Multicentre cohort study of acute cholecystitis management during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: To analyse acute cholecystitis (AC) management during the first pandemic outbreak after the recommendations given by the surgical societies estimating: morbidity, length of hospital stay, mortality and hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection rate. METHODS: Multicentre-combined (retrospective-prospective) cohort study with AC patients in the Community of Madrid between 1st March and 30th May 2020. 257 AC patients were involved in 16 public hospital. Multivariant binomial logistic regression (MBLR) was applied to mortality. RESULTS: Of COVID-19 patients, 30 were diagnosed at admission and 12 patients were diagnosed during de admission or 30 days after discharge. In non-COVID-19 patients, antibiotic therapy was received in 61.3% of grade I AC and 40.6% of grade II AC. 52.4% of grade III AC were treated with percutaneous drainage (PD). Median hospital stay was 5 [3-8] days, which was higher in the non-surgical treatment group with 7.51 days (p < 0.001) and a 3.25% of mortality rate (p < 0.21). 93.3% of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection at admission were treated with non-surgical treatment (p = 0.03), median hospital stay was 11.0 [7.5-27.5] days (p < 0.001) with a 7.5% of mortality rate (p > 0.05). In patients with hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection, 91.7% of grade I-II AC were treated with non-surgical treatment (p = 0.037), with a median hospital stay of 16 [4-21] days and a 18.2% mortality rate (p > 0.05). Hospital-acquired infection risk when hospital stay is > 7 days is OR 4.7, CI 95% (1.3-16.6), p = 0.009. COVID-19 mortality rate was 11.9%, AC severity adjusted OR 5.64 (CI 95% 1.417-22.64). In MBLR analysis, age (OR 1.15, CI 95% 1.02-1.31), SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 14.49, CI 95% 1.33-157.81), conservative treatment failure (OR 8.2, CI 95% 1.34-50.49) and AC severity were associated with an increased odd of mortality. CONCLUSION: In our population, during COVID-19 pandemic, there was an increase of non-surgical treatment which was accompanied by an increase of conservative treatment failure, morbidity and hospital stay length which may have led to an increased risk hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection. Age, SARS-CoV-2 infection, AC severity and conservative treatment failure were mortality risk factors.

Short-term Outcomes of Transanal Hemorrhoidal Dearterialization With Mucopexy Versus Vessel-Sealing Device Hemorrhoidectomy for Grade III to IV Hemorrhoids: A Prospective Randomized Multicenter Trial.

BACKGROUND: Transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy and vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy seem to reduce postoperative pain compared with classic excisional hemorrhoidectomy, but whether one of them is superior remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: We compared transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy and vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy. DESIGN: This was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: The study was conducted at 6 Spanish centers. PATIENTS: Patients aged ≥18 years with grade III to IV hemorrhoids were included. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy (n = 39) or vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy (n = 41). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was the mean postoperative number of days in which patients needed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain, 30-day morbidity, patient satisfaction, Vaizey score, hemorrhoid symptoms score, return to work, and quality of life. RESULTS: More patients were still taking analgesia in the vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy group during the second postoperative week compared with the transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy group (87.8% vs 53.8%; p = 0.002). For the transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy group, analgesia consumption continued until day 10.1 (mean; SD = 7.22 d), whereas in the vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy group it continued until day 15.2 (mean; SD = 8.70 d; p = 0.006). The mean daily average pain was similar during the first (p = 0.900) and second postoperative weeks (p = 0.265). Mean operative time was higher for the transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy group versus the vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy group (45 min; range, 40-60 vs 20 min; range, 15-41 min; p < 0.001). Postoperative complications rate, use of laxatives, patient satisfaction, Vaizey score, hemorrhoids symptoms score, return to work, and quality of life at 1 month after surgery were similar between groups. LIMITATIONS: The main limitation of this study was that the 2 groups did not contain equal numbers of grade III and IV hemorrhoids. CONCLUSIONS: Transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy is associated with a shorter need for postoperative analgesia compared with vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A915. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02654249.

¿Permiten la citología, el genotipado y la anoscopia de alta resolución establecer un protocolo para la detección precoz del carcinoma epidermoide de canal anal en población de riesgo? / Do cytology, genotyping, and high resolution anoscopy allow to establish a protocol for early detection of squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal in risk population?

Introducción: El cáncer anal ha experimentado un aumento de incidencia en los últimos años. Está mediado por el VPH y precedido de cambios precancerosos planteando la posibilidad de dirigir los esfuerzos preventivos hacia los grupos de alto riesgo. Sigue siendo controvertida la indicación de cribado y los métodos de detección ideales. Objetivo: Validar las pruebas de cribado implementadas en la actualidad comparadas con la biopsia como "gold standard". Material y Métodos: Estudio transversal con recogida de datos prospectiva, en una cohorte de hombres VIH+ que tienen sexo con hombres, pertenecientes al Hospital Gregorio Marañón e Infanta Leonor en un periodo de 2 años. Resultados: Se seleccionaron 179 pacientes con 286 visitas a la consulta de screening en las que se llevaron a cabo 3 pruebas de cribado en paralelo (citología anal, genotipado del VPH y anoscopia de alta resolución (AAR) con toma de biopsia dirigida sobre zona sospechosa o aleatoria). La sensibilidad y especificidad para la detección de displasia de alto grado y cáncer y su grado de concordancia con la biopsia fue la siguiente: citología 3,23%/94,43% (k: 0,03), genotipado de VPH de alto riesgo 90,32%/27,45% (k: 0,05), AAR 32,26%/87,45 (k: 0, 17) siendo el rendimiento diagnóstico de las tres pruebas muy bajo. Conclusión: La citología presenta un rendimiento diagnóstico muy bajo comparado con el genotipado que representa el mayor. A la luz de nuestros resultados, los protocolos clínicos tal y como vienen desarrollándose en la actualidad deberían de ser abandonados.

Introduction: The incidence of anal cancer has increased in recent years. It is mediated by HPV and preceded by precancerous changes, raising the possibility of directing preventive efforts towards high-risk groups. The indication of screening remains controversial and which methods would be the ideal ones. Objective: To validate the screening tests established actually, comparing it with the biopsy considered as the "gold standard". Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed, with prospective data collection in a cohort of VIH+ patients, who have male homosexual anal relations, belonging to Gregorio Marañón and Infanta Leonor Hospitals in a period of 2 years. Results: A total of 179 patients were selected with 286 visits to the screening Outpatient Clinic in which 3 parallel screening tests were performed (anal cytology, HPV genotyping and high resolution anoscopy (AAR) with a biopsy directed on a suspicious or random area). The sensitivity and specificity for the detection of high-grade dysplasia and cancer and their degree of agreement with the biopsy was as follows: cytology 3.23%/94.43% (k: 0.03), high HPV genotyping. risk 90.32%/27.45% (k: 0.05), AAR 32.26%/87.45 (k: 0, 17), the diagnostic accuracy of the three tests being very low. Conclusion: Cytology shows a very low diagnostic accuracy compared to the genotype that represents the highest one. In light of our results, clinical protocols as they are currently being developed should be abandoned.