Towards a tailored approach for patients with acute diverticulitis and abscess formation. The DivAbsc2023 multicentre case-control study.

BACKGROUND: This multicentre case-control study aimed to identify risk factors associated with non-operative treatment failure for patients with CT scan Hinchey Ib-IIb and WSES Ib-IIa diverticular abscesses. METHODS: This study included a cohort of adult patients experiencing their first episode of CT-diagnosed diverticular abscess, all of whom underwent initial non-operative treatment comprising either antibiotics alone or in combination with percutaneous drainage. The cohort was stratified based on the outcome of non-operative treatment, specifically identifying those who required emergency surgical intervention as cases of treatment failure. Multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify independent risk factors associated with the failure of non-operative treatment was employed. RESULTS: Failure of conservative treatment occurred for 116 patients (27.04%). CT scan Hinchey classification IIb (aOR 2.54, 95%CI 1.61;4.01, P < 0.01), tobacco smoking (aOR 2.01, 95%CI 1.24;3.25, P < 0.01), and presence of air bubbles inside the abscess (aOR 1.59, 95%CI 1.00;2.52, P = 0.04) were independent predictors of failure. In the subgroup of patients with abscesses > 5 cm, percutaneous drainage was not associated with the risk of failure or success of the non-operative treatment (aOR 2.78, 95%CI - 0.66;3.70, P = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Non-operative treatment is generally effective for diverticular abscesses. Tobacco smoking's role as an independent risk factor for treatment failure underscores the need for targeted behavioural interventions in diverticular disease management. IIb Hinchey diverticulitis patients, particularly young smokers, require vigilant monitoring due to increased risks of treatment failure and septic progression. Further research into the efficacy of image-guided percutaneous drainage should involve randomized, multicentre studies focussing on homogeneous patient groups.

Use of High Energy Devices (HEDs) versus electrocautery for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: According to the literature, there is no clear definition of a High Energy Devices (HEDs), and their proper indications for use are also unclear. Nevertheless, the flourishing market of HEDs could make their choice in daily clinical practice arduous, possibly increasing the risk of improper use for a lack of specific training. At the same time, the diffusion of HEDs impacts the economic asset of the healthcare systems. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of HEDs compared to electrocautery devices while performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: On behalf of the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and New Technologies, experts performed a systematic review and meta-analysis and synthesised the evidence assessing the efficacy and safety of HEDs compared to electrocautery devices while performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies were included. Outcomes were: operating time, bleeding, intra-operative and post-operative complications, length of hospital stay, costs, and exposition to surgical smoke. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021250447). RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included: 21 RCTs, one prospective parallel arm comparative non-RCT, and one retrospective cohort study, while three were prospective comparative studies. Most of the studies included laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed in an elective setting. All the studies but three analysed the outcomes deriving from the utilisation of US sources of energy compared to electrocautery. Operative time was significantly shorter in the HED group compared to the electrocautery group (15 studies, 1938 patients; SMD - 1.33; 95% CI - 1.89 to 0.78; I2 = 97%, Random-effect). No other statistically significant differences were found in the other examined variables. CONCLUSIONS: HEDs seem to have a superiority over Electrocautery while performing LC in terms of operative time, while no difference was observed in terms of length of hospitalisation and blood loss. No concerns about safety were raised.

High-energy devices in different surgical settings: lessons learnt from a full health technology assessment report developed by SICE (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica).

BACKGROUND: The present paper aims at evaluating the potential benefits of high-energy devices (HEDs) in the Italian surgical practice, defining the comparative efficacy and safety profiles, as well as the potential economic and organizational advantages for hospitals and patients, with respect to standard monopolar or bipolar devices. METHODS: A Health Technology Assessment was conducted in 2021 assuming the hospital perspective, comparing HEDs and standard monopolar/bipolar devices, within eleven surgical settings: appendectomy, hepatic resections, colorectal resections, cholecystectomy, splenectomy, hemorrhoidectomy, thyroidectomy, esophago-gastrectomy, breast surgery, adrenalectomy, and pancreatectomy. The nine EUnetHTA Core Model dimensions were deployed considering a multi-methods approach. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used: (1) a systematic literature review for the definition of the comparative efficacy and safety data; (2) administration of qualitative questionnaires, completed by 23 healthcare professionals (according to 7-item Likert scale, ranging from - 3 to + 3); and (3) health-economics tools, useful for the economic evaluation of the clinical pathway and budget impact analysis, and for the definition of the organizational and accessibility advantages, in terms of time or procedures' savings. RESULTS: The literature declared a decrease in operating time and length of stay in using HEDs in most surgical settings. While HEDs would lead to a marginal investment for the conduction of 178,619 surgeries on annual basis, their routinely implementation would generate significant organizational savings. A decrease equal to - 5.25/-9.02% of operating room time and to - 5.03/-30.73% of length of stay emerged. An advantage in accessibility to surgery could be hypothesized in a 9% of increase, due to the gaining in operatory slots. Professionals' perceptions crystallized and confirmed literature evidence, declaring a better safety and effectiveness profile. An improvement in both patients and caregivers' quality-of-life emerged. CONCLUSIONS: The results have demonstrated the strategic relevance related to HEDs introduction, their economic sustainability, and feasibility, as well as the potentialities in process improvement.

Minimally invasive versus open adrenalectomy for adrenocortical carcinoma: the keys surgical factors influencing the outcomes-a collective overview.

PURPOSE: Adrenocortical carcinoma (A.C.C.) is a rare tumour, often discovered at an advanced stage and associated with a poor prognosis. Surgery is the treatment of choice. We aimed to review the different surgical approaches trying to compare their outcome. METHODS: This comprehensive review has been carried out according to the PRISMA statement. The literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. RESULTS: Among all studies identified, 18 were selected for the review. A total of 14,600 patients were included in the studies, of whom 4421 were treated by mini-invasive surgery (M.I.S.). Ten studies reported 531 conversions from M.I.S. to an open approach (OA) (12%). Differences were reported for operative times as well as for postoperative complications more often in favour of OA, whereas differences for hospitalization time in favour of M.I.S. Some studies showed an R0 resection rate from 77 to 89% for A.C.C. treated by OA and 67 to 85% for tumours treated by M.I.S. The overall recurrence rate ranged from 24 to 29% for A.C.C. treated by OA and from 26 to 36% for tumours treated by M.I.S. CONCLUSIONS: OA should still be considered the standard surgical management of A.C.C. Laparoscopic adrenalectomy has shown shorter hospital stays and faster recovery compared to open surgery. However, the laparoscopic approach resulted in the worst recurrence rate, time to recurrence and cancer-specific mortality in stages I-III ACC. The robotic approach had similar complications rate and hospital stays, but there are still scarce results about oncologic follow-up.

coMpliAnce with evideNce-based cliniCal guidelines in the managemenT of acute biliaRy pancreAtitis): The MANCTRA-1 international audit.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Reports about the implementation of recommendations from acute pancreatitis guidelines are scant. This study aimed to evaluate, on a patient-data basis, the contemporary practice patterns of management of biliary acute pancreatitis and to compare these practices with the recommendations by the most updated guidelines. METHODS: All consecutive patients admitted to any of the 150 participating general surgery (GS), hepatopancreatobiliary surgery (HPB), internal medicine (IM) and gastroenterology (GA) departments with a diagnosis of biliary acute pancreatitis between 01/01/2019 and 31/12/2020 were included in the study. Categorical data were reported as percentages representing the proportion of all study patients or different and well-defined cohorts for each variable. Continuous data were expressed as mean and standard deviation. Differences between the compliance obtained in the four different subgroups were compared using the Mann-Whitney U, Student's t, ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests for continuous data, and the Chi-square test or the Fisher's exact test for categorical data. RESULTS: Complete data were available for 5275 patients. The most commonly discordant gaps between daily clinical practice and recommendations included the optimal timing for the index CT scan (6.1%, χ2 6.71, P = 0.081), use of prophylactic antibiotics (44.2%, χ2 221.05, P < 0.00001), early enteral feeding (33.2%, χ2 11.51, P = 0.009), and the implementation of early cholecystectomy strategies (29%, χ2 354.64, P < 0.00001), with wide variability based on the admitting speciality. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study showed an overall poor compliance with evidence-based guidelines in the management of ABP, with wide variability based on the admitting speciality. Study protocol registered in ClinicalTrials.Gov (ID Number NCT04747990).

ERas and COLorectal endoscopic surgery: an Italian society for endoscopic surgery and new technologies (SICE) national report.

BACKGROUND: Several reports demonstrated a strong association between the level of adherence to the protocol and improved clinical outcomes after surgery. However, it is difficult to obtain full adherence to the protocol into clinical practice and has still not been identified the threshold beyond which improved functional results can be reached. METHODS: The ERCOLE (ERas and COLorectal Endoscopic surgery) study was as a cohort, prospective, multi-centre national study evaluating the association between adherence to ERAS items and clinical outcomes after minimally invasive colorectal surgery. The primary endpoint was to associate the percentage of ERAS adherence to functional recovery after minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery. The secondary endpoints of the study was to validate safety of the ERAS programme evaluating complications' occurrence according to Clavien-Dindo classification and to evaluate the compliance of the Italian surgeons to each ERAS item. RESULTS: 1138 patients were included. Adherence to the ERAS protocol was full only in 101 patients (8.9%), > 75% of the ERAS items in 736 (64.7%) and > 50% in 1127 (99%). Adherence to > 75% was associated with a better functional recovery with 90.2 ± 98.8 vs 95.9 ± 33.4 h (p = 0.003). At difference, full adherence to the ERAS components 91.7 ± 22.1 vs 92.2 ± 31.6 h (p = 0.8) was not associated with better recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Our results were encouraging to affirm that adherence to the ERAS program up to 75% could be considered satisfactory to get the goal. Our study could be considered a call to simplify the ERAS protocol facilitating its penetrance into clinical practice.

Low-pressure versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: It has been previously demonstrated that the rise of intra-abdominal pressures and prolonged exposure to such pressures can produce changes in the cardiovascular and pulmonary dynamic which, though potentially well tolerated in the majority of healthy patients with adequate cardiopulmonary reserve, may be less well tolerated when cardiopulmonary reserve is poor. Nevertheless, theoretically lowering intra-abdominal pressure could reduce the impact of pneumoperitoneum on the blood circulation of intra-abdominal organs as well as cardiopulmonary function. However, the evidence remains weak, and as such, the debate remains unresolved. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to demonstrate the current knowledge around the effect of pneumoperitoneum at different pressures levels during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis were reported according to the recommendations of the 2020 updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. RESULTS: This systematic review and meta-analysis included 44 randomized controlled trials that compared different pressures of pneumoperitoneum in the setting of elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Length of hospital, conversion rate, and complications rate were not significantly different, whereas statistically significant differences were observed in post-operative pain and analgesic consumption. According to the GRADE criteria, overall quality of evidence was high for intra-operative bile spillage (critical outcome), overall complications (critical outcome), shoulder pain (critical outcome), and overall post-operative pain (critical outcome). Overall quality of evidence was moderate for conversion to open surgery (critical outcome), post-operative pain at 1 day (critical outcome), post-operative pain at 3 days (important outcome), and bleeding (critical outcome). Overall quality of evidence was low for operative time (important outcome), length of hospital stay (important outcome), post-operative pain at 12 h (critical outcome), and was very low for post-operative pain at 1 h (critical outcome), post-operative pain at 4 h (critical outcome), post-operative pain at 8 h (critical outcome), and post-operative pain at 2 days (critical outcome). CONCLUSIONS: This review allowed us to draw conclusive results from the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum with an adequate quality of evidence.

Synthetic Versus Biological Mesh in Laparoscopic and Open Ventral Hernia Repair (LAPSIS): Results of a Multinational, Randomized, Controlled, and Double-blind Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the approach (open or laparoscopic) and mesh type (synthetic or biological) in ventral hernias in a clean setting.Summary of Background Data: The level of evidence on the optimal surgical approach and type of mesh in ventral hernia repair is still low. METHODS: Patients with a ventral abdominal hernia (diameter 4-10 cm) were included in this double-blind randomized controlled trial across 17 hospitals in 10 European countries. According to a 2 × 2-factorial design, patients were allocated to 4 arms (open retromuscular or laparoscopic intraperitoneal, with synthetic or Surgisis Gold biological mesh). Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to mesh type used. Major postoperative complication rate (hernia recurrence, mesh infection, or reoperation) within 3 years after surgery, was the primary endpoint in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Between September 1st, 2005, and August 7th, 2009, 253 patients were randomized and 13 excluded. Six of 61 patients (9.8%) in the open synthetic mesh arm, 15 of 66 patients (22.7%) in the open biological mesh arm, 7 of 64 patients (10.9%) in the laparoscopic synthetic mesh arm and 17 of 62 patients (27.4%) in the laparoscopic biological mesh arm had a major complication. The use of biological mesh resulted in significantly more complications (P = 0.013), also after adjusting for hernia type, body mass index, and study site. The trial was prematurely stopped due to an unacceptable high recurrence rate in the biological mesh arms. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Surgisis Gold biological mesh is not recommended for noncomplex ventral hernia repair. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered at controlled-trials.com (ISRCTN34532248).

Insight into the methodology and uptake of EAES guidelines: a qualitative analysis and survey by the EAES Consensus & Guideline Subcommittee.

BACKGROUND: Over the past 25 years, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) has been issuing clinical guidance documents to aid surgical practice. We aimed to investigate the awareness and use of such documents among EAES members. Additionally, we conceptually appraised the methodology used in their development in order to propose a bundle of actions for quality improvement and increased penetration of clinical practice guidelines among EAES members. METHODS: We invited members of EAES to participate in a web-based survey on awareness and use of these documents. Post hoc analyses were performed to identify factors associated with poor awareness/use and the reported reasons for limited use. We further summarized and conceptually analyzed key methodological features of clinical guidance documents published by EAES. RESULTS: Three distinct consecutive phases of methodological evolvement of clinical guidance documents were evident: a "consensus phase," a "guideline phase," and a "transitional phase". Out of a total of 254 surgeons who completed the survey, 72% percent were aware of EAES guidelines and 47% reported occasional use. Young age and trainee status were associated with poor awareness and use. Restriction by colleagues was the primary reason for limited use in these subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The methodology of EAES clinical guidance documents is evolving. Awareness among EAES members is fair, but use is limited. Dissemination actions should be directed to junior surgeons and trainees.

Current status on the adoption of high energy devices in Italy: An Italian Society for Endoscopic Surgery and New Technologies (SICE) national survey.

BACKGROUND: In the past three decades, different High Energy Devices (HED) have been introduced in surgical practice to improve the efficiency of surgical procedures. HED allow vessel sealing, coagulation and transection as well as an efficient tissue dissection. This survey was designed to verify the current status on the adoption of HED in Italy. METHODS: A survey was conducted across Italian general surgery units. The questionnaire was composed of three sections (general information, elective surgery, emergency surgery) including 44 questions. Only one member per each surgery unit was allowed to complete the questionnaire. For elective procedures, the survey included questions on thyroid surgery, lower and upper GI surgery, proctologic surgery, adrenal gland surgery, pancreatic and hepatobiliary surgery, cholecystectomy, abdominal wall surgery and breast surgery. Appendectomy, cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis and bowel obstruction due to adhesions were considered for emergency surgery. The list of alternatives for every single question included a percentage category as follows: " < 25%, 25-50%, 51-75% or > 75%", both for open and minimally-invasive surgery. RESULTS: A total of 113 surgical units completed the questionnaire. The reported use of HED was high both in open and minimally-invasive upper and lower GI surgery. Similarly, HED were widely used in minimally-invasive pancreatic and adrenal surgery. The use of HED was wider in minimally-invasive hepatic and biliary tree surgery compared to open surgery, whereas the majority of the respondents reported the use of any type of HED in less than 25% of elective cholecystectomies. HED were only rarely employed also in the majority of emergency open and laparoscopic procedures, including cholecystectomy, appendectomy, and adhesiolysis. Similarly, very few respondents declared to use HED in abdominal wall surgery and proctology. The distribution of the most used type of HED varied among the different surgical interventions. US HED were mostly used in thyroid, upper GI, and adrenal surgery. A relevant use of H-US/RF devices was reported in lower GI, pancreatic, hepatobiliary and breast surgery. RF HED were the preferred choice in proctology. CONCLUSION: HED are extensively used in minimally-invasive elective surgery involving the upper and lower GI tract, liver, pancreas and adrenal gland. Nowadays, reasons for choosing a specific HED in clinical practice rely on several aspects, including surgeon's preference, economic features, and specific drawbacks of the energy employed.

Correction to: Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: the SICE (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica e Nuove Tecnologie) network prospectivetrial on 1225 cases comparing intra corporeal versus extra corporeal ileo­colic side­to­side anastomosis.

Due to an error in production the members of SICE CoDIG (Colon Dx Italian Group) listed in the Acknowledgments were not tagged correctly as authors in the XML of this article. This listing is presented again here.

Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: the SICE (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica e Nuove Tecnologie) network prospective trial on 1225 cases comparing intra corporeal versus extra corporeal ileo-colic side-to-side anastomosis.

BACKGROUND: While laparoscopic approach for right hemicolectomy (LRH) is considered appropriate for the surgical treatment of both malignant and benign diseases of right colon, there is still debate about how to perform the ileo-colic anastomosis. The ColonDxItalianGroup (CoDIG) was designed as a cohort, observational, prospective, multi-center national study with the aims of evaluating the surgeons' attitude regarding the intracorporeal (ICA) or extra-corporeal (ECA) anastomotic technique and the related surgical outcomes. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-five Surgical Units experienced in colorectal and advanced laparoscopic surgery were invited and 85 of them joined the study. Each center was asked not to change its surgical habits. Data about demographic characteristics, surgical technique and postoperative outcomes were collected through the official SICE website database. One thousand two hundred and twenty-five patients were enrolled between March 2018 and September 2018. RESULTS: ICA was performed in 70.4% of cases, ECA in 29.6%. Isoperistaltic anastomosis was completed in 85.6%, stapled in 87.9%. Hand-sewn enterotomy closure was adopted in 86%. Postoperative complications were reported in 35.4% for ICA and 50.7% for ECA; no significant difference was found according to patients' characteristics and technologies used. Median hospital stay was significantly shorter for ICA (7.3 vs. 9 POD). Postoperative pain in patients not prescribed opioids was significantly lower in ICA group. CONCLUSIONS: In our survey, a side-to-side isoperistaltic stapled ICA with hand-sewn enterotomy closure is the most frequently adopted technique to perform ileo-colic anastomosis after any indications for elective LRH. According to literature, our study confirmed better short-term outcomes for ICA, with reduction of hospital stay and postoperative pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial (Identifier: NCT03934151).

Clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) on bariatric surgery: update 2020 endorsed by IFSO-EC, EASO and ESPCOP.

BACKGROUND: Surgery for obesity and metabolic diseases has been evolved in the light of new scientific evidence, long-term outcomes and accumulated experience. EAES has sponsored an update of previous guidelines on bariatric surgery. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of bariatric surgeons, obesity physicians, nutritional experts, psychologists, anesthetists and a patient representative comprised the guideline development panel. Development and reporting conformed to GRADE guidelines and AGREE II standards. RESULTS: Systematic review of databases, record selection, data extraction and synthesis, evidence appraisal and evidence-to-decision frameworks were developed for 42 key questions in the domains Indication; Preoperative work-up; Perioperative management; Non-bypass, bypass and one-anastomosis procedures; Revisional surgery; Postoperative care; and Investigational procedures. A total of 36 recommendations and position statements were formed through a modified Delphi procedure. CONCLUSION: This document summarizes the latest evidence on bariatric surgery through state-of-the art guideline development, aiming to facilitate evidence-based clinical decisions.

EAES and SAGES 2018 consensus conference on acute diverticulitis management: evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Acute diverticulitis (AD) presents a unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenge for general surgeons. This collaborative project between EAES and SAGES aimed to summarize recent evidence and draw statements of recommendation to guide our members on comprehensive AD management. METHODS: Systematic reviews of the literature were conducted across six AD topics by an international steering group including experts from both societies. Topics encompassed the epidemiology, diagnosis, management of non-complicated and complicated AD as well as emergency and elective operative AD management. Consensus statements and recommendations were generated, and the quality of the evidence and recommendation strength rated with the GRADE system. Modified Delphi methodology was used to reach consensus among experts prior to surveying the EAES and SAGES membership on the recommendations and likelihood to impact their practice. Results were presented at both EAES and SAGES annual meetings with live re-voting carried out for recommendations with < 70% agreement. RESULTS: A total of 51 consensus statements and 41 recommendations across all six topics were agreed upon by the experts and submitted for members' online voting. Based on 1004 complete surveys and over 300 live votes at the SAGES and EAES Diverticulitis Consensus Conference (DCC), consensus was achieved for 97.6% (40/41) of recommendations with 92% (38/41) agreement on the likelihood that these recommendations would change practice if not already applied. Areas of persistent disagreement included the selective use of imaging to guide AD diagnosis, recommendations against antibiotics in non-complicated AD, and routine colonic evaluation after resolution of non-complicated diverticulitis. CONCLUSION: This joint EAES and SAGES consensus conference updates clinicians on the current evidence and provides a set of recommendations that can guide clinical AD management practice.

A prospective non-randomized controlled, multicenter trial comparing Appendectomy and Conservative Treatment for Patients with Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis (the ACTUAA study).

PURPOSE: Acute appendicitis (AA) is among the most common causes of lower abdominal pain and admissions to the emergency department. Over the past 20 years, there has been a renewed interest in the conservative management of uncomplicated AA, and several studies demonstrated that an antibiotic-first strategy is a viable treatment option for uncomplicated AA. The aim of this prospective non-randomized controlled, multicenter trial is to compare antibiotic therapy and emergency appendectomy as treatment for patients with uncomplicated AA confirmed by US and/or CT or MRI scan. METHODS: All adult patients in the age range 18 to 65 years with suspected AA, consecutively admitted to the Surgical Department of the 13 participating Italian Hospitals, will be invited to take part in the study. A multicenter prospective collected registry developed by surgeons, radiologists, and pathologists with expertise in the diagnosis and treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis represents the best research method to assess the long-term role of antibiotics in the management of the disease. Comparison will be made between surgical and antibiotic-first approaches to uncomplicated AA through the analysis of the primary outcome measure of complication-free treatment success rate based on 1-year follow-up. Quality of life, length of hospital stay, pain evaluation, and time to return to normal activity will be evaluated as secondary outcome measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03080103.

A research agenda for the European Association for Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES).

INTRODUCTION: The European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) conducted this study aiming to identify the top research questions which are relevant to surgeons in Minimal Access Surgery (MAS). This is in order to promote and link research questions to the current clinical practice in MAS in Europe. METHODS: Using a systematic methodology, (modified Delphi), the EAES members and leadership teams were surveyed to obtain consensus on the top research priorities in MAS. The responses were categorized and redistributed to the membership to rate the level of importance of each research question. The data were reported as the weighted average score with a scale from 1 (lowest agreement) to 5 (highest agreement). RESULTS: In total, 324 of 2580 (12.5%) of the EAES members and the leaders responded to the survey and contributed to the final consensus. The ranked responses over the 80th percentile identified 39 research priorities with rating ranged from 4.22 to 3.67. The top five highest ranking research priorities in the EAES were centered on improving training in MAS, laparoscopic surgery for benign upper gastrointestinal conditions, integration of novel technology in OR, translational and basic science research in bariatric surgery and investigating the role of MAS in rectal cancer. CONCLUSION: An EAES research agenda was developed using a systematic methodology and can be used to focus MAS research. This study was commissioned by the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES).

Current status of laparoscopy for acute abdomen in Italy: a critical appraisal of 2012 clinical guidelines from two consecutive nationwide surveys with analysis of 271,323 cases over 5 years.

BACKGROUND: Several authors have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of laparoscopy in selected cases of abdominal emergencies. The aim of the study was to analyse the current Italian practice on the use of laparoscopy in abdominal emergencies and to evaluate the impact of the 2012 national guidelines on the daily surgical activity. METHODS: Two surveys (42 closed-ended questions) on the use of laparoscopy in acute abdomen were conducted nationwide with an online questionnaire, respectively, before (2010) and after (2014) the national guidelines publication. Data from two surveys were compared using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test, and data were considered significant when p < 0.05. RESULTS: Two-hundred and one and 234 surgical units answered to the surveys in 2010 and 2014, respectively. Out of 144,310 and 127,013 overall surgical procedures, 23,407 and 20,102, respectively, were abdominal emergency operations. Respectively 24.74 % (in 2010) versus 30.27 % (in 2014) of these emergency procedures were approached laparoscopically, p = 0.42. The adoption of laparoscopy increased in all the considered clinical scenarios, with statistical significance in acute appendicitis (44 vs. 64.7 %; p = 0.004). The percentage of units approaching Hinchey III acute diverticulitis with laparoscopy in 26-75 % of cases (14.0 vs. 29.7 %; p = 0.009), those with >25 % of surgeons confident with laparoscopic approach to acute diverticulitis (29.9 vs. 54 %; p = 0.0009), the units with >50 % of surgeons confident with laparoscopic approach to acute appendicitis, cholecystitis and perforated duodenal ulcer, all significantly increased in the time frame. The majority of respondents declared that the 2012 national guidelines influenced their clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: The surveys showed an increasing use of laparoscopy for patients with abdominal emergencies. The 2012 national guidelines profoundly influenced the Italian surgical practice in the laparoscopic approach to the acute abdomen.

IPOD Study: Management of Acute Left Colonic Diverticulitis in Italian Surgical Departments.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the emergency management of acute left colonic diverticulitis (ALCD) has evolved dramatically despite lack of strong evidence. As a consequence, management strategies are frequently guided by surgeon's personal preference, rather than by scientific evidence. The primary aim of IPOD study (Italian Prospective Observational Diverticulitis study) is to describe both the diagnostic and treatment profiles of patients with ALCD in the Italian surgical departments. METHODS: IPOD study is a prospective observational study performed during a 6-month period (from April 1 2015 to September 1 2015) and including 89 Italian surgical departments. All consecutive patients with suspected clinical diagnosis of ALCD confirmed by imaging and seen by a surgeon were included in the study. The study was promoted by the Italian Society of Hospital Surgeons and the World Society of Emergency Surgery Italian chapter. RESULTS: Eleven hundred and twenty-five patients with a median age of 62 years [interquartile range (IQR), 51-74] were enrolled in the IPOD study. One thousand and fifty-four (93.7%) patients were hospitalized with a median duration of hospitalization of 7 days (IQR 5-10). Eight hundred and twenty-eight patients (73.6%) underwent medical treatment alone, 13 patients had percutaneous drainage (1.2%), and the other 284 (25.2%) patients underwent surgery as first treatment. Among 121 patients having diffuse peritonitis, 71 (58.7%) underwent Hartmann's resection. However, the Hartmann's resection was used even in patients with lower stages of ALCD (36/479; 7.5%) where other treatment options could be more adequate. CONCLUSIONS: The IPOD study demonstrates that in the Italian surgical departments treatment strategies for ALCD are often guided by the surgeon's personal preference.