The Effect of Fascial Closure With Triclosan-Coated Sutures on the Incidence of Abdominal Wall Dehiscence: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis.

Introduction: Wound closure with triclosan-coated sutures (TCS) appears to reduce the risk of surgical site infection (SSI). Because there is a strong association between postoperative SSI and the development of acute abdominal wall dehiscence (AWD) after laparotomy, we hypothesized that the use of TCS for wound closure after laparotomy may also reduce the risk of AWD. Methods: The MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched from their inception to 01 November 2022. Randomized trials that compared the use of TCS with identical but uncoated sutures for fascial closure were eligible if they could provide individual participant data (IPD) on AWD. From these trials, we only included in the analysis those subjects who underwent open abdominal surgery. The primary outcome was the incidence of AWD within 30 days postoperatively, requiring emergency reoperation. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE methodology (PROSPERO: CRD42019121173. Results: We identified twelve eligible trials. Eight studies shared IPD. The incidence of AWD within 30 days after surgery was 27/1,565 (1.7%) in the TCS group vs. 40/1,430 (2.8%) in the control group (Relative Risk: 0.70 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-1.11, I 2 = 0%, τ2 = 0.00]). The certainty of evidence was moderate after downgrading for imprecision. The incidence of incisional SSI was 163/1,576 (10.3%) vs. 198/1,439 (13.8%), RR 0.80 (95% CI 0.67-0.97). Conclusion: We found no conclusive evidence to support the use of triclosan-coated sutures for the prevention of acute abdominal wall dehiscence after laparotomy. In these selected studies, a significant reduction in incisional SSI was observed.

Intravenous Lidocaine for Refractory Pain in Patients With Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma and Chronic Pancreatitis: A Multicenter Prospective Nonrandomized Pilot Study.

INTRODUCTION: Refractory pain is a major clinical problem in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and chronic pancreatitis (CP). New, effective therapies to reduce pain are urgently needed. Intravenous lidocaine is used in clinical practice in patients with PDAC and CP, but its efficacy has not been studied prospectively. METHODS: Multicenter prospective nonrandomized pilot study included patients with moderate or severe pain (Numeric Rating Scale ≥ 4) associated with PDAC or CP in 5 Dutch centers. An intravenous lidocaine bolus of 1.5 mg/kg was followed by continuous infusion at 1.5 mg/kg/hr. The dose was raised every 15 minutes until treatment response (up to a maximum 2 mg/kg/hr) and consecutively administered for 2 hours. Primary outcome was the mean difference in pain severity, preinfusion, and the first day after (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI] scale 1-10). A BPI decrease ≥1.3 points was considered clinically relevant. RESULTS: Overall, 30 patients were included, 19 with PDAC (63%) and 11 with CP (37%). The mean difference in BPI at day 1 was 1.1 (SD ± 1.3) points for patients with PDAC and 0.5 (SD ± 1.7) for patients with CP. A clinically relevant decrease in BPI on day 1 was reported in 9 of 29 patients (31%), and this response lasted up to 1 month. No serious complications were reported, and only 3 minor complications (vertigo, nausea, and tingling of mouth). Treatment with lidocaine did not impact quality of life. DISCUSSION: Intravenous lidocaine in patients with painful PDAC and CP did not show an overall clinically relevant reduction of pain. However, this pilot study shows that the treatment is feasible in this patient group and had a positive effect in a third of patients which lasted up to a month with only minor side effects. To prove or exclude the efficacy of intravenous lidocaine, the study should be performed in a study with a greater sample size and less heterogeneous patient group.

Intravenous lidocaine for refractory pain in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and chronic pancreatitis (LIDOPAN): a multicenter prospective non-randomized pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: Refractory pain is a major clinical problem in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and chronic pancreatitis (CP). New, effective therapies to reduce pain are urgently needed. Intravenous lidocaine is used in clinical practice in patients with PDAC and CP, but its efficacy has not been studied prospectively. METHODS: Multicentre prospective non-randomized pilot study including patients with moderate or severe pain (NRS ≥ 4) associated with PDAC or CP in 5 Dutch centers. An intravenous lidocaine bolus of 1.5mg/kg, was followed by continuous infusion at 1.5 mg/kg/hour. The dose was raised every 15 minutes until treatment response (up to a maximum 2mg/kg/hour) and consecutively administered for two hours. Primary outcome was the mean difference in pain severity, pre-infusion and the first day after (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI] scale 1-10). A BPI decrease ≥ 1.3 points was considered clinically relevant. RESULTS: Overall, 30 patients were included, 19 with PDAC (63%) and 11 with CP (37%). The mean difference in BPI at day one was 1.1 (SD±1.3) points for patients with PDAC and 0.5 (SD±1.7) for CP patients. A clinically relevant decrease in BPI on day one was reported in 9/29 patients (31%), this response lasted up to one month. No serious complications were reported, and only three minor complications (vertigo, nausea, tingling of mouth). Treatment with lidocaine did not impact quality of life. CONCLUSION: Intravenous lidocaine in patients with painful PDAC and CP did not show an overall clinically relevant reduction of pain. However, this pilot study shows that the treatment is feasible in this patient group, and had a positive effect in a third of patients which lasted up to a month with only minor side effects. To prove or exclude the efficacy of intravenous lidocaine, the study should be performed in a study with a greater sample size and less heterogeneous patient group.

Restrictive Strategy vs Usual Care for Cholecystectomy in Patients With Abdominal Pain and Gallstones: 5-Year Follow-Up of the SECURE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The 1-year results of the SECURE trial, a randomized trial comparing a restrictive strategy vs usual care for select patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis for cholecystectomy, resulted in a significantly lower operation rate after restrictive strategy. However, a restrictive strategy did not result in more pain-free patients at 1 year. Objective: To gauge pain level and determine the proportion of pain-free patients, operation rate, and biliary and surgical complications at the 5-year follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was a multicenter, parallel-arm, noninferiority, prospective study. Between February 2014 and April 2017, patients from 24 hospitals with symptomatic, uncomplicated cholelithiasis were included. Uncomplicated cholelithiasis was defined as gallstone disease without signs of complicated cholelithiasis, ie, biliary pancreatitis, cholangitis, common bile duct stones, or cholecystitis. Follow-up data for this analysis were collected by telephone from July 11, 2019, to September 23, 2023. Interventions: Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive usual care or a restrictive strategy with stepwise selection for cholecystectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary, noninferiority end point was proportion of patients who were pain free as evaluated by Izbicki pain score at the 5-year follow-up. A 5% noninferiority margin was chosen. The secondary end points included cholecystectomy rates, biliary and surgical complications, and patient satisfaction. Results: Among 1067 patients, the median (IQR) age was 49.0 years (38.0-59.0 years); 786 (73.7%) were female, and 281 (26.3%) were male. At the 5-year follow-up, 228 of 363 patients (62.8%) were pain free in the usual care group, compared with 216 of 353 patients (61.2%) in restrictive strategy group (difference, 1.6%; 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit, -7.6%; noninferiority P = .18). After cholecystectomy, 187 of 294 patients (63.6%) in the usual care group and 160 of 254 patients (63.0%) in the restrictive strategy group were pain free, respectively (P = .88). The restrictive care strategy was associated with 387 of 529 cholecystectomies (73.2%) compared with 437 of 536 in the usual care group (81.5%; 8.3% difference; P = .001). No differences between groups were observed in biliary and surgical complications or in patient satisfaction. Conclusions and Relevance: In the long-term, a restrictive strategy results in a significant but small reduction in operation rate compared with usual care and is not associated with increased biliary and surgical complications. However, regardless of the strategy, only two-third of patients were pain free. Further criteria for selecting patients with uncomplicated cholelithiasis for cholecystectomy and rethinking laparoscopic cholecystectomy as treatment is needed to improve patient-reported outcomes. Trial Registration: CCMO Identifier: NTR4022.

Clinical trial: The effectiveness of long-acting somatostatin analogue for output reduction of high-output intestinal fistula or small bowel enterostomy. A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: High-output intestinal fistulas and small bowel enterostomies are associated with morbidity and mortality. Current standard treatment for output reduction consists of fluid and dietary restrictions and medical therapy. There is conflicting evidence regarding the use of somatostatin analogues for output reduction. AIM: The aim of this study is to investigate whether lanreotide, added to current standard treatment, further reduces intestinal output in patients with high-output fistulas and enterostomies. METHODS: This was an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Adult patients with a high-output intestinal fistula (>500 mL/24 h) or small bowel enterostomy (>1500 mL/24 h) more than 4 weeks post-surgery and receiving standard medical treatment (dietary- and fluid restriction, PPI, loperamide and codeine) for at least 2 weeks were eligible for inclusion. We randomised patients 1:1 between continuing standard treatment (control), and subcutaneous lanreotide 120 mg every 4 weeks with standard treatment. The primary outcome was the number of responders, with response defined as an output reduction of ≥25%, 8 weeks after randomisation. We also investigated the proportional change in output. RESULTS: We randomised 40 patients; 17 had a fistula and 23 a small bowel enterostomy. There were 9/20 responders in the intervention group and 2/20 in the control group (p = 0.013). The proportional output reduction was -26% (IQR -4 to -38) in the intervention group, compared to an increase of 4% (IQR 20 to -13) in the control group (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a high-output fistula or small bowel enterostomy, addition of lanreotide to current standard treatment can provide a clinically relevant output reduction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2013-003998-10.

ENGINE-An EHS Project for Future Guidelines.

Clinical guidelines are evidence-based recommendations developed by healthcare organizations or expert panels to assist healthcare providers and patients in making appropriate and reliable decisions regarding specific health conditions, aiming to enhance the quality of healthcare by promoting best practices, reducing variations in care, and at the same time, allowing tailored clinical decision-making. European Hernia Society (EHS) guidelines aim to provide surgeons a reliable set of answers to their pertinent clinical questions and a tool to base their activity as experts in the management of abdominal wall defects. The traditional approach to guideline production is based on gathering key opinion leader in a particular field, to address a number of key questions, appraising papers, presenting evidence and produce final recommendations based on the literature and consensus. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method offers a transparent and structured process for developing and presenting evidence summaries and for carrying out the steps involved in developing recommendations. Its main strength lies in guiding complex judgments that balance the need for simplicity with the requirement for complete and transparent consideration of all important issues. EHS guidelines are of overall good quality but the application of GRADE method, began with EHS guidelines on open abdomen, and the increasing adherence to the process, has greatly improved the reliability of our guidelines. Currently, the need to application of this methodology and the creation of stable and dedicated group of researchers interested in following GRADE in the production of guidelines has been outlined in the literature. Considering that the production of clinical guidelines is a complex process, this paper aim to highlights the primary features of guideline production, GRADE methodology, the challenges associated with their adoption in the field of hernia surgery and the project of the EHS to establish a stable guidelines committee to provide technical and methodological support in update of previously published guideline or the creation of new ones.

Topical antimicrobial treatment of mesh for the reduction of surgical site infections after hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Use of mesh is essential in hernia repair. A common complication after hernia repair is surgical site infection (SSI), which poses a risk in spreading to the mesh, possibly causing mesh infection. Topical antimicrobial pretreatment of mesh may potentially reduce SSI risk in hernia repair and has shown promising results in in vitro and in vivo studies. Clinical evidence, however, is more important. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of available clinical evidence for antimicrobial pretreated mesh in hernia repair surgery to reduce SSI. METHODS: We report in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL and PubMed were searched up to October 2023 for studies that investigated the use of antimicrobial pretreated mesh on SSI incidence in adults undergoing hernia repair. The primary outcome was SSI incidence. We also collected data on pathogen involvement, hernia recurrence, and mesh infection. A meta-analysis on SSI risk and GRADE-assessment was performed of eligible studies. RESULTS: We identified 11 eligible studies (n = 2660 patients); 5 randomized trials and 6 cohort studies. Investigated interventions included pre-coated mesh, antibiotic carriers, mesh soaked or irrigated with antibiotic or antiseptic solution. Meta-analysis showed no significant reduction in SSI for antibiotic pretreated polypropylene mesh (RR 0.76 [95% CI 0.27; 2.09]; I2 50%). CONCLUSION: Data on topical mesh pretreatment to reduce SSI risk after hernia repair is limited. Very low certainty evidence from randomized trials in hernia repair surgery shows no significant benefit for antibiotic mesh pretreatment for SSI reduction, but data are imprecise due to optimal information size not being met.

Incisional Wound Irrigation for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are common postoperative complications and associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and costs. Prophylactic intraoperative incisional wound irrigation is used to reduce the risk of SSIs, and there is great variation in the type of irrigation solutions and their use. Objective: To compare the outcomes of different types of incisional prophylactic intraoperative incisional wound irrigation for the prevention of SSIs in all types of surgery. Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases were searched up to June 12, 2023. Study Selection: Included in this study were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing incisional prophylactic intraoperative incisional wound irrigation with no irrigation or comparing irrigation using different types of solutions, with SSI as a reported outcome. Studies investigating intracavity lavage were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: This systematic review and network meta-analysis is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias within individual RCTs using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. A frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted, and relative risks (RRs) with corresponding 95% CIs were reported. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary study outcome was SSI. Results: A total of 1587 articles were identified, of which 41 RCTs were included in the systematic review, with 17 188 patients reporting 1328 SSIs, resulting in an overall incidence of 7.7%. Compared with no irrigation, antiseptic solutions (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.44-0.81; high level of certainty) and antibiotic solutions (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.29-0.73; low level of certainty) were associated with a beneficial reduction in SSIs. Saline irrigation showed no statistically significant difference compared with no irrigation (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.63-1.09; moderate level of certainty). Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and network meta-analysis found high-certainty evidence that prophylactic intraoperative incisional wound irrigation with antiseptic solutions was associated with a reduction in SSIs. It is suggested that the use of antibiotic wound irrigation be avoided due to the inferior certainty of evidence for its outcome and global antimicrobial resistance concerns.

Development and Validation of the Scoring System of Appendicitis Severity 2.0.

Importance: When considering nonoperative treatment in a patient with acute appendicitis, it is crucial to accurately rule out complicated appendicitis. The Atema score, also referred to as the Scoring System of Appendicitis Severity (SAS), has been designed to differentiate between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis but has not been prospectively externally validated. Objective: To externally validate the SAS and, in case of failure, to develop an improved SAS (2.0) for estimating the probability of complicated appendicitis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective study included adult patients who underwent operations for suspected acute appendicitis at 11 hospitals in the Netherlands between January 2020 and August 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Appendicitis severity was predicted according to the SAS in 795 patients and its sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) for complicated appendicitis were calculated. Since the predefined targets of 95% for both were not met, the SAS 2.0 was developed using the same cohort. This clinical prediction model was developed with multivariable regression using clinical, biochemical, and imaging findings. The SAS 2.0 was externally validated in a temporal validation cohort consisting of 565 patients. Results: In total, 1360 patients were included, 463 of whom (34.5%) had complicated appendicitis. Validation of the SAS resulted in a sensitivity of 83.6% (95% CI, 78.8-87.6) and an NPV of 85.0% (95% CI, 80.6-88.8), meaning that the predefined targets were not achieved. Therefore, the SAS 2.0 was developed, internally validated (C statistic, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.89), and subsequently externally validated (C statistic, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.89). The SAS 2.0 was designed to calculate a patient's individual probability of having complicated appendicitis along with a 95% CI. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, external validation of the SAS fell short in accurately distinguishing complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis. The newly developed and externally validated SAS 2.0 was able to assess an individual patient's probability of having complicated appendicitis with high accuracy in patients with acute appendicitis. Use of this patient-specific risk assessment tool can be helpful when considering and discussing nonoperative treatment of acute appendicitis with patients.

Practical Guide to Curricular Development Research.

This Guide to Statistics and Methods provides an overview of performing curricular development research.

Surgery versus Endoscopy for the Management of Painful Chronic Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Debate exists regarding the optimal treatment for painful chronic pancreatitis (CP). This meta-analysis aims to determine the outcomes of surgical intervention as compared to endoscopy in patients with painful CP. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis including studies from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Databases (1995 onwards) was done by two independent reviewers using PRISMA guidelines. Primary outcome was pain relief. RESULTS: Among 8,479 studies, three were randomized trials, comprising a total of 199 patients. Compared with endoscopy, surgery was associated with a lower Izbicki score, both at medium term (mean difference (MD) 21.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 13.48-29.43, p < 0.00001) and long term (MD: 17.80, 95% CI: 8.36-27.23, p = 0.0002). A higher proportion of surgical patients had some sort of pain relief compared with those who had endoscopy, both at medium term (72% vs. 46%, RR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.19-1.90, p = 0.0006) and long term (73% vs. 47%, RR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.19-1.89, p = 0.0007). Complete pain relief was more common in the surgical group compared to the endoscopy group, both at medium term (33% vs. 17%, RR: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.16-3.36, p = 0.01) and long term (35% vs. 18%, RR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.15-3.20, p = 0.01). The pooled crossover rate from endoscopy to surgery was 22% (22/99). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment in patients with painful CP leads to better pain control, requiring fewer interventions as compared to endoscopic treatment.

Diagnostic accuracy of doctors at the emergency department and radiologists in differentiating between complicated and uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

PURPOSE: To determine the accuracy of final judgements of doctors at the emergency department (ED) and radiologists to differentiate between complicated and uncomplicated acute appendicitis, because these have different treatment options. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter study included adult patients with imaging-confirmed acute appendicitis, operated with intention to appendectomy. Both doctors at ED and radiologists assessed appendicitis severity as a final judgement of "uncomplicated" or "complicated" appendicitis. Doctors at ED integrated clinical, laboratory, and imaging findings. Radiologists relied solely on imaging findings. Outcomes were accuracy of these judgements for diagnosis of complicated appendicitis compared to the reference standard by an adjudication committee. RESULTS: After imaging, 1070 patients with confirmed acute appendicitis were included. Doctors at ED accurately labelled 656 of 701 (93.6%) patients with true uncomplicated appendicitis as uncomplicated, and 163 of 369 (44.2%) patients with true complicated appendicitis were labelled as complicated. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) for complicated appendicitis were 44.2%, 93.6%, and 78.4% and 76.1%, respectively. Comparable accuracy was found for the radiologist's assessment in 941 patients, with true positive rates of 92.2% (581 of 630 patients) for uncomplicated appendicitis and 46.6% (145 of 311 patients) for complicated appendicitis. CONCLUSION: More than half of all patients with true complicated appendicitis is incorrectly classified as uncomplicated appendicitis according to the judgements of doctors at ED, integrating clinical, laboratory, and imaging results, and of radiologists assessing diagnostic imaging. These judgements are thereby not sufficiently reliable in ruling out complicated appendicitis.

Practical Guide to Surgical Simulation Research.

This Guide to Statistics and Methods provides an overview of simulation-based education and its impact on surgeon performance.

Long-Term Outcome of Immediate Versus Postponed Intervention in Patients With Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (POINTER): Multicenter Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term outcomes of immediate drainage versus the postponed-drainage approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. BACKGROUND: In the randomized POINTER trial, patients assigned to the postponed-drainage approach using antibiotic treatment required fewer interventions, as compared with immediate drainage, and over a third were treated without any intervention. METHODS: Clinical data of those patients alive after the initial 6-month follow-up were re-evaluated. The primary outcome was a composite of death and major complications. RESULTS: Out of 104 patients, 88 were re-evaluated with a median follow-up of 51 months. After the initial 6-month follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 7 of 47 patients (15%) in the immediate-drainage group and 7 of 41 patients (17%) in the postponed-drainage group (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.33-2.28; P =0.78). Additional drainage procedures were performed in 7 patients (15%) versus 3 patients (7%) (RR 2.03; 95% CI 0.56-7.37; P =0.34). The median number of additional interventions was 0 (IQR 0-0) in both groups ( P =0.028). In the total follow-up, the median number of interventions was higher in the immediate-drainage group than in the postponed-drainage group (4 vs. 1, P =0.001). Eventually, 14 of 15 patients (93%) in the postponed-drainage group who were successfully treated in the initial 6-month follow-up with antibiotics and without any intervention remained without intervention. At the end of follow-up, pancreatic function and quality of life were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Also, during long-term follow-up, a postponed-drainage approach using antibiotics in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis results in fewer interventions as compared with immediate drainage and should therefore be the preferred approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN33682933.

The Diagnostic Value of Biomarkers in Acute Mesenteric Ischaemia Is Insufficiently Substantiated: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: There is an urgent need for accurate biomarkers to support timely diagnosis of acute mesenteric ischaemia (AMI) and thereby improve clinical outcomes. With this systematic review, the aim was to substantiate the potential diagnostic value of biomarkers for arterial occlusive AMI. DATA SOURCES: The Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library electronic databases were searched. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of the literature has been conducted to define the potential diagnostic value of biomarkers for arterial occlusive AMI. All studies including ≥ 10 patients describing biomarkers for macrovascular occlusive AMI between 1950 and 17 February 2023 were identified within the Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library electronic databases. There were no restrictions to any particular study design, but letters and editorials were excluded. The QUADAS-2 tool was used for the critical appraisal of quality. The study protocol was registered on Prospero (CRD42021254970). RESULTS: Fifty of 4334 studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. Ninety per cent of studies were of low quality. A total of 60 biomarkers were identified, with 24 in two or more studies and 15 in five or more studies. There was variation in reported units, normal range, and cut off values. Meta-analysis was not possible due to study heterogeneity. Biomarkers currently recommended by the European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, European Society for Trauma and Emergency Surgery 2016, and World Society of Emergency Surgery 2017 guidelines also had heterogeneous low quality data for use in the diagnosis of AMI. CONCLUSION: This systematic review demonstrates high heterogeneity and low quality of the available evidence on biomarkers for arterial occlusive AMI. No clinical conclusions can be drawn on a biomarker or combination of biomarkers for patients suspected of arterial occlusive AMI. Restraint is advised when rejecting or determining AMI solely based on biomarkers.

Nationwide Outcome of Tailored Surgery for Symptomatic Chronic Pancreatitis based on Pancreatic Morphology: Validation of the International guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the nationwide use and outcome of tailored surgical treatment for symptomatic chronic pancreatitis (CP) as advised by recent guidelines. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Randomized trials have shown that surgery is superior to endoscopy in patients with symptomatic CP, although endoscopy remains popular Recent guidelines advice to "tailor surgery" based on pancreatic morphology meaning that the least extensive procedure should be selected based on pancreatic morphology. However, nationwide, and multicenter studies On tailored surgery for symptomatic CP are lacking. METHODS: Nationwide multicenter retrospective analysis of consecutive patients undergoing surgical treatment for symptomatic CP in all seven Dutch university medical centers (2010-2020). Outcomes included volume trend, major complications, 90-day mortality, postoperative opioid use and clinically relevant pain relief. Surgical treatment was tailored based on the size of the main pancreatic duct and pancreatic head (e.g. surgical drainage for a dilated pancreatic duct, and normal size pancreatic head). RESULTS: Overall, 381 patients underwent surgery for CP: 127 surgical drainage procedures ( 33%; mostly extended lateral pancreaticojejunostomy), 129 duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resections (DPPHR, 34%, mostly Frey), and 125 formal pancreatic resections (33%, mostly distal pancreatectomy). The annual surgical volume increased slightly (Pearson r=0.744). Mortality (90-day) occurred in 6 patients (2%), and was non-significantly lower after surgical drainage (0%, 3%, 2%; P =0.139). Major complications (12%, 24%, 26%; P =0.012), postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (0%, 3%, 22%; P =0.038), surgical reintervention (4%, 16%, 12%; P =0.006), and endocrine insufficiency ( 14%, 21%, 43%; P <0.001) occurred less often after surgical drainage. After a median follow-up of 11 months [IQR 3-23] good rates of clinically relevant pain relief ( 83%, 69%, 80%; P =0.082) were observed and 81% of opioid users had stopped using (83%, 78%, 84%, P =0.496). CONCLUSION: The use of surgery for symptomatic CP increased over the study period. Drainage procedures were associated with the best safety profile and excellent functional outcome, highlighting the importance of tailoring surgery based on pancreatic morphology.

Declaration on infection prevention and management in global surgery.

Surgeons in their daily practice are at the forefront in preventing and managing infections. However, among surgeons, appropriate measures of infection prevention and management are often disregarded. The lack of awareness of infection and prevention measures has marginalized surgeons from this battle. Together, the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery (GAIS), the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), the Surgical Infection Society (SIS), the Surgical Infection Society-Europe (SIS-E), the World Surgical Infection Society (WSIS), the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), and the Panamerican Trauma Society (PTS) have jointly completed an international declaration, highlighting the threat posed by antimicrobial resistance globally and the need for preventing and managing infections appropriately across the surgical pathway. The authors representing these surgical societies call all surgeons around the world to participate in this global cause by pledging support for this declaration for maintaining the effectiveness of current and future antibiotics.