European society for trauma and emergency surgery member-identified research priorities in emergency surgery: a roadmap for future clinical research opportunities.

BACKGROUND: European Society for Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ESTES) is the European community of clinicians providing care to the injured and critically ill surgical patient. ESTES has several interlinked missions - (1) the promotion of optimal emergency surgical care through networked advocacy, (2) promulgation of relevant clinical cognitive and technical skills, and (3) the advancement of scientific inquiry that closes knowledge gaps, iteratively improves upon surgical and perioperative practice, and guides decision-making rooted in scientific evidence. Faced with multitudinous opportunities for clinical research, ESTES undertook an exercise to determine member priorities for surgical research in the short-to-medium term; these research priorities were presented to a panel of experts to inform a 'road map' narrative review which anchored these research priorities in the contemporary surgical literature. METHODS: Individual ESTES members in active emergency surgery practice were polled as a representative sample of end-users and were asked to rank potential areas of future research according to their personal perceptions of priority. Using the modified eDelphi method, an invited panel of ESTES-associated experts in academic emergency surgery then crafted a narrative review highlighting potential research priorities for the Society. RESULTS: Seventy-two responding ESTES members from 23 countries provided feedback to guide the modified eDelphi expert consensus narrative review. Experts then crafted evidence-based mini-reviews highlighting knowledge gaps and areas of interest for future clinical research in emergency surgery: timing of surgery, inter-hospital transfer, diagnostic imaging in emergency surgery, the role of minimally-invasive surgical techniques and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols, patient-reported outcome measures, risk-stratification methods, disparities in access to care, geriatric outcomes, data registry and snapshot audit evaluations, emerging technologies interrogation, and the delivery and benchmarking of emergency surgical training. CONCLUSIONS: This manuscript presents the priorities for future clinical research in academic emergency surgery as determined by a sample of the membership of ESTES. While the precise basis for prioritization was not evident, it may be anchored in disease prevalence, controversy around aspects of current patient care, or indeed the identification of a knowledge gap. These expert-crafted evidence-based mini-reviews provide useful insights that may guide the direction of future academic emergency surgery research efforts.

Graded operative autonomy in emergency appendectomy mirrors case-complexity: surgical training insights from the SnapAppy prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical skill, a summation of acquired wisdom, deliberate practice and experience, has been linked to improved patient outcomes. Graded mentored exposure to pathologies and operative techniques is a cornerstone of surgical training. Appendectomy is one of the first procedures surgical trainees perform independently. We hypothesize that, given the embedded training ethos in surgery, coupled with the steep learning curve required to achieve trainer-recognition of independent competency, 'real-world' clinical outcomes following appendectomy for the treatment of acute appendicitis are operator agnostic. The principle of graded autonomy matches trainees with clinical conditions that they can manage independently, and increased complexity drives attending input or assumption of the technical aspects of care, and therefore, one cannot detect an impact of operator experience on outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is a subgroup analysis of the SnapAppy international time-bound prospective observational cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov Trial #NCT04365491), including all consecutive patients aged ≥ 15 who underwent appendectomy for appendicitis during a three-month period in 2020-2021. Patient- and surgeon-specific variables, as well as 90-day postoperative outcomes, were collected. Patients were grouped based on operating surgeon experience (trainee only, trainee with direct attending supervision, attending only). Poisson and quantile regression models were used to (adjusted for patient-associated confounders) assess the relationship between surgical experience and postoperative complications or hospital length of stay (hLOS), respectively, adjusted for patient-associated confounders. The primary outcome of interest was any complications within 90 days. RESULTS: A total of 4,347 patients from 71 centers in 14 countries were included. Patients operated on by trainees were younger (Median (IQR) 33 [24-46] vs 38 [26-55] years, p < 0.001), had lower ASA classifications (ASA ≥ 3: 6.6% vs 11.6%, p < 0.001) and fewer comorbidities compared to those operated on by attendings. Additionally, trainees operated alone on fewer patients with appendiceal perforation (AAST severity grade ≥ 3: 8.7% vs 15.6%, p < 0.001). Regression analyses revealed no association between operator experience and complications (IRR 1.03 95%CI 0.83-1.28 for trainee vs attending; IRR 1.13 95%CI 0.89-1.42 for supervised trainee vs attending) or hLOS. CONCLUSION: The linkage of case complexity with operator experience within the context of graduated autonomy is a central tenet of surgical training. Either subconsciously, or by design, patients operated on by trainees were younger, fitter and with earlier stage disease. At least in part, these explain why clinical outcomes following appendectomy do not differ depending on the experience of the operating surgeon.