Validation of the emergency surgery score (ESS) in a UK patient population and comparison with NELA scoring: a retrospective multicentre cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Accurate risk scoring in emergency general surgery (EGS) is vital for consent and resource allocation. The emergency surgery score (ESS) has been validated as a reliable preoperative predictor of postoperative outcomes in EGS but has been studied only in the US population. Our primary aim was to perform an external validation study of the ESS in a UK population. Our secondary aim was to compare the accuracy of ESS and National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) scores. METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study of adult patients undergoing emergency laparotomy over three years in two UK centres. ESS was calculated retrospectively. NELA scores and all other variables were obtained from the prospectively collected Emergency Laparotomy and Laparoscopic Scottish Audit (ELLSA) database. The primary and secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality and postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) admission, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 609 patients were included. Median age was 65 years, 52.7% were female, the overall mortality was 9.9% and 23.8% were admitted to ICU. Both ESS and NELA were equally accurate in predicting 30-day mortality (c-statistic=0.78 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.71-0.85) for ESS and c-statistic=0.83 (95% CI, 0.77-0.88) for NELA, p=0.196) and predicting postoperative ICU admission (c-statistic=0.76 (95% CI, 0.71-0.81) for ESS and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.76-0.85) for NELA, p=0.092). CONCLUSIONS: In the UK population, ESS and NELA both predict 30-day mortality and ICU admission with no statistically significant difference but with higher c-statistics for NELA score. Both scores have certain advantages, with ESS being validated for a wider range of outcomes.

Surgical stabilization of critical abdominal injuries in a mature rural trauma system: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Worse outcomes following injuries are more likely in rural versus urban areas. In 2001, our state established an inclusive trauma system to improve mortality. In 2015, the trauma system had a consultation visit from the American College of Surgeons' Committee on Trauma, who made several recommendations. We hypothesized that continued maturation of this system would lead to more laparotomies prior to transfer to a higher level of care and better outcomes. METHODS: Our trauma registry was queried to identify all patients transferred between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2020, who underwent laparotomy either before transfer or within 4 hours of arrival. The preconsultation (2010-2015) and postconsultation periods (2016-2020) were compared. Categorical and continuous variables were compared using χ2 and Mann-Whitney U tests, respectively. RESULTS: We included 213 patients; 63 had laparotomy before transfer and 150 within 4 hours after transfer. Age, injury severity scores, systolic blood pressure, and mechanism of injury were not different between periods. Proportions of laparotomy before and after transfer and outcomes (mortality, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit length of stay, ventilator days) were also similar (p = 0.368 for laparotomy, p = 0.840, 0.124, 0.286, 0.822 for outcomes). Compared with the preconsultation period, the proportion of laparotomy performed before transfer for severe injuries (abdominal Abbreviated Injury Scale score >3) significantly increased postconsultation (57.1% vs. 30.6%, p = 0.011). Incidence of damage-control laparotomies (43.9% vs. 23.6%; p = 0.020) and transfusion of plasma and platelets (33.6% vs. 13.2%; p < 0.001, 22.4% vs. 8.5%, p = 0.007, respectively) significantly increased. CONCLUSION: Identification and surgical stabilization of critical patients at the non-Level I facilities prior to transfer, as well as blood product use and damage-control techniques, improved postconsultation, suggesting a shift in the approaches to surgical stabilization and resuscitation efforts in our trauma system. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

COVID-19 y cirugía. Impacto en los volúmenes de atención, complicaciones posoperatorias y mortalidad. Resultados después de un año de pandemia / COVID-19 and surgery. Impact on volumes of care, postoperative complications and mortality. Results after one year of the pandemic

RESUMEN Antecedentes: la pandemia por COVID-19 generó importantes cambios en la atención y tratamiento de los pacientes quirúrgicos. Objetivo: los objetivos de este estudio fueron comparar los volúmenes de prestaciones realizadas durante un año de pandemia con un período igual sin pandemia, proyectar su impacto asistencial e institucional, y comparar pacientes COVID+ versus COVID- para determinar complicaciones posoperatorias, mortalidad y los factores de riesgo asociados a estos eventos. Material y métodos: estudio observacional y retrospectivo. Comparamos el volumen de prestaciones realizadas entre el 19/3/20 y el 18/3/21 con idéntico período de 2019/20. Efectuamos un estudio de cohorte emparejada (2:1) entre los pacientes con COVID-19 y sin él y se analizaron las complicaciones posoperatorias, la mortalidad, y doce variables objetivas como factores de riesgo asociados. Resultados: todas las variables prestacionales analizadas disminuyeron, pero solo las internaciones programadas y las cirugías y endoscopias no urgentes cayeron significativamente. De los 979 ingresos, 41 casos fueron COVID+ (4,1%). La mortalidad fue del 29,2% en COVID+ (12/41) vs. 7,3% en COVID- (6/82) P = 0,021. Los factores de riesgo significativos asociados a mortalidad fueron: edad ≥ 75 años, hombres, COVID+, urgencias, neumonía, requerimiento de UTI y ARM. Los pacientes operados presentaron una tasa significativamente mayor de neumonías. El análisis de regresión logística (COVID+ vs. -) mostró que por ser COVID+ y registrar la necesidad de ARM, como variables determinantes, en los COVID+ solo la ARM fue determinante en la mortalidad. Conclusión: la pandemia por COVID-19 disminuyó la actividad prestacional y aumentó la mortalidad de los afectados por la virosis.

ABSTRACT Background: The COVID-19 pandemic produced significant changes in the care and treatment of surgical patients. Objectives: The aims of this study were to compare the volume of services provided during a year of pandemic with an equal period without pandemic, estimate its impact on health care and institutional care, and compare COVID-positive versus COVID-negative patients to determine postoperative complications, mortality and risk factors associated with these events. Material and methods: We conducted an observational and retrospective study, comparing the volume of services performed between March 19, 2020, and March 18, 2021, with the same period in 2019/2020. We performed a matched cohort study (in a 2:1 ratio) between patients with and without COVID-19 and analyzed the postoperative complications, mortality, and twelve objective variables as associated risk factors. Results: There was a significant decrease in planned hospitalizations and non-urgent surgeries and endoscopies, while all the other variables showed a non-significant reduction. Of the 979 admissions, 41 corresponded to COVID-positive patients (4.1%). Mortality was 29.2% in COVID-positive patients (12/41) vs. 7.3%% in those COVID negative (p = 0.021). The significant risk factors associated with mortality were age ≥75 years, male sex, COVID+, emergencies, pneumonia, requirement of ICU and MV. Patients operated on had a significantly higher rate of pneumonia. Logistic regression analysis between COVID+ patients and COVID- patients showed that COVID+ and need for MV were predictors of mortality. In COVID+ patients, only MV was a determinant of mortality. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic reduced healthcare services and increased mortality in patients infected with the virus.

Derivation and Validation of a Score Using Prehospital Data to Identify Adults With Trauma Requiring Early Laparotomy.

Importance: A scoring tool to identify which adults with traumatic injury will require early laparotomy could help improve prehospital triage and system readiness. Objective: To develop and validate a prediction model using prehospital information for early laparotomy following trauma. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from the 2017 version of the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database. All adult patients with traumatic injury aged 18 years or older who were admitted to a US trauma center in 2017 were included. Patients were randomly assigned to a derivation or validation cohort. Data were collected and analyzed between July 2020 and September 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was laparotomy within 2 hours of hospital arrival. A scoring system was developed to predict early laparotomy using a logistic regression model in the derivation cohort. This was validated in the validation cohort using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Results: A total of 379 890 US adults with traumatic injury were included; 190 264 patients were in the derivation cohort and 189 626 patients were in the validation cohort. The cohorts had the same proportion of laparotomy within 2 hours of hospital arrival (1.1%). The median (IQR) age was 32 (25-46) years in the early laparotomy group and 54 (33-72) years in the group with no early laparotomy. The early laparotomy group contained 113 776 of 188 211 (60.5%) male patients, while the group with no early laparotomy contained 1702 of 2053 (82.9%) male patients. The variable most strongly associated with early laparotomy was penetrating injury to the head, neck, torso, or extremities proximal to the elbow or knee (odds ratio, 13.47; 95% CI, 12.22-14.86) with a point value of 10 (maximum overall score 20). Other variables included in the scoring system were the male sex, a systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg, a Glasgow Coma Scale of less than or equal to 13, having chest wall instability or deformity, pelvic fracture, and high-risk blunt mechanism. In the validation cohort, the C statistic of the scoring system was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.77-0.79). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a novel scoring tool using prehospital information was derived and validated to identify which adults with traumatic injury will require laparotomy within 2 hours of hospital arrival. This tool may help trauma professionals allocate operative team resources before patient arrival.

Validation of the days alive and out of hospital outcome measure after emergency laparotomy: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Days alive and out of hospital (DAOH) is a composite, patient-centred outcome measure describing a patient's postoperative recovery, encompassing hospitalisation and mortality. DAOH is the number of days not in hospital over a defined postoperative period; patients who die have DAOH of zero. The Standardising Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) group recommended DAOH as a perioperative outcome. However, DAOH has never been validated in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Here, we validate DAOH after emergency laparotomy and establish the optimal duration of observation. METHODS: Prospectively collected data of patients having emergency laparotomy in England (December 1, 2013-November 30, 2017) were linked to national hospital admission and mortality records for the year after surgery. We evaluated construct validity by assessing DAOH variation with known perioperative risk factors and predictive validity for 1 yr mortality using a multivariate Bayesian mixed-effects logistic regression. The optimal postoperative DAOH period (30 or 90 days) was judged on distributional and pragmatic properties. RESULTS: We analysed 78 921 records. The median 30-day DAOH (DAOH30) was 16 (inter-quartile range [IQR], 0-22) days and the median DAOH90 was 75 (46-82) days. DAOH was shorter in the presence of known perioperative risk factors. For patients surviving the first 30 postoperative days, shorter DAOH30 was associated with higher 1-yr mortality (odds ratio=0.94; 95% credible interval, 0.94-0.94). CONCLUSION: DAOH is a valid, patient-centred outcome after emergency laparotomy. We recommend its use in clinical trials, quality assurance, and quality improvement, measured at 30 days as mortality heavily skews DAOH measured at 90 days and beyond.

Low incidence of venous thromboembolism after gynecologic oncology surgery: Who is at greatest risk?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the 30-day incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after gynecologic oncologic surgery and identify perioperative factors associated with postoperative VTE. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database was queried to identify all gynecologic oncology cases from 2013 to 2019. Clinical and surgical characteristics, VTE events and 30-day postoperative complications were retrieved. Chi-square analysis and logistic regression models were performed to compare characteristics and postoperative outcomes of patients with and without VTE. RESULTS: A total of 63,198 gynecologic oncology patients were included. The incidence of 30-day postoperative VTE was 1.2% (n = 781). On multivariable analysis, postoperative VTE was significantly associated with ascites (odds ratio (OR) 1.8), disseminated cancer (OR 1.7), pre-operative albumin <30 g/L (OR 1.9), laparotomy (OR 2.8), operative time > 180 min (OR 2.0), and increased surgical complexity (OR 2.2) (all p < 0.001). The incidence of VTE was higher after laparotomy compared to minimally invasive surgery (MIS) (2.3% v. 0.6%, p < 0.001). When stratified by type of gynecologic malignancy undergoing laparotomy, incidence of VTE was higher in patients with ovarian (2.4%) and uterine (2.4%) malignancies, compared to cervical cancer (1.1%) (p < 0.001). The 30-day incidence of VTE was 1.7% in 2013 compared to 0.9% in 2019 (laparotomy: 2.6% in 2013 to 1.6% in 2019 and MIS: 0.8% in 2013 to 0.4% in 2019). CONCLUSION: Postoperative VTE is a potentially preventable complication of gynecologic oncology surgery. Our findings indicate that laparotomy, ascites, disseminated cancer, longer operative time, and low pre-operative albumin are risk factors for VTE.

Emergency General Surgery Procedures and Cost of Care for Older Adults in the State of Maryland.

BACKGROUND: Older adults (OAs) ≥ 65 years of age, representing the fastest growing segment in the United States, are anticipated to require a greater percentage of emergency general surgery procedures (EGSPs) with an associated increase in health care costs. The aims of this study were to identify the frequency of EGSP and charges incurred by OA compared to their younger counterparts in the state of Maryland. METHODS: A retrospective review of the Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission from 2009 to 2018 was undertaken. Patients undergoing urgent or emergent ESGP were divided into 2 groups (18-64 years and ≥65 years). Data collected included demographics, APR-severity of illness (SOI), APR-risk of mortality (ROM), the EGSP (partial colectomy [PC], small bowel resection [SBR], cholecystectomy, operative management of peptic ulcer disease, lysis of adhesions, appendectomy, and laparotomy), length of stay (LOS), and hospital charges. P-values (P < .05) were significant. RESULTS: Of the 181,283 patients included in the study, 55,401 (38.1%) were ≥65 years of age. Older adults presented with greater APR-SOI (major 37.7% vs 21.3%, extreme 5.2% vs 9.3%), greater APR-ROM (major 25.3% vs 8.7%, extreme 22.3% vs 5.3%), underwent PC (24.5% vs 10.9%) and SBR (12.8% vs 7.0%) more frequently, and incurred significantly higher median hospital charges for every EGSP, consistently between 2009 and 2018 due to increased LOS and complications when compared to those ≤65 years of age. CONCLUSION: These findings stress the need for validated frailty indices and quality improvement initiatives focused on the care of OAs in emergency general surgery to maximize outcomes and optimize cost.

Trends in the Use of Minimally Invasive Adnexal Surgery in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the utilization of minimally invasive adnexal surgery, including ovarian cystectomy and oophorectomy, among women with benign gynecologic diseases and compare the associated morbidity and mortality of minimally invasive and open surgery. METHODS: Women with benign ovarian pathology who underwent an ovarian cystectomy or oophorectomy from 2016 through 2018 in the Nationwide Ambulatory Surgery Sample and Nationwide Inpatient Sample databases were included. Patients with a diagnosis of gynecologic malignancy or concurrent hysterectomy were excluded. Population-level weighted estimates were developed, and perioperative morbidity, mortality, and hospital charges were examined based on surgical approach for each procedure. RESULTS: The cohort included 351,207 women who underwent oophorectomy and 220,893 women who underwent cystectomy, when weighted representing 547,836 and 328,408 patients, respectively, nationwide. A minimally invasive surgical approach was used in 294,190 (89.6%) patients who underwent ovarian cystectomy, and in 478,402 (87.3%) of patients who underwent oophorectomy. Use of minimally invasive surgery for cystectomy increased from 88.7% in 2016 to 91.0% in 2018, and the rate of minimally invasive surgery for oophorectomy increased from 85.8% to 88.7% over the same time period (P<.001 for both). The complication rates for ovarian cystectomy were 2.7% for minimally invasive surgery and 8.8% for laparotomy (P<.001); for oophorectomy the complication rate was 3.1% for minimally invasive surgery and 22.9% for laparotomy (P<.001). CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive surgery is used in the majority of women who are undergoing oophorectomy and ovarian cystectomy for benign indications. Compared with laparotomy, minimally invasive surgery is associated with fewer complications.

Large ovarian tumors in adolescents, a systematic review of reported cases, diagnostic findings and surgical management.

The purpose of this study was to analyze the published cases regarding large ovarian masses in adolescents, in order to find useful clinical implications for the diagnosis and management of the condition. The methodology employed a systematic review of reported cases of large/giant ovarian tumor in adolescence. The main objective was to assess the imagery findings, histology of the tumor, and the type of surgery performed. Our study included 58 patients with the tumor diameters ranged between 11 and 42 cm, with a median value of 22.75 cm and a mean diameter of 24.66 ± 8.50 cm. The lesions were benign in 47 cases (81%), borderline in 2 cases (3.4%), and malign in 9 cases (15.6%). We found no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) between the size of the tumors and the ovarian markers levels. At the same time, a statistically significant difference was identified (p=<0,001) between elevated levels of the serum markers and the malignant tumor type (OR = 12.45; CI95 = 2.55-94.77). The main types of surgery performed were cystectomy (35 cases), oophorectomy (4 cases), salpingo-oophorectomy (18 cases). Open laparotomy was performed in 46 cases on tumors with a median diameter of 25 ± 8.8 cm, while laparoscopy was done in 12 cases on tumors with a median diameter of 23.7 ± 7.6 cm. For optimal surgical management, it is advisable to assess first the imagery findings and tumor markers. Then, the laparoscopic approach should be considered as a feasible option, especially in cases where there are no predictive factors for a malign disease.

Trauma and nontrauma damage-control laparotomy: The difference is delirium (data from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma SLEEP-TIME multicenter trial).

BACKGROUND: Damage-control laparotomy (DCL) has been used for traumatic and nontraumatic indications. We studied factors associated with delirium and outcome in this population. METHODS: We reviewed DCL patients at 15 centers for 2 years, including demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), diagnosis, operations, and outcomes. We compared 30-day mortality; renal failure requiring dialysis; number of takebacks; hospital, ventilator, and intensive care unit (ICU) days; and delirium-free and coma-free proportion of the first 30 ICU days (DF/CF-ICU-30) between trauma (T) and nontrauma (NT) patients. We performed linear regression for DF/CF-ICU-30, including age, sex, CCI, achievement of primary fascial closure (PFC), small and large bowel resection, bowel discontinuity, abdominal vascular procedures, and trauma as covariates. We performed one-way analysis of variance for DF/CF-ICU-30 against traumatic brain injury severity as measured by Abbreviated Injury Scale for the head. RESULTS: Among 554 DCL patients (25.8% NT), NT patients were older (58.9 ± 15.8 vs. 39.7 ± 17.0 years, p < 0.001), more female (45.5% vs. 22.1%, p < 0.001), and had higher CCI (4.7 ± 3.3 vs. 1.1 ± 2.2, p < 0.001). The number of takebacks (1.7 ± 2.6 vs. 1.5 ± 1.2), time to first takeback (32.0 hours), duration of bowel discontinuity (47.0 hours), and time to PFC were similar (63.2 hours, achieved in 73.5%). Nontrauma and T patients had similar ventilator, ICU, and hospital days and mortality (31.0% NT, 29.8% T). Nontrauma patients had higher rates of renal failure requiring dialysis (36.6% vs. 14.1%, p < 0.001) and postoperative abdominal sepsis (40.1% vs. 17.1%, p < 0.001). Trauma and NT patients had similar number of hours of sedative (89.9 vs. 65.5 hours, p = 0.064) and opioid infusions (106.9 vs. 96.7 hours, p = 0.514), but T had lower DF/CF-ICU-30 (51.1% vs. 73.7%, p = 0.029), indicating more delirium. Linear regression analysis indicated that T was associated with a 32.1% decrease (95% CI, 14.6%-49.5%; p < 0.001) in DF/CF-ICU-30, while achieving PFC was associated with a 25.1% increase (95% CI, 10.2%-40.1%; p = 0.001) in DF/CFICU-30. Increasing Abbreviated Injury Scale for the head was associated with decreased DF/CF-ICU-30 by analysis of variance (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Nontrauma patients had higher incidence of postoperative abdominal sepsis and need for dialysis, while T was independently associated with increased delirium, perhaps because of traumatic brain injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV.

Robotic Hysterectomy for Benign Indications: What Have We Learned from a Decade?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Robotic surgery data need a setback on many years of practice with high-volume surgeons to evaluate its real value. Our main objective was to study the impact of a decade of robotic surgery on minimally-invasive hysterectomies for benign indications. Our secondary objectives were to evaluate our results for high-volume surgeons and complex cases. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed medical records at Foch Hospital, from 2010 to 2019, to evaluate the outcomes of robotic hysterectomies for benign disease. We compared the trends of benign hysterectomies done by laparoscopy and laparotomy during this period. We analyzed the proficiency group (≥ 75 cases per surgeon) and complex cases including obese patients and large uteri (>250 g). RESULTS: 495 hysterectomies were performed by robotic, 275 by laparotomy, and 130 by laparoscopy. The laparotomy approach decreased from 62% to 29%, whereas the robotic approach increased from 26% to 61%. The operating room (OR) time decreased in the proficiency group (157.3 ± 43.32 versus 178.6 ± 48.05, P = 0.005); whereas the uterine weight was higher (194.6 ± 158.6 versus 161.3 ± 139.4, P = 0.04). Lower EBL and shorter OR time were seen with uteri ≤ 250 g subgroup (64.24 ± 110.2 ml versus 116.63 ± 146.98 ml, P = 0.0004) (169.62 ± 47.50 min versus 192.44 ± 45.82 min, P = 0.0001). The estimated blood loss (EBL) was less in the BMI ≤ 30 subgroup (68.83 ± 119.24 ml versus 124.53 ± 186.14 ml, P = 0.0005). CONCLUSION: A shift was observed between the laparotomy and robotic approaches. High-volume surgeons were more efficient and showed a decrease in OR time after 75 cases despite an increase in uterine weight.

Relaparotomy post-cesarean delivery: characteristics and risk factors.

PURPOSE: Relaparotomy following cesarean delivery (CD) is performed at a rate of 0.2-1% of CD. The objective of the present study was to identify risk factors for relaparotomy following CD, and to examine whether there is a difference in the risk of relaparotomy between CD performed during different hours of the day. METHODS: A retrospective study on all CD over 10 years compared pregnancies that underwent laparotomy within 1 week following CD to those that did not. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients underwent relaparotomy out of 24,239 CDs (0.26%). In univariate analysis, relaparotomy was significantly associated with pregnancies following assisted-reproductive-technologies odds ratio (OR) 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.15 (1.90-5.22), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy OR 3.05 (1.62-5.72), twin pregnancies OR 95% CI 3.78 (2.21-6.48), preterm deliveries OR 95% CI 2.44 (1.46-4.10), placenta previa OR 95% CI 6.41(2.55-16.09) and urgent CD 1.74 (1.06-2.86), especially during the second-stage of labor OR 95% CI 2.73 (1.34-5.54). The time of day of CD did not influence the rate of relaparotomy. In a multivariable-regression analysis, the adjusted odds ratio for relaparotomy was 10.24 in CD due to placenta previa, and 5.28 in CD performed at the second-stage of delivery. At relaparotomy, active bleeding was found in 50 patients (78.1%), nearly half received packed cells, 12.5% developed consumptive coagulopathy, and 17.2% needed hospitalization in the intensive care unit. 6.3% underwent a second relaparotomy, mainly due to bleeding. CONCLUSION: Placenta previa, and urgent CDs mainly those performed at the second stage of labor are risk factors for relaparotomy after CD.

Surgical initial experience in patients with COVID-19.

ANTECEDENTES: La pandemia de COVID-19 ha ocasionado que los servicios de cirugía y de salud en todo el mundo tengan que reorganizarse y planear para poder brindar la mejor atención a los pacientes, con la protección necesaria para el personal de salud. Algunos de estos pacientes requerirán tratamiento quirúrgico, ya sea electivo o de urgencia. OBJETIVO: Reportar la experiencia inicial en el manejo de pacientes con COVID-19 que ameritaron tratamiento quirúrgico por los servicios de cirugía de un hospital de referencia. MÉTODO: Revisión de los protocolos quirúrgicos, equipo de protección personal usado por los equipos quirúrgicos y resultados del tratamiento de 42 pacientes sometidos a cirugía en un periodo de 4 meses. RESULTADOS: Fueron intervenidos 42 pacientes con COVID-19. Treinta pacientes tenían diagnóstico de infección por SARS-CoV-2 y en 12 casos el diagnóstico fue clínico y por imagen. Las cirugías más frecuentes fueron traqueostomía en 16 pacientes (38%) y laparotomías exploradoras en 8 pacientes (19%). La mediana de estancia posoperatoria fue de 17 días y la mortalidad durante los primeros 30 días fue del 26%. CONCLUSIONES: Es necesaria la reorganización de los departamentos quirúrgicos y del hospital para poder atender adecuadamente a los pacientes con COVID-19 y proteger al personal de salud. Los pacientes pueden presentan patologías que requieran tratamiento quirúrgico. Relacionado con la infección y la mayor frecuencia de comorbilidad, la mortalidad de estos pacientes es elevada. INTRODUCTION: the COVID-19 pandemic has caused a reorganization of hospital and general surgery departments worldwide to assure the best medical and surgical treatment of patients with this disease and protection of the health-related personnel. Some of them will require surgical treatment either elective or urgent. OBJECTIVE: report the initial experience in the management of patients with COVID-19 in a third level hospital. MATERIAL AND METHODS: a review of the surgical protocols, personal protection equipment used by the surgical teams, and results of the treatment of forty-two patients submitted to surgery. RESULTS: During four months (April-July 2020) forty-two patients with suspicion or confirmed infection of SARS-CoV2 underwent surgical treatment. The most common surgery was tracheostomy in 16 patients (38%) followed by exploratory laparotomy in 8 patients (19%). The median postoperative stay was 17 days and the thirty-day postoperative mortality rate was 26%. CONCLUSIONS: reorganization of the general surgery department and the hospital, favors adequate management and treatment of patients with COVID-19 and protection to the health-related personnel. Due to the usual co-existence of comorbidities and pulmonary complications the postoperative mortality of these patients is high.

Validation of the Artificial Intelligence-Based Predictive Optimal Trees in Emergency Surgery Risk (POTTER) Calculator in Emergency General Surgery and Emergency Laparotomy Patients.

BACKGROUND: The Predictive Optimal Trees in Emergency Surgery Risk (POTTER) tool is an artificial intelligence-based calculator for the prediction of 30-day outcomes in patients undergoing emergency operations. In this study, we sought to assess the performance of POTTER in the emergency general surgery (EGS) population in particular. METHODS: All patients who underwent EGS in the 2017 American College of Surgeons NSQIP database were included. The performance of POTTER in predicting 30-day postoperative mortality, morbidity, and 18 specific complications was assessed using the c-statistic metric. As a subgroup analysis, the performance of POTTER in predicting the outcomes of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 59,955 patients were included. Median age was 50 years and 51.3% were women. POTTER predicted mortality (c-statistic = 0.93) and morbidity (c-statistic = 0.83) extremely well. Among individual complications, POTTER had the highest performance in predicting septic shock (c-statistic = 0.93), respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation for 48 hours or longer (c-statistic = 0.92), and acute renal failure (c-statistic = 0.92). Among patients undergoing emergency laparotomy, the c-statistic performances of POTTER in predicting mortality and morbidity were 0.86 and 0.77, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: POTTER is an interpretable, accurate, and user-friendly predictor of 30-day outcomes in patients undergoing EGS. POTTER could prove useful for bedside counseling of patients and their families and for benchmarking of EGS care.

Prehospital ABC Score Accurately Forecasts Patients Who Will Require Immediate Resource Utilization.

OBJECTIVES: Scoring systems, such as the Assessment of Blood Consumption (ABC) Score, are used to identify patients at risk for massive transfusion (MT, ≥10 U red blood cells in 24 hours). Our aeromedical transport helicopter uses ultrasound to perform the Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) examination. Our objective was to evaluate the ability of the Prehospital ABC (PhABC) Score to predict blood transfusions and the need for emergent laparotomy. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of a prospective observational study of trauma patients who underwent an in-flight FAST during aeromedical transport during a 7-month period. PhABC Score was positive if ≥2 of the following were present in flight: penetrating trauma, heart rate >120 bpm, systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg, or a positive abdominal FAST. The PhABC Score was evaluated by area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves and logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 291 trauma patients met inclusion criteria, 23 underwent emergent laparotomy, and 12 received an MT. A positive PhABC Score predicted emergent laparotomy, with a positive predictive value of 48% and a negative predictive value of 95% (sensitivity 46%, specificity 96%, AUROC curve 0.83). A positive PhABC Score also predicted receipt of an MT with a positive predictive value of 28% and a negative predictive value of 94% (sensitivity 33%, specificity 93%, AUROC curve 0.77). Multiple logistic regression identified FAST as the most powerful contributor of the PhABC Score to the prediction of both emergent laparotomy (odds ratio 8.5, P < 0.001) and MT (odds ratio 5.9, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The PhABC Score effectively predicts in-hospital resource utilization. It provides an outstanding undertriage rate from the prehospital setting, and it is helpful to improve trauma team activation, mobilize blood products, and prepare the operating room.

Risk factors for small bowel obstruction after open rectal cancer resection.

BACKGROUND: Small bowel obstruction (SBO) is observed in around 10% of patients with prior open abdominal surgery. Rectal resection causes the highest readmission rates. The aim of this study was to investigate risk factors for readmission for SBO and causes for SBO in patients who needed surgery following rectal cancer surgery. METHODS: A population-based registry with prospectively gathered data on 752 consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent open pelvic surgery between January 1996 and January 2017 was used. Univariable and multivariable regression analysis was performed, and the risk of SBO was assessed. RESULTS: In total, 84 patients (11%) developed SBO after a median follow-up time of 48 months. Of these patients, 57% developed SBO during the 1st year after rectal cancer surgery. Surgery for SBO was performed in 32 patients (4.3%), and the cause of SBO was stoma-related in one-fourth of these patients. In the univariable analysis previous RT and re-laparotomy were found as risk factors for readmission for SBO. Re-laparotomy was an independent risk factor for readmission for SBO (OR 2.824, CI 1.129-7.065, P = 0.026) in the multivariable analysis, but not for surgery for SBO. Rectal resection without anastomoses, splenic flexors mobilization, intraoperative bleeding, operative time were not found as risk factors for SBO. CONCLUSIONS: One-tenth of rectal cancer patients who had open surgery developed SBO, most commonly within the 1st postoperative year. The risk of SBO is greatest in patients with complications after rectal cancer resection that result in a re-laparotomy.

A multicenter observational survey of management strategies in 442 pregnancies with suspected placenta accreta spectrum.

INTRODUCTION: Management options for women with placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) comprise termination of pregnancy before the viable gestational age, leaving the placenta in situ for subsequent reabsorption of the placenta or delayed hysterectomy, manual removal of placenta after vaginal delivery or during cesarean section, focal resection of the affected uterine wall, and peripartum hysterectomy. The aim of this observational study was to describe actual clinical management and outcomes in PAS in a large international cohort. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data from women in 15 referral centers of the International Society of PAS (IS-PAS) were analyzed and correlated with the clinical classification of the IS-PAS: From Grade 1 (no PAS) to Grade 6 (invasion into pelvic organs other than the bladder). PAS was usually diagnosed antenatally and the operators performing ultrasound rated the likelihood of PAS on a Likert scale of 1 to 10. RESULTS: In total, 442 women were registered in the database. No maternal deaths occurred. Mean blood loss was 2600 mL (range 150-20 000 mL). Placenta previa was present in 375 (84.8%) women and there was a history of a previous cesarean in 329 (74.4%) women. The PAS likelihood score was strongly correlated with the PAS grade (P < .001). The mode of delivery in the majority of women (n = 252, 57.0%) was cesarean hysterectomy, with a repeat laparotomy in 20 (7.9%) due to complications. In 48 women (10.8%), the placenta was intentionally left in situ, of those, 20 (41.7%) had a delayed hysterectomy. In 26 women (5.9%), focal resection was performed. Termination of pregnancy was performed in 9 (2.0%), of whom 5 had fetal abnormalities. The placenta could be removed in 90 women (20.4%) at cesarean, and in 17 (3.9%) after vaginal delivery indicating mild or no PAS. In 34 women (7.7%) with an antenatal diagnosis of PAS, the placenta spontaneously separated (false positives). We found lower blood loss (P < .002) in 2018-2019 compared with 2009-2017, suggesting a positive learning curve. CONCLUSIONS: In referral centers, the most common management for severe PAS was cesarean hysterectomy, followed by leaving the placenta in situ and focal resection. Prenatal diagnosis correlated with clinical PAS grade. No maternal deaths occurred.

Outcomes of Exploratory Laparotomy and Abdominal Infections Among Combat Casualties.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal injuries historically account for 13% of battlefield surgical procedures. We examined the occurrence of exploratory laparotomies and subsequent abdominal surgical site infections (SSIs) among combat casualties. METHODS: Military personnel injured during deployment (2009-2014) were included if they required a laparotomy for combat-related trauma and were evacuated to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany, before being transferred to participating US military hospitals. RESULTS: Of 4304 combat casualties, 341 (7.9%) underwent laparotomy. Including re-explorations, 1053 laparotomies (median, 2; interquartile range, 1-3; range, 1-28) were performed with 58% occurring within the combat zone. Forty-nine (14.4%) patients had abdominal SSIs (four with multiple SSIs): 27 (7.9%) with deep space SSIs, 14 (4.1%) with a deep incisional SSI, and 12 (3.5%) a superficial incisional SSI. Patients with abdominal SSIs had larger volume of blood transfusions (median, 24 versus 14 units), more laparotomies (median, 4 versus 2), and more hollow viscus injuries (74% versus 45%) than patients without abdominal SSIs. Abdominal closure occurred after 10 d for 12% of the patients with SSI versus 2% of patients without SSI. Mesh adjuncts were used to achieve fascial closure in 20.4% and 2.1% of patients with and without SSI, respectively. Survival was 98% and 96% in patients with and without SSIs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Less than 10% of combat casualties in the modern era required abdominal exploration and most were severely injured with hollow viscus injuries and required massive transfusions. Despite the extensive contamination from battlefield injuries, the SSI proportion is consistent with civilian rates and survival was high.

Regionalization of trauma care by operative experience: Does the volume of emergent laparotomy matter?

INTRODUCTION: The volume-outcome relationship led to the regionalization of trauma care. The relationship between trauma centers' injury-specific laparotomy volume and outcomes has not been explored. The aim of our study was to examine the relationship between a trauma center's injury-specific laparotomy volume and outcomes in blunt and penetrating trauma patients. METHODS: We performed a (2017) analysis of the Trauma Quality Improvement Program database. We included adult (age, ≥18 years) blunt and penetrating trauma patients who required emergent laparotomies for hemorrhage control. Trauma centers were stratified based on their blunt and penetrating laparotomy volumes: high volume (HV), ≥25 cases per year; medium volume (MV), 13 to 24 cases per year; and low volume (LV), ≤12 cases per year. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to explore predictors of in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 8,588 patients underwent emergent laparotomy for either blunt (4,936; 57.5%) or penetrating injuries (3,652; 42.5%). Overall, mean ± SD age was 40 ± 17 years, abdomen Abbreviated Injury Scale was 3 (2-4), and Injury Severity Score was 26 (17-35). For American College of Surgeons (ACS) level I centers, 50% were HV; 29%, MV; and 21%, LV. For ACS level II centers, 7% were HV; 23%, MV; and 70%, LV. For ACS level III centers, 100% were LV. On multivariate regression analysis, admission of blunt and penetrating trauma patients to HV blunt and HV penetrating centers, respectively, was independently associated with improved in-hospital mortality. High-volume blunt centers had a significantly lower time to laparotomy (72 [41-144] minutes) versus MV (81 [49-145] minutes) and LV (94 [56-158] minutes) centers (p < 0.001). The same trend was observed for HV penetrating trauma centers (35 [24-52] minutes) versus MV (46 [33-63] minutes) and LV (51 [38-69] minutes) centers (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Blunt and penetrating injury patients requiring emergent laparotomy had higher survival when admitted to trauma centers with HV operative experience for their particular mechanism of injury. The regionalization of trauma care should be based on a thorough evaluation of trauma centers' injury-specific operative experience. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, Level III; Therapeutic/Care management, Level IV.