Psychological Health of Surgeons in a Time of COVID-19: A Global Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the degree of psychological impact among surgical providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The COVID-19 pandemic has extensively impacted global healthcare systems. We hypothesized that the degree of psychological impact would be higher for surgical providers deployed for COVID-19 work, certain surgical specialties, and for those who knew of someone diagnosed with, or who died, of COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a global web-based survey to investigate the psychological impact of COVID-19. The primary outcomes were the depression anxiety stress scale-21 and Impact of Event Scale-Revised scores. RESULTS: A total of 4283 participants from 101 countries responded. 32.8%, 30.8%, 25.9%, and 24.0% screened positive for depression, anxiety, stress, and PTSD respectively. Respondents who knew someone who died of COVID-19 were more likely to screen positive for depression, anxiety, stress, and PTSD (OR 1.3, 1.6, 1.4, 1.7 respectively, all P < 0.05). Respondents who knew of someone diagnosed with COVID-19 were more likely to screen positive for depression, stress, and PTSD (OR 1.2, 1.2, and 1.3 respectively, all P < 0.05). Surgical specialties that operated in the head and neck region had higher psychological distress among its surgeons. Deployment for COVID- 19-related work was not associated with increased psychological distress. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic may have a mental health legacy outlasting its course. The long-term impact of this ongoing traumatic event underscores the importance of longitudinal mental health care for healthcare personnel, with particular attention to those who know of someone diagnosed with, or who died of COVID-19.

Transanal Hemorrhoidal Dearterialization With Mucopexy Versus Vessel-Sealing Device Hemorrhoidectomy for Grade III to IV Hemorrhoids: Long-term Outcomes From the THDLIGA Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Both transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization and vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy are safe for grade III to IV hemorrhoid treatment. Whether one of them is superior regarding long-term results remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To compare long-term results after transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization and vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy. DESIGN: Multicenter randomized controlled trial. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at 6 centers. PATIENTS: Patients ≥18 years of age with grade III to IV hemorrhoids were included in the study. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization (n = 39) or vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy (n = 41). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was hemorrhoid symptom recurrence assessed by a specific questionnaire 2 years postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included long-term complications, reoperations, fecal continence, and patient satisfaction and quality of life. RESULTS: Five of the 80 patients included in the study were lost to follow-up. Thirty-six patients randomly assigned to transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization and 39 patients randomly assigned to vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy were included in the long-term analysis. The differences between mean baseline and mean 2-year score in the 2 groups were similar (-11.0, SD 3.8 vs -12.5, SD 3.6; p = 0.080). Three patients in the transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization group underwent supplementary procedures for hemorrhoid symptoms, compared with none in the vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy group ( p = 0.106). Four patients in the vessel-sealing hemorrhoidectomy group and none in the transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization group experienced chronic opened wound ( p = 0.116). LIMITATIONS: Lack of stratification for hemorrhoid grade and power calculation based on the main outcome trial but not on the end point of this long-term study. CONCLUSIONS: Transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy is associated with hemorrhoid symptom recurrence similar to vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy at 2 years. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B933 . REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov ; ID: NCT02654249. DESARTERIALIZACIN HEMORROIDAL TRANSANAL CON MUCOPEXIA VERSUS HEMORROIDECTOMA CON DISPOSITIVO DE SELLADO DE VASOS PARA HEMORROIDES DE GRADO IIIIV RESULTADOS A LARGO PLAZO DEL ENSAYO CLNICO ALEATORIZADO THDLIGARCT: ANTECEDENTES:Tanto la desarterialización hemorroidal transanal como la hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos son seguras y bien toleradas para el tratamiento de las hemorroides de grado III-IV. La primera se asocia con una necesidad más breve de analgesia posoperatoria que la hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos. No está claro si uno de ellos es superior con respecto a los resultados a largo plazo.OBJETIVO:El objetivo fue comparar los resultados a largo plazo después de la desarterialización hemorroidal transanal y la hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos.DISEÑO:Se realizó un ensayo clínico aleatorizado multicéntrico.AJUSTE:Este estudio se realizó en 6 centros.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron en el estudio pacientes de ≥18 años con hemorroides de grado III-IV.INTERVENCIONES:Los pacientes fueron asignados al azar a desarterialización hemorroidal transanal (n = 39) o hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos (n = 41).PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado primario fue la recurrencia de los síntomas de hemorroides evaluada mediante un cuestionario específico 2 años después de la operación. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron complicaciones a largo plazo, reoperaciones, continencia fecal, satisfacción del paciente y calidad de vida.RESULTADOS:Cinco de los 80 pacientes incluidos en el estudio se perdieron durante el seguimiento. En el análisis a largo plazo se incluyeron 36 pacientes aleatorizados a desarterialización hemorroidal transanal y 39 aleatorizados a hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos. Las diferencias entre la puntuación inicial media y la puntuación media a los 2 años en los dos grupos fueron similares (-11,0, DE 3,8 frente a -12,5, DE 3,6; p = 0,080). Tres pacientes en el grupo de desarterialización hemorroidal transanal se sometieron a procedimientos complementarios por síntomas de hemorroides, en comparación con ninguno en el grupo de hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos (p = 0,106). Cuatro pacientes en el grupo de hemorroidectomía con sellado de vasos y ninguno en el grupo de desarterialización hemorroidal transanal experimentaron herida abierta crónica (p = 0,116). No se encontraron diferencias en cuanto a continencia fecal (p = 0,657), satisfacción del paciente (p = 0,483) y calidad de vida.LIMITACIONES:No hay estratificación para el grado de hemorroides ni el cálculo del poder basado en el resultado principal del ensayo, pero no en el criterio de valoración de este estudio a largo plazo.CONCLUSIONES:La desarterialización hemorroidal transanal con mucopexia se asocia con una recurrencia de síntomas de hemorroides similar a la hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos a los dos años. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B933 . (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon )REGISTRO DE PRUEBA:Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02654249).

The ChoCO-W prospective observational global study: Does COVID-19 increase gangrenous cholecystitis?

BACKGROUND: The incidence of the highly morbid and potentially lethal gangrenous cholecystitis was reportedly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of the ChoCO-W study was to compare the clinical findings and outcomes of acute cholecystitis in patients who had COVID-19 disease with those who did not. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected over 6 months (October 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021) with 1-month follow-up. In October 2020, Delta variant of SARS CoV-2 was isolated for the first time. Demographic and clinical data were analyzed and reported according to the STROBE guidelines. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients who had COVID-19 were compared with those who did not. RESULTS: A total of 2893 patients, from 42 countries, 218 centers, involved, with a median age of 61.3 (SD: 17.39) years were prospectively enrolled in this study; 1481 (51%) patients were males. One hundred and eighty (6.9%) patients were COVID-19 positive, while 2412 (93.1%) were negative. Concomitant preexisting diseases including cardiovascular diseases (p < 0.0001), diabetes (p < 0.0001), and severe chronic obstructive airway disease (p = 0.005) were significantly more frequent in the COVID-19 group. Markers of sepsis severity including ARDS (p < 0.0001), PIPAS score (p < 0.0001), WSES sepsis score (p < 0.0001), qSOFA (p < 0.0001), and Tokyo classification of severity of acute cholecystitis (p < 0.0001) were significantly higher in the COVID-19 group. The COVID-19 group had significantly higher postoperative complications (32.2% compared with 11.7%, p < 0.0001), longer mean hospital stay (13.21 compared with 6.51 days, p < 0.0001), and mortality rate (13.4% compared with 1.7%, p < 0.0001). The incidence of gangrenous cholecystitis was doubled in the COVID-19 group (40.7% compared with 22.3%). The mean wall thickness of the gallbladder was significantly higher in the COVID-19 group [6.32 (SD: 2.44) mm compared with 5.4 (SD: 3.45) mm; p < 0.0001]. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of gangrenous cholecystitis is higher in COVID patients compared with non-COVID patients admitted to the emergency department with acute cholecystitis. Gangrenous cholecystitis in COVID patients is associated with high-grade Clavien-Dindo postoperative complications, longer hospital stay and higher mortality rate. The open cholecystectomy rate is higher in COVID compared with non -COVID patients. It is recommended to delay the surgical treatment in COVID patients, when it is possible, to decrease morbidity and mortality rates. COVID-19 infection and gangrenous cholecystistis are not absolute contraindications to perform laparoscopic cholecystectomy, in a case by case evaluation, in expert hands.

Rehabilitación multimodal en cirugía de urgencias: ¿utopía o realidad? / Enhanced Recovery After Emergency Surgery: Utopia or Reality?

La rehabilitación multimodal quirúrgica (ERAS) constituye la aplicación de una serie de medidas perioperatorias basadas en la evidencia, con el fin de lograr una mejor recuperación del paciente y una disminución de las complicaciones y la mortalidad. Estos programas de rehabilitación multimodal inicialmente demostraron sus ventajas en el ámbito de la cirugía colorrectal siendo adoptados progresivamente por otras áreas quirúrgicas dentro de la cirugía general y por otras especialidades quirúrgicas. El factor excluyente principal para la aplicación de este tipo de programas ha sido la presentación clínica urgente, lo que ha provocado que a pesar del gran volumen de literatura existente sobre ERAS en cirugía electiva, existan pocos estudios que hayan investigado la efectividad de estos programas en pacientes quirúrgicos en urgencias. El objetivo de este artículo es mostrar las medidas de recuperación intensificada de que disponemos en la actualidad según la evidencia existente para cirugía urgente. (AU)

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) constitutes the application of a series of perioperative measures based on the evidence, in order to achieve a better recovery of the patient and a decrease of the complications and the mortality. These ERAS programs initially proved their advantages in the field of colorectal surgery being progressively adopted by other surgical areas within the general surgery and other surgical specialties. The main excluding factor for the application of such programs has been the urgent clinical presentation, which has caused that despite the large volume of existing literature on ERAS in elective surgery, there are few studies that have investigated the effectiveness of these programs in surgical patients in emergencies. The aim of this article is to show ERAS measures currently available according to the existing evidence for emergency surgery. (AU)

Enhanced Recovery After Emergency Surgery: Utopia or Reality? / Rehabilitación multimodal en cirugía de urgencias: ¿utopía o realidad?

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) constitutes the application of a series of perioperative measures based on the evidence, in order to achieve a better recovery of the patient and a decrease of the complications and the mortality. These ERAS programs initially proved their advantages in the field of colorectal surgery being progressively adopted by other surgical areas within the general surgery and other surgical specialties. The main excluding factor for the application of such programs has been the urgent clinical presentation, which has caused that despite the large volume of existing literature on ERAS in elective surgery, there are few studies that have investigated the effectiveness of these programs in surgical patients in emergencies. The aim of this article is to show ERAS measures currently available according to the existing evidence for emergency surgery.

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.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) - The Evidence in Geriatric Emergency Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Background: Geriatric surgery is rising and projected to continue at a greater rate. There is already concern about the poor outcomes for the emergency surgery in elderly. How to manage the available resources to improve outcomes in this group of patients is an important object of debate. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the feasibility and safety of applying ERAS pathways to emergency elderly surgical patients. METHOD: Two searches were undertaken for ERAS protocols in elderly patients and emergency surgery, in order to gather evidence in relation to ERAS in geriatric emergency patients. Primary outcomes were postoperative complications, mortality, hospital length of stay and readmission rates. Results: Eighteen studies were included. The majority of patients were older than 70. Elderly patients had fewer postoperative complications and a reduced hospitalization with ERAS compared to conventional care. Emergency surgical patients also had fewer postoperative complications with ERAS compared to conventional care. Hospital stay was reduced in 2 out of 3 studies for emergency surgery. Conclusions: ERAS can be safely applied to elderly and emergency patients with a reduction in postoperative complications, hospitalization and readmission rates. There is evidence to suggest that ERAS is feasible and beneficial for geriatric emergency patients.

Neoplasia gástrica y fibrosis retroperitoneal: ¿factor de mal pronóstico? / Gastric neoplasm and retroperitoneal fibrosis. A marker of poor prognosis?

No disponible

No disponible