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.

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.

Robotic surgery in emergency setting: 2021 WSES position paper.

BACKGROUND: Robotics represents the most technologically advanced approach in minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Its application in general surgery has increased progressively, with some early experience reported in emergency settings. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a systematic review of the literature to develop consensus statements about the potential use of robotics in emergency general surgery. METHODS: This position paper was conducted according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee was constituted to draft the position paper according to the literature review. An international expert panel then critically revised the manuscript. Each statement was voted through a web survey to reach a consensus. RESULTS: Ten studies (3 case reports, 3 case series, and 4 retrospective comparative cohort studies) have been published regarding the applications of robotics for emergency general surgery procedures. Due to the paucity and overall low quality of evidence, 6 statements are proposed as expert opinions. In general, the experts claim for a strict patient selection while approaching emergent general surgery procedures with robotics, eventually considering it for hemodynamically stable patients only. An emergency setting should not be seen as an absolute contraindication for robotic surgery if an adequate training of the operating surgical team is available. In such conditions, robotic surgery can be considered safe, feasible, and associated with surgical outcomes related to an MIS approach. However, there are some concerns regarding the adoption of robotic surgery for emergency surgeries associated with the following: (i) the availability and accessibility of the robotic platform for emergency units and during night shifts, (ii) expected longer operative times, and (iii) increased costs. Further research is necessary to investigate the role of robotic surgery in emergency settings and to explore the possibility of performing telementoring and telesurgery, which are particularly valuable in emergency situations. CONCLUSIONS: Many hospitals are currently equipped with a robotic surgical platform which needs to be implemented efficiently. The role of robotic surgery for emergency procedures remains under investigation. However, its use is expanding with a careful assessment of costs and timeliness of operations. The proposed statements should be seen as a preliminary guide for the surgical community stressing the need for reevaluation and update processes as evidence expands in the relevant literature.

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.

Intraoperative surgical site infection control and prevention: a position paper and future addendum to WSES intra-abdominal infections guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSI) represent a considerable burden for healthcare systems. They are largely preventable and multiple interventions have been proposed over past years in an attempt to prevent SSI. We aim to provide a position paper on Operative Room (OR) prevention of SSI in patients presenting with intra-abdominal infection to be considered a future addendum to the well-known World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) Guidelines on the management of intra-abdominal infections. METHODS: The literature was searched for focused publications on SSI until March 2019. Critical analysis and grading of the literature has been performed by a working group of experts; the literature review and the statements were evaluated by a Steering Committee of the WSES. RESULTS: Wound protectors and antibacterial sutures seem to have effective roles to prevent SSI in intra-abdominal infections. The application of negative-pressure wound therapy in preventing SSI can be useful in reducing postoperative wound complications. It is important to pursue normothermia with the available resources in the intraoperative period to decrease SSI rate. The optimal knowledge of the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic characteristics of antibiotics helps to decide when additional intraoperative antibiotic doses should be administered in patients with intra-abdominal infections undergoing emergency surgery to prevent SSI. CONCLUSIONS: The current position paper offers an extensive overview of the available evidence regarding surgical site infection control and prevention in patients having intra-abdominal infections.

2017 WSES guidelines on colon and rectal cancer emergencies: obstruction and perforation.

ᅟ: Obstruction and perforation due to colorectal cancer represent challenging matters in terms of diagnosis, life-saving strategies, obstruction resolution and oncologic challenge. The aims of the current paper are to update the previous WSES guidelines for the management of large bowel perforation and obstructive left colon carcinoma (OLCC) and to develop new guidelines on obstructive right colon carcinoma (ORCC). Methods: The literature was extensively queried for focused publication until December 2017. Precise analysis and grading of the literature has been performed by a working group formed by a pool of experts: the statements and literature review were presented, discussed and voted at the Consensus Conference of the 4th Congress of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) held in Campinas in May 2017. Results: CT scan is the best imaging technique to evaluate large bowel obstruction and perforation. For OLCC, self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS), when available, offers interesting advantages as compared to emergency surgery; however, the positioning of SEMS for surgically treatable causes carries some long-term oncologic disadvantages, which are still under analysis. In the context of emergency surgery, resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) is preferable to Hartmann's procedure, whenever the characteristics of the patient and the surgeon are permissive. Right-sided loop colostomy is preferable in rectal cancer, when preoperative therapies are predicted.With regards to the treatment of ORCC, right colectomy represents the procedure of choice; alternatives, such as internal bypass and loop ileostomy, are of limited value.Clinical scenarios in the case of perforation might be dramatic, especially in case of free faecal peritonitis. The importance of an appropriate balance between life-saving surgical procedures and respect of oncologic caveats must be stressed. In selected cases, a damage control approach may be required.Medical treatments including appropriate fluid resuscitation, early antibiotic treatment and management of co-existing medical conditions according to international guidelines must be delivered to all patients at presentation. Conclusions: The current guidelines offer an extensive overview of available evidence and a qualitative consensus regarding management of large bowel obstruction and perforation due to colorectal cancer.

Position paper: management of perforated sigmoid diverticulitis.

Over the last three decades, emergency surgery for perforated sigmoid diverticulitis has evolved dramatically but remains controversial. Diverticulitis is categorized as uncomplicated (amenable to outpatient treatment) versus complicated (requiring hospitalization). Patients with complicated diverticulitis undergo computerized tomography (CT) scanning and the CT findings are used categorize the severity of disease. Treatment of stage I (phlegmon with or without small abscess) and stage II (phlegmon with large abscess) diverticulitis (which includes bowel rest, intravenous antibiotics and percutaneous drainage (PCD) of the larger abscesses) has not changed much over last two decades. On the other hand, treatment of stage III (purulent peritonitis) and stage IV (feculent peritonitis) diverticulitis has evolved dramatically and remains morbid. In the 1980s a two stage procedure (1st - segmental sigmoid resection with end colostomy and 2nd - colostomy closure after three to six months) was standard of care for most general surgeons. However, it was recognized that half of these patients never had their colostomy reversed and that colostomy closure was a morbid procedure. As a result starting in the 1990s colorectal surgical specialists increasing performed a one stage primary resection anastomosis (PRA) and demonstrated similar outcomes to the two stage procedure. In the mid 2000s, the colorectal surgeons promoted this as standard of care. But unfortunately despite advances in perioperative care and their excellent surgical skills, PRA for stage III/IV diverticulitis continued to have a high mortality (10-15%). The survivors require prolonged hospital stays and often do not fully recover. Recent case series indicate that a substantial portion of the patients who previously were subjected to emergency sigmoid colectomy can be successfully treated with less invasive nonoperative management with salvage PCD and/or laparoscopic lavage and drainage. These patients experience a surprisingly lower mortality and more rapid recovery. They are also spared the need for a colostomy and do not appear to benefit from a delayed elective sigmoid colectomy. While we await the final results ongoing prospective randomized clinical trials testing these less invasive alternatives, we have proposed (based primarily on case series and our expert opinions) what we believe safe and rationale management strategy.