectomy by intention to treat. The absolute difference in rates of perforated appendicitis was compared between the groups. Complications and other safety outcomes were analysed in all patients who received an appendicectomy. A margin of 5 percentage points was used to establish non-inferiority. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04378868) and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between May 18, 2020, and Dec 31, 2022, 2095 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 1822 were randomly assigned to appendicectomy scheduled within 8 h (n=914) or 24 h (n=908). After randomisation, 19 (1%) of 1822 patients were excluded due to protocol violation. 1803 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses, 985 (55%) of whom were male and 818 (45%) female. Appendiceal perforation rate was similar between groups (77 [8%] of 907 patients assigned to the <8 h group and 81 [9%] of 896 patients assigned to the <24 h group; absolute risk difference 0·6% [95% CI -2·1 to 3·2], p=0·68; risk ratio 1·065, 95% CI 0·790 to 1·435). No significant difference was found between the complication rates within 30 days (66 [7%] of 907 patients in the <8 h group vs 56 [6%] of 896 patients in the <24 h group; difference -1·0% [-3·3 to 1·3]; p=0·39), and no deaths occurred during this follow-up period. INTERPRETATION: In patients with presumed uncomplicated acute appendicitis, scheduling appendicectomy within 24 h does not increase the risk of appendiceal perforation compared with scheduling appendicectomy within 8 h. The results can be used to allocate operating room resources, for example postponing night-time appendicectomy to daytime. FUNDING: The Finnish Medical Foundation, Mary and Georg Ehrnrooth's Foundation, Biomedicum Helsinki Foundation, and the Finnish Government.

2023 WSES guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of iatrogenic urinary tract injuries (IUTIs) during emergency digestive surgery.

Iatrogenic urinary tract injury (IUTI) is a severe complication of emergency digestive surgery. It can lead to increased postoperative morbidity and mortality and have a long-term impact on the quality of life. The reported incidence of IUTIs varies greatly among the studies, ranging from 0.3 to 1.5%. Given the high volume of emergency digestive surgery performed worldwide, there is a need for well-defined and effective strategies to prevent and manage IUTIs. Currently, there is a lack of consensus regarding the prevention, detection, and management of IUTIs in the emergency setting. The present guidelines, promoted by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), were developed following a systematic review of the literature and an international expert panel discussion. The primary aim of these WSES guidelines is to provide evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians and surgeons in the prevention, detection, and management of IUTIs during emergency digestive surgery. The following key aspects were considered: (1) effectiveness of preventive interventions for IUTIs during emergency digestive surgery; (2) intra-operative detection of IUTIs and appropriate management strategies; (3) postoperative detection of IUTIs and appropriate management strategies and timing; and (4) effectiveness of antibiotic therapy (including type and duration) in case of IUTIs.

Timing of Cholecystectomy After Moderate and Severe Acute Biliary Pancreatitis.

Importance: Considering the lack of equipoise regarding the timing of cholecystectomy in patients with moderately severe and severe acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP), it is critical to assess this issue. Objective: To assess the outcomes of early cholecystectomy (EC) in patients with moderately severe and severe ABP. Design, Settings, and Participants: This cohort study retrospectively analyzed real-life data from the MANCTRA-1 (Compliance With Evidence-Based Clinical Guidelines in the Management of Acute Biliary Pancreatitis) data set, assessing 5304 consecutive patients hospitalized between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020, for ABP from 42 countries. A total of 3696 patients who were hospitalized for ABP and underwent cholecystectomy were included in the analysis; of these, 1202 underwent EC, defined as a cholecystectomy performed within 14 days of admission. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify prognostic factors of mortality and morbidity. Data analysis was performed from January to February 2023. Main Outcomes: Mortality and morbidity after EC. Results: Of the 3696 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [17.8] years; 1907 [51.5%] female) included in the analysis, 1202 (32.5%) underwent EC and 2494 (67.5%) underwent delayed cholecystectomy (DC). Overall, EC presented an increased risk of postoperative mortality (1.4% vs 0.1%, P < .001) and morbidity (7.7% vs 3.7%, P < .001) compared with DC. On the multivariable analysis, moderately severe and severe ABP were associated with increased mortality (odds ratio [OR], 361.46; 95% CI, 2.28-57 212.31; P = .02) and morbidity (OR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.35-5.19; P = .005). In patients with moderately severe and severe ABP (n = 108), EC was associated with an increased risk of mortality (16 [15.6%] vs 0 [0%], P < .001), morbidity (30 [30.3%] vs 57 [5.5%], P < .001), bile leakage (2 [2.4%] vs 4 [0.4%], P = .02), and infections (12 [14.6%] vs 4 [0.4%], P < .001) compared with patients with mild ABP who underwent EC. In patients with moderately severe and severe ABP (n = 108), EC was associated with higher mortality (16 [15.6%] vs 2 [1.2%], P < .001), morbidity (30 [30.3%] vs 17 [10.3%], P < .001), and infections (12 [14.6%] vs 2 [1.3%], P < .001) compared with patients with moderately severe and severe ABP who underwent DC. On the multivariable analysis, the patient's age (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.02-1.36; P = .03) and American Society of Anesthesiologists score (OR, 5.91; 95% CI, 1.06-32.78; P = .04) were associated with mortality; severe complications of ABP were associated with increased mortality (OR, 50.04; 95% CI, 2.37-1058.01; P = .01) and morbidity (OR, 33.64; 95% CI, 3.19-354.73; P = .003). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study's findings suggest that EC should be considered carefully in patients with moderately severe and severe ABP, as it was associated with increased postoperative mortality and morbidity. However, older and more fragile patients manifesting severe complications related to ABP should most likely not be considered for EC.

Management of complicated diaphragmatic hernia in the acute setting: a WSES position paper.

BACKGROUND: Diaphragmatic hernia (DH) presenting acutely can be a potentially life-threatening condition. Its management continues to be debatable. METHODS: A bibliographic search using major databases was performed using the terms "emergency surgery" "diaphragmatic hernia," "traumatic diaphragmatic rupture" and "congenital diaphragmatic hernia." GRADE methodology was used to evaluate the evidence and give recommendations. RESULTS: CT scan of the chest and abdomen is the diagnostic gold standard to evaluate complicated DH. Appropriate preoperative assessment and prompt surgical intervention are important for a clinical success. Complicated DH repair is best performed via the use of biological and bioabsorbable meshes which have proven to reduce recurrence. The laparoscopic approach is the preferred technique in hemodynamically stable patients without significant comorbidities because it facilitates early diagnosis of small diaphragmatic injuries from traumatic wounds in the thoraco-abdominal area and reduces postoperative complications. Open surgery should be reserved for situations when skills and equipment for laparoscopy are not available, where exploratory laparotomy is needed, or if the patient is hemodynamically unstable. Damage Control Surgery is an option in the management of critical and unstable patients. CONCLUSIONS: Complicated diaphragmatic hernia is a rare life-threatening condition. CT scan of the chest and abdomen is the gold standard for diagnosing the diaphragmatic hernia. Laparoscopic repair is the best treatment option for stable patients with complicated diaphragmatic hernias. Open repair is considered necessary in majority of unstable patients in whom Damage Control Surgery can be life-saving.

Assessing and managing frailty in emergency laparotomy: a WSES position paper.

Many countries are facing an aging population. As people live longer, surgeons face the prospect of operating on increasingly older patients. Traditional teaching is that with older age, these patients face an increased risk of mortality and morbidity, even to a level deemed too prohibitive for surgery. However, this is not always true. An active 90-year-old patient can be much fitter than an overweight, sedentary 65-year-old patient with comorbidities. Recent literature shows that frailty-an age-related cumulative decline in multiple physiological systems, is therefore a better predictor of mortality and morbidity than chronological age alone. Despite recognition of frailty as an important tool in identifying vulnerable surgical patients, many surgeons still shun objective tools. The aim of this position paper was to perform a review of the existing literature and to provide recommendations on emergency laparotomy and in frail patients. This position paper was reviewed by an international expert panel composed of 37 experts who were asked to critically revise the manuscript and position statements. The position paper was conducted according to the WSES methodology. We shall present the derived statements upon which a consensus was reached, specifying the quality of the supporting evidence and suggesting future research directions.

WSES consensus guidelines on sigmoid volvulus management.

Sigmoid volvulus is a common surgical emergency, especially in elderly patients. Patients can present with a wide range of clinical states: from asymptomatic, to frank peritonitis secondary to colonic perforation. These patients generally need urgent treatment, be it endoscopic decompression of the colon or an upfront colectomy. The World Society of Emergency Surgery united a worldwide group of international experts to review the current evidence and propose a consensus guidelines on the management of sigmoid volvulus.

Complex duodenal fistulae: a surgical nightmare.

INTRODUCTION: A common feature of external duodenal fistulae is the devastating effect of the duodenal content rich in bile and pancreatic juice on nearby tissues with therapy-resistant local and systemic complications. This study analyzes the results of different management options with emphasis on successful fistula closure rates. METHODS: A retrospective single academic center study of adult patients treated for complex duodenal fistulas over a 17-year period with descriptive and univariate analyses was performed. RESULTS: Fifty patients were identified. First line treatment was surgical in 38 (76%) cases and consisted of resuture or resection with anastomosis combined with duodenal decompression and periduodenal drainage in 36 cases, rectus muscle patch, and surgical decompression with T-tube in one each. Fistula closure rate was 29/38 (76%). In 12 cases, the initial management was nonoperative with or without percutaneous drainage. The fistula was closed without surgery in 5/6 patients (1 patient died with persistent fistula). Among the remaining 6 patients eventually operated, fistula closure was achieved in 4 cases. There was no difference in successful fistula closure rates among initially operatively versus nonoperatively managed patients (29/38 vs. 9/12, p = 1.000). However, when considering eventually failed nonoperative management in 7/12 patients, there was a significant difference in the fistula closure rate (29/38 vs. 5/12, p = 0.036). The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 20/50 (40%). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical closure combined with duodenal decompression in complex duodenal leaks offers the best chance of successful outcome. In selected cases, nonoperative management can be tried, accepting that some patients may require surgery later.

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.

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).

Prediction of morbidity and mortality after early cholecystectomy for acute calculous cholecystitis: results of the S.P.Ri.M.A.C.C. study.

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.

Potential for intestinal transplantation after acute mesenteric ischemia in patients aged less than 70 years: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) has a high mortality rate due to the development of bowel necrosis. Patients are often ruled outside active care if a large proportion of small bowel is necrotic. With the development of treatment for short bowel syndrome (SBS) and intestinal transplantation methods, long-term survival is possible even after extensive small bowel resections. This study aims to assess the incidence of SBS and potentially suitable candidates for intestinal transplantation among patients treated for AMI. METHODS: This population-based retrospective study comprised patients aged less than 70 years and diagnosed with AMI between January 2006 and October 2020 in Helsinki and Uusimaa health care district, Finland. RESULTS: Altogether, AMI was diagnosed in 711 patients, of whom 133 (19%) were aged below 70. An intervention was performed in 110 (83%) patients. Of these 133 patients, 16 (12%) were ruled outside active treatment due to extensive small bowel necrosis at exploratory laparotomy, of whom 6 (5%) were potentially suitable for intestinal transplantation. Two patients were considered as potential candidates for intestinal transplantation at bowel resection but died of AMI. Nine (7%) patients needed parenteral nutrition after resection, and two of them (2%) developed SBS. Only one patient needed long-term parenteral nutrition after hospital discharge. This patient remained dependent on parenteral nutrition but died before evaluation of intestinal transplantation could be carried out while the other patient was able to return to enteral nutrition. CONCLUSIONS: A small number of patients with AMI below 70 years of age are potentially eligible for intestinal transplantation.

Training curriculum in minimally invasive emergency digestive surgery: 2022 WSES position paper.

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.

Stoma reversal after Hartmann's procedure for acute diverticulitis.

BACKGROUND: Hartmann's procedure is a treatment option for perforated acute diverticulitis, especially when organ dysfunction(s) are present. Its use has been criticized mostly out of fear of high permanent stoma rate. The aim of this study was to investigate the rate of stoma reversal, reasons behind nonreversal, and safety of reversal surgery. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study of patients undergoing urgent Hartmann's procedure due to acute diverticulitis between the years 2006 and 2017 with follow-up until March 2021. RESULTS: A total of 3,319 episodes of diverticulitis in 2,932 patients were screened. The Hartmann's procedure was performed on 218 patients, of whom 157 (72%) had peritonitis (48 (22%) with organ dysfunction). At 2-years, 76 (34.9%) patients had died with stoma, 42 (19.3%) were alive with stoma, and 100 (45.9%) had undergone stoma reversal. The survival of patients with and without reversal were 100% and 42.7% at 1-year, 96.0% and 35.0% at 2-years and 88.9% and 20.7% at 5-years, respectively. The risk factors for nonreversal were old age, a need for outside assistance, low HElsinki Staging for Acute Diverticulitis stage, and higher C-reactive protein level upon hospital admission. The most common reasons for nonreversal in surviving patients were patient not willing to have the operation 18 (41%) and dementia 10 (23%). Twelve (12%) patients had a major complication after reversal (Clavien-Dindo IIIb-IV) and 90-day mortality after reversal was 0%. CONCLUSION: After the Hartmann's procedure for acute diverticulitis, one-third died, half underwent stoma reversal, and one-fifth did not undergo stoma reversal within 2 years. Patients who survive with stoma are either not willing to have reversal or have severe comorbidities excluding elective surgery. The Hartmann's procedure remains a viable option for high-risk patients with perforated acute diverticulitis.