Identifying and addressing mentorship gaps in European trauma and emergency surgical training. Results from the Young European Society of Trauma and Emergency Surgery (yESTES) mentorship survey.

PURPOSE: European training pathways for surgeons dedicated to treating severely injured and critically ill surgical patients lack a standardized approach and are significantly influenced by diverse organizational and cultural backgrounds. This variation extends into the realm of mentorship, a vital component for the holistic development of surgeons beyond mere technical proficiency. Currently, a comprehensive understanding of the mentorship landscape within the European trauma care (visceral or skeletal) and emergency general surgery (EGS) communities is lacking. This study aims to identify within the current mentorship environment prevalent practices, discern existing gaps, and propose structured interventions to enhance mentorship quality and accessibility led by the European Society for Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ESTES). METHODS: Utilizing a structured survey conceived and promoted by the Young section of the European Society of Trauma and Emergency Surgery (yESTES), we collected and analyzed responses from 123 ESTES members (both surgeons in practice and in training) across 20 European countries. The survey focused on mentorship experiences, challenges faced by early-career and female surgeons, the integration of non-technical skills (NTS) in mentorship, and the perceived role of surgical societies in facilitating mentorship. RESULTS: Findings highlighted a substantial mentorship experience gap, with 74% of respondents engaging in mostly informal mentorship, predominantly centered on surgical training. Notably, mentorship among early-career surgeons and trainees was less reported, uncovering a significant early-career gap. Female surgeons, representing a minority within respondents, reported a disproportionately poorer access to mentorship. Moreover, while respondents recognized the importance of NTS, these were inadequately addressed in current mentorship practices. The current mentorship input of surgical societies, like ESTES, is viewed as insufficient, with a call for structured programs and initiatives such as traveling fellowships and remote mentoring. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey underscores critical gaps in the current mentorship landscape for trauma and EGS in Europe, particularly for early-career and female surgeons. A clear need exists for more formalized, inclusive mentorship programs that adequately cover both technical and non-technical skills. ESTES could play a pivotal role in addressing these gaps through structured interventions, fostering a more supportive, inclusive, and well-rounded surgical community.

Comparison between level 1 and level 2 trauma centers for the management of splenic blunt trauma.

INTRODUCTION: The management of blunt splenic trauma has evolved in the last years, from mainly operative approach to the non-operative management (NOM). The aim of this study is to investigate whether trauma center (TC) designation (level 1 and level 2) affects blunt splenic trauma management. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of blunt trauma patients with splenic injury admitted to 2 Italian TCs, Niguarda (level 1) and San Carlo Borromeo (level 2), was performed, receiving either NOM or emergency surgical treatment, from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2020. Univariate comparison was performed between the two centers, and multivariate analysis was carried out to find predictive factors associated with NOM and splenectomy. RESULTS: 181 patients were included in the study, 134 from level 1 and 47 from level 2 TCs. The splenectomy/emergency laparotomy ratio was inferior at level 1 TC for high-grade splenic injuries (30.8% for level 1 and 100% for level 2), whose patients presented higher incidence of other injuries. Splenic NOM failure was registered in only one case (3.3%). At multivariate analysis, systolic pressure, spleen organ injury scale (OIS) and injury severity score (ISS) resulted significant predictive factors for NOM, and only spleen OIS was predictive factor for splenectomy (Odds Ratio 0.14, 0.04-0.49 CI 95%, P < .01). CONCLUSION: Both level 1 and 2 trauma centers demonstrated application of NOM with a high rate of success with some management difference in the treatment and outcome of patients with splenic injuries between the two types of TCs.

Regenerative Medicine to Improve Outcomes of Ventral Hernia Reconstruction (REPAIR Study) Phase 1: Find the Best Decellularization Protocol for the Human Dermis.

Background: Tissue regeneration is a complex process that allows wounds to heal. Many options are currently available to help human skin repair and to reduce the recurrence of hernias. The aim of this study is to analyze the best decellularization protocol for allogenic human dermal tissues. Methods: Dermal flaps from donors were used and compared with a control group. Each flap was subjected to seven different decellularization protocols and washed with a sequence of five solutions. The samples were then subjected to four control tests (such as Nile Red), and long-term contacts were analyzed to assess whether the decellularized dermis samples could support the growth of human fibroblasts. Results: All the samples had an average residual viability of 60%. Except for one sample, the decellularization treatments were able to reduce cell viability significantly. The Nile Red test showed a significant reduction in phospholipid content (mean 90%, p-value < 0.05) in all treatments. The cell growth increased in a linear manner. As described in the literature, sodium-dodecyl-sulfate (SDS) caused an interference between the test and the detergent. Conclusions: This paper shows the first step to finding the best decellularization protocol for allografting human dermal tissues. Further biocompatibility tests and DNA quantification are necessary.

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy for the Treatment of Fournier's Gangrene: A Rare Case with Rectal Fistula and Systematic Review of the Literature.

Fournier's gangrene (FG) is a Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infection (NSTI) of the perineal region characterized by high morbidity and mortality even if appropriately treated. The main treatment strategies are surgical debridement, broad-spectrum antibiotics, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, NPWT (Negative Pressure Wound Therapy), and plastic surgery reconstruction. We present the case of a 50-year-old woman with an NSTI of the abdomen, pelvis, and perineal region associated with a rectal fistula referred to our department. After surgical debridement and a diverting blow-out colostomy, an NPWT system composed of two sponges connected by a bridge through a rectal fistula was performed. Our target was to obtain healing in a lateral-to-medial direction instead of depth-to-surface to prevent the enlargement of the rectal fistula, promoting granulation tissue growth towards the rectum. This eso-endo-NPWT technique allowed for the primary suture of the perineal wounds bilaterally, simultaneously treating the rectal fistula and the perineum lesions. A systematic review of the literature underlines the spreading of NPWT and its effects.

Laparoscopy management for spontaneous bladder rupture: a case report.

We present a case of a 79-year-old man with lower abdominal pain and negative Blumberg sign. An indwelling bladder catheter was inserted for urinary retention due to a tight phimosis 2 months earlier. A contrast-enhanced computed tomography scan revealed a huge gastrectasia and small bowel distention due to a suspected adherent bridle. The clinical signs and the laboratory tests were highly suspicious for bowel obstruction and emergency surgery was indicated. Exploratory laparoscopy showed a bladder hole tamponade by an ileum loop. The perforation was sutured laparoscopically and the patient was discharged on the 14th postoperative day. In our case, emergency laparoscopic exploration was useful for the diagnosis and the treatment of spontaneous bladder rupture. We hope this case report can be useful to give these patients better outcomes. Notably we would like to emphasize that the presence of a urinary catheter can be a risk factor for intraperitoneal bladder rupture.

From a Philosophical Framework to a Valid Prognostic Staging System of the New "Comprehensive Assessment" for Transplantable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

The comprehensive assessment of the transplantable tumor (TT) proposed and included in the last Italian consensus meeting still deserve validation. All consecutive patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) listed for liver transplant (LT) between January 2005 and December 2015 were post-hoc classified by the tumor/patient stage as assessed at the last re-staging-time (ReS-time) before LT as follow: high-risk-class (HRC) = stages TTDR, TTPR; intermediate-risk-class (IRC) = TT0NT, TTFR, TTUT; low-risk-class (LRC) = TT1, TT0L, TT0C. Of 376 candidates, 330 received LT and 46 dropped-out. Transplanted patients were: HRC for 159 (48.2%); IRC for 63 (19.0%); LRC for 108 (32.7%). Cumulative incidence function (CIF) of tumor recurrence after LT was 21%, 12%, and 8% at 5-years and 27%, 15%, and 12% at 10-years respectively for HRC, IRC, and LRC (P = 0.011). IRC patients had significantly lower CIF of recurrence after LT if transplanted >2-months from ReS-time (28% vs 3% for <2 and >2 months, P = 0.031). HRC patients had significantly lower CIF of recurrence after-LT if transplanted <2 months from the ReS-time (10% vs 33% for <2 and >2 months, P = 0.006). The proposed TT staging system can adequately describe the post-LT recurrence, especially in the LRC and HRC patients. The intermediate-risk-class needs to be better defined and further studies on its ability in defining intention-to-treat survival (ITT) and drop-out are required.

The current role of laparoscopic resection for HCC: a systematic review of past ten years.

The use of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has progressively spread in the last 10 years. Several studies have shown the superiority of LLR to open liver resection (OLR) in term of perioperative outcomes. With this review, we aim to systematically assess short-term and long-term major outcomes in patients who underwent LLR for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in order to illustrate the advantages of minimally invasive liver surgery. Through an advanced PubMed research, we selected all retrospective, prospective, and comparative clinical trials reporting short-term and long-term outcomes of any series of patients with diagnosis of HCC who underwent laparoscopic or robotic resection. Reviews, meta-analyses, or case reports were excluded. None of the patients included in this review has received a previous locoregional treatment for the same tumor nor has undergone a laparoscopic-assisted procedure. We considered morbidity and mortality for evaluation of major short-term outcomes, and overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) for evaluation of long-term outcomes. A total of 1,501 patients from 17 retrospective studies were included, 15 studies compare LLR with OLR. Propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis was used in 11 studies (975 patients). The majority of the studies included patients with good liver function and a single HCC. Cirrhosis at pathology ranged from 33% to 100%. Overall mortality and morbidity ranges were 0-2.4% and 4.9-44% respectively, with most of the complications being Clavien-Dindo grade I or II (range: 3.9-23.3% vs. 0-9.52% for Clavien I-II and ≥ III respectively). The median blood loss ranged from 150 to 389 mL; the range of the median duration of surgery was 134-343 minutes. The maximum rate of conversion was 18.2%. The median duration of hospitalization ranged from 4 to 13 days. The ranges of overall survival rates at 1-, 3- and 5-year were 72.8-100%, 60.7-93.5% and 38-89.7% respectively. The ranges of disease free survival rates at 1-, 3- and 5-year were 45.5-91.5%, 20-72.2% and 19-67.8% respectively. The benefits of LLR in term of complication rate, blood loss, and duration of hospital stay make this procedure an advantageous alternative to OLR, especially for cirrhotic patients in whom the use of LLR reduces the risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure. The limits of LLR can be overcome by robotic surgery, which could therefore be preferred. Further benefits of minimally invasive surgery derive from its ability to reduce the formation of adhesions in view of a salvage liver transplant. In conclusion, the results of this review seem to confirm the safety and feasibility of LLR for HCC as well as its superiority to OLR according to perioperative outcomes.

Minor laparoscopic liver resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma is safer than minor open resection, especially for less compensated cirrhotic patients: Propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has gained significant popularity over the last 10 years. First experiences of LLR compared to open liver resection (OLR) reported a similar survival and a better safety profile for LLR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of all consecutive patients treated by liver resection for HCC on liver cirrhosis between January 2005 and March 2017. The choice of procedure (LLR vs OLR) was generally based on tumor localization, history of previous upper abdominal surgery and patient's preference. The type of resection and indication for surgery were unrelated to the adopted technique. Based on pre-operative variables and confirmed cirrhosis, a 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) model was developed to compare outcomes of LLR and OLR in patients with HCC. Outcomes of interest included morbidity, mortality and long-term cure potential. RESULTS: After-PSM, the LLR group demonstrated better perioperative results including: lower complication rate (50.7% in OLR vs 29.3% in LLR, p = 0.0035), significantly lower intra-operative blood loss (200 ml in OLR vs 150 ml in LLR, p = 0.007) and shorter hospital length of stay (median 9 days in OLR vs 7 days in LLR, p = 0.0018). Moreover there was no significant difference between the two groups in 3-year survival (76%, CI: 60%-86% in LLR vs 68%, CI: 55%-79% in OLR, p = 0.32) or recurrence-free survival rates (44%, CI: 28%-58%, vs 44%, CI: 31%-57%, p = 0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Minor LLR appeared significantly safer compared to minor OLR for HCC. LLR was associated with fewer post-operative complication, lower operative blood loss and a shorter hospital stay along with similar survival and recurrence-free survival rates.

Comparison between level 1 and level 2 trauma centers for the management of splenic blunt trauma / Comparación entre los centros de trauma de nivel 1 y nivel 2 para el manejo del trauma cerrado esplénico

Introduction: The management of blunt splenic trauma has evolved in the last years, from mainly operative approach to the non-operative management (NOM). The aim of this study is to investigate whether trauma center (TC) designation (level 1 and level 2) affects blunt splenic trauma management. Methods: A retrospective analysis of blunt trauma patients with splenic injury admitted to 2 Italian TCs, Niguarda (level 1) and San Carlo Borromeo (level 2), was performed, receiving either NOM or emergency surgical treatment, from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2020. Univariate comparison was performed between the two centers, and multivariate analysis was carried out to find predictive factors associated with NOM and splenectomy. Results: 181 patients were included in the study, 134 from level 1 and 47 from level 2 TCs. The splenectomy/emergency laparotomy ratio was inferior at level 1 TC for high-grade splenic injuries (30.8% for level 1 and 100% for level 2), whose patients presented higher incidence of other injuries. Splenic NOM failure was registered in only one case (3.3%). At multivariate analysis, systolic pressure, spleen organ injury scale (OIS) and injury severity score (ISS) resulted significant predictive factors for NOM, and only spleen OIS was predictive factor for splenectomy (Odds Ratio 0.14, 0.04–0.49 CI 95%, P < .01). Conclusion: Both level 1 and 2 trauma centers demonstrated application of NOM with a high rate of success with some management difference in the treatment and outcome of patients with splenic injuries between the two types of TCs. (AU)

Introducción: El manejo del traumatismo esplénico cerrado ha evolucionado en los últimos años, desde un abordaje mayoritariamente operatorio hasta el manejo no operatorio (NOM). El objetivo de este estudio es investigar si la designación de centro de trauma (CT) (nivel 1 y nivel 2) afecta el manejo del trauma esplénico contundente. Métodos: Se realizó un análisis retrospectivo de pacientes con trauma contuso con lesión esplénica ingresados ​​en los TC Italianos de Niguarda (nivel 1) y San Carlo Borromeo (nivel 2), que recibieron tratamiento NOM o quirúrgico de emergencia, desde el 1 de enero de 2015 al 31 de diciembre de 2020. Se realizó una comparación univariante entre los dos centros, y se llevó a cabo un análisis multivariante para encontrar factores predictivos asociados con NOM y esplenectomía. Resultados: Se incluyeron en el estudio 181 pacientes, 134 del nivel 1 y 47 del nivel 2 de CT. La relación esplenectomía/laparotomía de urgencia fue inferior en el TC de nivel 1 para las lesiones esplénicas de alto grado (30,8% para el nivel 1 y 100% para el nivel 2), cuyos pacientes presentaron mayor incidencia de otras lesiones. La falla NOM esplénica se registró solo en un caso (3,3%). En el análisis multivariado, la presión sistólica, la escala de lesión de órganos del bazo (OIS) y la puntuación de gravedad de la lesión (ISS) resultaron factores predictivos significativos para la NOM, y solo la OIS del bazo fue un factor predictivo para la esplenectomía (Odds Ratio 0.14, 0.04–0.49 IC 95%, P < ,01). Conclusión: Los centros de trauma de nivel 1 y 2 demostraron la aplicación de NOM con una alta tasa de éxito con alguna diferencia de manejo en el tratamiento y el resultado de los pacientes con lesiones esplénicas entre los dos tipos de TC. (AU)