Diagnostic pathways in acute appendicitis: Clinical score plus ultrasound outperform CT scan or upfront surgery, especially in doubtful cases.

BACKGROUND: Controversies remain on the diagnostic strategy in suspected AA, considering the different settings worldwide. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective observational international multicentric study including patients operated for suspected AA with a definitive histopathological analysis was conducted. Three groups were analyzed: (1) No radiology; (2) Ultrasound, and (3) Computed tomography. The aim was to analyze the performance of three diagnostic schemes. RESULTS: Three thousand and one hundred twenty three patients were enrolled; 899 in the no radiology group, 1490 in the US group, and 734 in the CT group. The sex ratio was in favor of males (p < 0.001). The mean age was lower in the no radiology group (24 years) compared to 28 and 38 years in US and CT-scan groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Overall, the negative appendectomy rate 3.8%: no radiology group (5.1%) versus US (2.9%) and CT-scan (4.1%) (p < 0.001). The sensitivity and specificity analysis showed the best balance in clinical evaluation + score + US. These data reach the best results in those patients with an equivocal Alvarado score (4-6). Inverse probability weighting (IPW), showed as the use of ultrasound, is significantly associated with an increased probability of formulating the correct diagnosis (p 0.004). In the case of a CT scan, this association appears weaker (p 0.08). CONCLUSION: The association of clinical scores and ultrasound seems the best strategy to reach a correct preoperative diagnosis in patients with clinical suspicion of AA, even in those population subgroups where the clinical score may have an equivocal result. This strategy can be especially useful in low-resource settings worldwide. CT-scan association may improve the detection of patients who may potentially be submitted to conservative treatment.

What are the differences between the three most used classifications for acute colonic diverticulitis? A comparative multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis is one of the most common clinical conditions encountered by surgeons in the acute setting. Currently, the most popular classifications, based on radiological findings, are the modified Hinchey, American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), and World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) classifications. We hypothesize that all classifications are equivalent in predicting outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of 597 patients from four medical centers between 2014 and 2021. Based on clinical, radiological, and intraoperative findings, patients were graded according to the three classifications. Regression analysis and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were used to compare six outcomes: need for intervention, complications, major complications (Clavien-Dindo >2), reintervention, hospital length of stay, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 597 patients were included. Need for intervention, morbidity, and reintervention rates significantly increased with increasing AAST, modified Hinchey, and WSES grades. The area under the curve (AUC) for the need for intervention was 0.84 for AAST and 0.81 for modified Hinchey ( p = 0.039). The AUC for major complications was 0.75 for modified Hinchey and 0.70 for WSES ( p = 0.009). No differences were found between the three classifications when comparing AUCs for mortality, complications, and reintervention rates. CONCLUSION: The AAST, WSES, and modified Hinchey classifications are similar in predicting complications, reintervention, and mortality rates. American Association for the Surgery of Trauma and modified Hinchey scores result the most adequate for predicting the need for surgery and the occurrence of major complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Adhesive small bowel obstruction: predictive factors of laparoscopic failure.

The adoption of laparoscopy for the management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) patients is debated. The laparoscopic approach has been associated with a considerable conversion-to-open rate. Nonetheless, reliable predictors of conversion are still unclear. The present study aimed to identify factors associated with conversion to open in ASBO patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery. Patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for ASBO and were admitted to our unit between December 2014 and October 2022 were retrospectively evaluated. The patients were categorized into two groups: patients who underwent complete laparoscopy approach (Group 1) and patients converted to open technique (Group 2). Demographic, clinical, and radiological features, intraoperative findings, and postoperative outcomes were compared. A total of 168 patients were enrolled: 100 patients (59.5%) were included in Group 1, and 68 patients (40.5%) were included in Group 2. The rate of ischemia (p = 0.023), surgical complications (p = 0.001), operative time (p < 0.0001), days of nasogastric tube maintenance (p < 0.0001), time to canalization (p < 0.0001), and length of hospital stay (p < 0.0001) were significantly higher in Group 2 than Group 1. Following univariate analysis, the presence of feces signs (p = 0.044) and high mean radiodensity of intraperitoneal free fluid (p = 0.031) were significantly associated with Group 2 compared with Group 1. Following multivariate analysis, the feces sign was a significant predictive factor of conversion (OR 1.965 [IC 95%]; p = 0.046). Laparoscopic treatment is a safe and effective approach in patients affected by ASBO. The feces sign may be a predictive factor of conversion and could guide the surgeon in selecting the appropriate management of patients affected by ASBO.

Acute cholecystitis management in high-risk, critically ill, and unfit-for-surgery patients: the Italian Society of Emergency Surgery and Trauma (SICUT) guidelines.

Dealing with acute cholecystitis in high-risk, critically ill, and unfit-for-surgery patients is frequent during daily practice and requires complex management. Several procedures exist to postpone and/or prevent surgical intervention in those patients who temporarily or definitively cannot undergo surgery. After a systematic review of the literature, an expert panel from the Italian Society of Emergency Surgery and Trauma (SICUT) discussed the different issues and statements in subsequent rounds. The final version of the statements was discussed during the annual meeting in Rome (September 2022). The present paper presents the definitive conclusions of the discussion. Fifteen statements based on the literature evidence were provided. The statements gave precise indications regarding the decisional process and the management of patients who cannot temporarily or definitively undergo cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Acute cholecystitis management in high-risk, critically ill, and unfit-for-surgery patients should be multidisciplinary. The different gallbladder drainage methods must be tailored according to each patient and based on the expertise of the hospital. Percutaneous gallbladder drainage is recommended as the first choice as a bridge to surgery or in severely physiologically deranged patients. Endoscopic gallbladder drainage (cholecystoduodenostomy and cholecystogastrostomy) is suggested as a second-line alternative especially as a definitive procedure for those patients not amenable to surgical management. Trans-papillary gallbladder drainage is the last option to be reserved only to those unfit for other techniques. Delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with percutaneous gallbladder drainage is suggested in all those patients recovering from the conditions that previously discouraged surgical intervention after at least 6 weeks from the gallbladder drainage.

Spread and feasibility of non-operative management (NOM) of traumatic splenic injuries in adults: a national survey.

In hemodynamically stable adults sustaining a splenic trauma, non-operative management (NOM) represents the standard approach even in high-severity injuries. However, knowledge, structural, and logistic limitations still reduce its wider diffusion. This study aims to identify such issues to promote the safe and effective management of these injuries.A survey was developed using the SurveyMonkey® software and spread nationally in Italy. The survey was structured into: (1) Knowledge of classification systems; (2) Availability to refer patients; (3) Patients monitoring and follow-up; (4) Center-related.The survey was filled in by 327 surgeons, with a completeness rate of 63%. Three responders out of four are used to manage trauma patients. Despite most responders knowing the existing classifications, their use is still limited in daily practice. If a patient needs to be centralized, the concern about possible clinical deterioration represent the main obstacle to achieving a NOM. The lack of protocols does not allow standardization of patient surveillance according to the degree of injury. The imaging follow-up is not standardized as well, varying between computed tomography, ultrasound, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound.The classification systems need to be spread to all the trauma-dedicated physicians, to speak a common language. A more rational centralization of patients should be promoted, ideally through agreements between peripheral and reference centers, both at regional and local level. Standardized protocols need to be shared nationally, as well as the clinical and imaging follow-up criteria should be adapted to the local features.

Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy is widely adopted across nearly all surgical subspecialties in the elective setting. Initially finding indication in minor abdominal emergencies, it has gradually become the standard approach in the majority of elective general surgery procedures. Despite many technological advances and increasing acceptance, the laparoscopic approach remains underutilized in emergency general surgery and in abdominal trauma. Emergency laparotomy continues to carry a high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been a growing interest from emergency and trauma surgeons in adopting minimally invasive surgery approaches in the acute surgical setting. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a review of the literature to reach a consensus on the indications and benefits of a laparoscopic-first approach in patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies or abdominal trauma. METHODS: This position paper was developed according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee performed the literature review and drafted the position paper. An international panel of 54 experts then critically revised the manuscript and discussed it in detail, to develop a consensus on a position statement. RESULTS: A total of 323 studies (systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized clinical trial, retrospective comparative cohort studies, case series) have been selected from an initial pool of 7409 studies. Evidence demonstrates several benefits of the laparoscopic approach in stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgical emergencies or abdominal trauma. The selection of a stable patient seems to be of paramount importance for a safe adoption of a laparoscopic approach. In hemodynamically stable patients, the laparoscopic approach was found to be safe, feasible and effective as a therapeutic tool or helpful to identify further management steps and needs, resulting in improved outcomes, regardless of conversion. Appropriate patient selection, surgeon experience and rigorous minimally invasive surgical training, remain crucial factors to increase the adoption of laparoscopy in emergency general surgery and abdominal trauma. CONCLUSIONS: The WSES expert panel suggests laparoscopy as the first approach for stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.

Complication analysis in acute appendicitis, results from an international multicenter study.

PURPOSE: Acute appendicitis (AA) is frequent, its diagnosis is challenging, and the surgical intervention is not risk free. An accurate diagnosis will reduce unnecessary surgeries and associated risks. This study aimed to analyze the rate of appendectomies' postoperative complications. METHODS: Multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted at three large hospitals (Pisa University Hospital, Italy; Henri Mondor University Hospital, Paris, France; and Valencia University Hospital, Spain). RESULTS: A total of 3070 patients with a median age of 28 years (IQR 20-43) were enrolled. 1403 (45.7%) were females. Eight hundred ninety patients (29%) did not undergo preoperative imaging. Ultrasound and CT scans were performed in 1465 (47.7%) and 715 (23.3%) patients. Patients requiring CT scan were older [median 38 (IQR 26-53) vs. no imaging median 24 (IQR 16-35), Ultrasound median 28 (IQR 20-41); p < 0.0001]. Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed in 58.6%. Complications developed in 1279 (41.7%) patients: Clavien-Dindo grades I-II in 1126 (33.9%); Clavien-Dindo grades III-IV in 146 (5.2%). Overall mortality was 0.2%. Following resection of a normal appendix, 15% experienced major complications (Clavien-Dindo grades IIIb and above). Multivariable analysis revealed that age, Charlson comorbidity index, histopathology, and Alvarado score over 7 were associated with a higher risk of Clavien-Dindo complication grades IIIa and higher. CONCLUSION: Appendectomy may be associated with serious postoperative complications. Complications were associated with older age, Charlson comorbidity index, histopathology, and high Alvarado scores. The definition of accurate diagnostic and therapeutic pathways may improve results. The association between clinical scores and radiology is recommended.

2023 WSES guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of iatrogenic urinary tract injuries (IUTIs) during emergency digestive surgery.

Iatrogenic urinary tract injury (IUTI) is a severe complication of emergency digestive surgery. It can lead to increased postoperative morbidity and mortality and have a long-term impact on the quality of life. The reported incidence of IUTIs varies greatly among the studies, ranging from 0.3 to 1.5%. Given the high volume of emergency digestive surgery performed worldwide, there is a need for well-defined and effective strategies to prevent and manage IUTIs. Currently, there is a lack of consensus regarding the prevention, detection, and management of IUTIs in the emergency setting. The present guidelines, promoted by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), were developed following a systematic review of the literature and an international expert panel discussion. The primary aim of these WSES guidelines is to provide evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians and surgeons in the prevention, detection, and management of IUTIs during emergency digestive surgery. The following key aspects were considered: (1) effectiveness of preventive interventions for IUTIs during emergency digestive surgery; (2) intra-operative detection of IUTIs and appropriate management strategies; (3) postoperative detection of IUTIs and appropriate management strategies and timing; and (4) effectiveness of antibiotic therapy (including type and duration) in case of IUTIs.

Management of Acute Cholecystitis in High-Risk Patients: Percutaneous Gallbladder Drainage as a Definitive Treatment vs. Emergency Cholecystectomy-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review aims to investigate whether percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder biliary drainage (PTGBD) is superior to emergency cholecystectomy (EC) as a definitive treatment in high-risk patients with acute cholecystitis (AC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed until December 2022 using the Scopus, Medline/PubMed and Web of Science databases. RESULTS: Seventeen studies have been included with a total of 783,672 patients (32,634 treated with PTGBD vs. 4663 who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 343 who had open cholecystectomy and 746,032 who had some form of cholecystectomy, but without laparoscopic or open approach being specified). An analysis of the results shows that PTGBD, despite being less invasive, is not associated with lower morbidity with respect to EC (RR 0.77 95% CI [0.44 to 1.34]; I2 = 99%; p = 0.36). A lower postoperative mortality was reported in patients who underwent EC (2.37%) with respect to the PTGBD group (13.78%) (RR 4.21; 95% CI [2.69 to 6.58]; p < 0.00001); furthermore, the risk of hospital readmission for biliary complications (RR 2.19 95% CI [1.72 to 2.79]; I2 = 48%; p < 0.00001) and hospital stay (MD 4.29 95% CI [2.40 to 6.19]; p < 0.00001) were lower in the EC group. CONCLUSIONS: In our systematic review, the majority of studies have very low-quality evidence and more RCTs are needed; furthermore, PTGBD is inferior in the treatment of AC in high-risk patients. The definition of high-risk patients is important in interpreting the results, but the methods of assessment and definitions differ between studies. The results of our systematic review and meta-analysis failed to demonstrate any advantage of using PTGBD over ER as a definitive treatment of AC in critically ill patients, which suggests that EC should be considered as the treatment of choice even in very high-risk patients. Most likely, the inferiority of PTGBD versus early LC for high-risk patients is related to an association of various patient-side factor conditions and the severity of acute cholecystitis.

Source control in emergency general surgery: WSES, GAIS, SIS-E, SIS-A guidelines.

Intra-abdominal infections (IAI) are among the most common global healthcare challenges and they are usually precipitated by disruption to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Their successful management typically requires intensive resource utilization, and despite the best therapies, morbidity and mortality remain high. One of the main issues required to appropriately treat IAI that differs from the other etiologies of sepsis is the frequent requirement to provide physical source control. Fortunately, dramatic advances have been made in this aspect of treatment. Historically, source control was left to surgeons only. With new technologies non-surgical less invasive interventional procedures have been introduced. Alternatively, in addition to formal surgery open abdomen techniques have long been proposed as aiding source control in severe intra-abdominal sepsis. It is ironic that while a lack or even delay regarding source control clearly associates with death, it is a concept that remains poorly described. For example, no conclusive definition of source control technique or even adequacy has been universally accepted. Practically, source control involves a complex definition encompassing several factors including the causative event, source of infection bacteria, local bacterial flora, patient condition, and his/her eventual comorbidities. With greater understanding of the systemic pathobiology of sepsis and the profound implications of the human microbiome, adequate source control is no longer only a surgical issue but one that requires a multidisciplinary, multimodality approach. Thus, while any breach in the GI tract must be controlled, source control should also attempt to control the generation and propagation of the systemic biomediators and dysbiotic influences on the microbiome that perpetuate multi-system organ failure and death. Given these increased complexities, the present paper represents the current opinions and recommendations for future research of the World Society of Emergency Surgery, of the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery of Surgical Infection Society Europe and Surgical Infection Society America regarding the concepts and operational adequacy of source control in intra-abdominal infections.

ECLAPTE: Effective Closure of LAParoTomy in Emergency-2023 World Society of Emergency Surgery guidelines for the closure of laparotomy in emergency settings.

Laparotomy incisions provide easy and rapid access to the peritoneal cavity in case of emergency surgery. Incisional hernia (IH) is a late manifestation of the failure of abdominal wall closure and represents frequent complication of any abdominal incision: IHs can cause pain and discomfort to the patients but also clinical serious sequelae like bowel obstruction, incarceration, strangulation, and necessity of reoperation. Previous guidelines and indications in the literature consider elective settings and evidence about laparotomy closure in emergency settings is lacking. This paper aims to present the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) project called ECLAPTE (Effective Closure of LAParoTomy in Emergency): the final manuscript includes guidelines on the closure of emergency laparotomy.

The unrestricted global effort to complete the COOL trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) has an increasing incidence with mortality rates over 80% in some settings. Mortality typically results from disruption of the gastrointestinal tract, progressive and self-perpetuating bio-mediator generation, systemic inflammation, and multiple organ failure. A further therapeutic option may be open abdomen (OA) management with negative peritoneal pressure therapy (NPPT) to remove inflammatory ascites and attenuate the systemic damage from SCIAS, although there are definite risks of leaving the abdomen open whenever it might possibly be closed. This potential therapeutic paradigm is the rationale being assessed in the Closed Or Open after Laparotomy (COOL trial) ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095 ). Initially, the COOL trial received Industry sponsorship; however, this funding mandated the use of a specific trademarked and expensive NPPT device in half of the patients allocated to the intervention (open) arm. In August 2022, the 3 M/Acelity Corporation without consultation but within the terms of the contract canceled the financial support of the trial. Although creating financial difficulty, there is now no restriction on specific NPPT devices and removing a cost-prohibitive intervention creates an opportunity to expand the COOL trial to a truly global basis. This document describes the evolution of the COOL trial, with a focus on future opportunities for global growth of the study. METHODS: The COOL trial is the largest prospective randomized controlled trial examining the random allocation of SCIAS patients intra-operatively to either formal closure of the fascia or the use of the OA with an application of an NPPT dressing. Patients are eligible if they have free uncontained intraperitoneal contamination and physiologic derangements exemplified by septic shock OR severely adverse predicted clinical outcomes. The primary outcome is intended to definitively inform global practice by conclusively evaluating 90-day survival. Initial recruitment has been lower than hoped but satisfactory, and the COOL steering committee and trial investigators intend with increased global support to continue enrollment until recruitment ensures a definitive answer. DISCUSSION: OA is mandated in many cases of SCIAS such as the risk of abdominal compartment syndrome associated with closure, or a planned second look as for example part of "damage control"; however, improved source control (locally and systemically) is the most uncertain indication for an OA. The COOL trial seeks to expand potential sites and proceed with the evaluation of NPPT agnostic to device, to properly examine the hypothesis that this treatment attenuates systemic damage and improves survival. This approach will not affect internal validity and should improve the external validity of any observed results of the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: National Institutes of Health ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095 ).

Colorectal neoplastic emergencies in immunocompromised patients: preliminary result from the Web-based International Register of Emergency Surgery and Trauma (WIRES-T trial).

Association of advanced age, neoplastic disease and immunocompromission (IC) may lead to surgical emergencies. Few data exist about this topic. Present study reports the preliminary data from the WIRES-T trial about patients managed for colorectal neoplastic emergencies in immunocompromised patients. The required data were taken from a prospective observational international register. The study was approved by the Ethical Committee with approval n. 17575; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03643718. 839 patients were collected; 753 (80.7%) with mild-moderate IC and 86 (10.3%) with severe. Median age was 71.9 years and 73 years, respectively, in the two groups. The causes of mild-moderate IC were reported such malignancy (753-100%), diabetes (103-13.7%), malnutrition (26-3.5%) and uremia (1-0.1%), while severe IC causes were steroids treatment (14-16.3%); neutropenia (7-8.1%), malignancy on chemotherapy (71-82.6%). Preoperative risk classification were reported as follow: mild-moderate: ASA 1-14 (1.9%); ASA 2-202 (26.8%); ASA 3-341 (45.3%); ASA 4-84 (11.2%); ASA 5-7 (0.9%); severe group: ASA 1-1 patient (1.2%); ASA 2-16 patients (18.6%); ASA 3-41 patients (47.7%); ASA 4-19 patients (22.1%); ASA 5-3 patients (3.5%); lastly, ASA score was unavailable for 105 cases (13.9%) in mild-moderate group and in 6 cases (6.9%) in severe group. All the patients enrolled underwent urgent/emergency surgery Damage control approach with open abdomen was adopted in 18 patients. Mortality was 5.1% and 12.8%, respectively, in mild-moderate and severe groups. Long-term survival data: in mild-moderate disease-free survival (median, IQR) is 28 (10-91) and in severe IC, it is 21 (10-94). Overall survival (median, IQR) is 44 (18-99) and 26 (20-90) in mild-moderate and severe, respectively; the same is for post-progression survival (median, IQR) 29 (16-81) and 28, respectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed as the only factor influencing mortality in mild-moderate and severe IC is the ASA score. Colorectal neoplastic emergencies in immunocompromised patients are more frequent in elderly. Sigmoid and right colon are the most involved. Emergency surgery is at higher risk of complication and mortality; however, management in dedicated emergency surgery units is necessary to reduce disease burden and to optimize results by combining oncological and acute care principles. This approach may improve outcomes to obtain clinical advantages for patients like those observed in elective scenario. Lastly, damage control approach seems feasible and safe in selected patients.

Acute diverticulitis in immunocompromised patients: evidence from an international multicenter observational registry (Web-based International Register of Emergency Surgery and Trauma, Wires-T).

BACKGROUND: Immunocompromised patients with acute diverticulitis are at increased risk of morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to compare clinical presentations, types of treatment, and outcomes between immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients with acute diverticulitis. METHODS: We compared the data of patients with acute diverticulitis extracted from the Web-based International Registry of Emergency Surgery and Trauma (WIRES-T) from January 2018 to December 2021. First, two groups were identified: medical therapy (A) and surgical therapy (B). Each group was divided into three subgroups: nonimmunocompromised (grade 0), mildly to moderately (grade 1), and severely immunocompromised (grade 2). RESULTS: Data from 482 patients were analyzed-229 patients (47.5%) [M:F = 1:1; median age: 60 (24-95) years] in group A and 253 patients (52.5%) [M:F = 1:1; median age: 71 (26-94) years] in group B. There was a significant difference between the two groups in grade distribution: 69.9% versus 38.3% for grade 0, 26.6% versus 51% for grade 1, and 3.5% versus 10.7% for grade 2 (p < 0.00001). In group A, severe sepsis (p = 0.027) was more common in higher grades of immunodeficiency. Patients with grade 2 needed longer hospitalization (p = 0.005). In group B, a similar condition was found in terms of severe sepsis (p = 0.002), quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score > 2 (p = 0.0002), and Mannheim Peritonitis Index (p = 0.010). A Hartmann's procedure is mainly performed in grades 1-2 (p < 0.0001). Major complications increased significantly after a Hartmann's procedure (p = 0.047). Mortality was higher in the immunocompromised patients (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Immunocompromised patients with acute diverticulitis present with a more severe clinical picture. When surgery is required, immunocompromised patients mainly undergo a Hartmann's procedure. Postoperative morbidity and mortality are, however, higher in immunocompromised patients, who also require a longer hospital stay.

Can the American College of Surgeons NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator Accurately Predict Adverse Postoperative Outcomes in Emergency Abdominal Surgery? An Italian Multicenter Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons NSQIP surgical risk calculator provides an estimation of 30-day postoperative adverse outcomes. It is useful in the identification of high-risk patients needing clinical optimization and supports the informed consent process. The purpose of this study is to validate its predictive value in the Italian emergency setting. STUDY DESIGN: Six Italian institutions were included. Inclusion diagnoses were acute cholecystitis, appendicitis, gastrointestinal perforation or obstruction. Areas under the receiving operating characteristic curves, Brier score, Hosmer-Lemeshow index, and observed-to-expected event ratio were measured to assess both discrimination and calibration. Effect of the Surgeon Adjustment Score on calibration was then tested. A patient's personal risk ratio was obtained, and a cutoff was chosen to predict mortality with a high negative predicted value. RESULTS: A total of 2,749 emergency procedures were considered for the analysis. The areas under the receiving operating characteristic curve were 0.932 for death (0.921 to 0.941, p < 0.0001; Brier 0.041) and 0.918 for discharge to nursing or rehabilitation facility (0.907 to 0.929, p < 0.0001; 0.070). Discrimination was also strong (area under the receiving operating characteristic curve >0.8) for renal failure, cardiac complication, pneumonia, venous thromboembolism, serious complication, and any complication. Brier score was informative (<0.25) for all the presented variables. The observed-to-expected event ratios were 1.0 for death and 0.8 for discharge to facility. For almost all other variables, there was a general risk underestimation, but the use of the Surgeon Adjustment Score permitted a better calibration of the model. A risk ratio >3.00 predicted the onset of death with sensitivity = 86%, specificity = 77%, and negative predicted value = 99%. CONCLUSIONS: The American College of Surgeons NSQIP surgical risk calculator has proved to be a reliable predictor of adverse postoperative outcomes also in Italian emergency settings, with particular regard to mortality. We therefore recommend the use of the surgical risk calculator in the multidisciplinary care of patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery.

Conversion to Open Surgery During Minimally Invasive Right Colectomy for Cancer: Results from a Large Multinational European Study.

Background: The risk of conversion to open surgery is inevitably present during any minimally invasive colorectal surgical procedure. Conversions have been associated with adverse postoperative and oncologic outcomes. No previous study has evaluated the specific causes and consequences of conversion during a minimally invasive right colectomy (MIS-RC). Materials and Methods: We analyzed the Minimally invasivE surgery for oncologic Right ColectomY (MERCY) study database including patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic RC because of colon cancer between 2014 and 2020. Descriptive analyses were performed to determine the different reasons for conversion. Uni- and multivariate logistic regressions were run to identify potential variables associated with this outcome. Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate the impact of conversion on tumor recurrence. Results: Over a total of 1574 MIS-RC, 120 (7.6%) were converted to open surgery. The main reasons for conversion were procedural difficulties related to adherences from previous abdominal surgical procedures (39.2%), or owing to large tumor size or infiltration of adjacent structures (26.7%). Only 16.7% of the conversions were caused by intraoperative medical or surgical complications. Converted patients required longer operative times and developed more postoperative complications, both overall (39.2% versus 27.5%; P = .006) and severe ones (13.3% versus 8.3%; P = .061). Male gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.89 [95% confidence interval: 1.31-2.71]), obesity (OR = 1.99 [1.4-2.83]), prior abdominal surgery (OR = 1.68 [1.19-2.37]), and pT4 cancers (OR = 4.04 [2.86-5.69]) were independently associated with conversion. Conversion to open surgery was not significantly associated with tumor recurrence (hazard ratios = 1.395 [0.724-2.687]). Conclusions: Although conversion to open surgery during MIS-RC for cancer is associated with worsened postoperative outcomes, it seems not to impact on the oncologic prognosis.

Patients with an Open Abdomen in Asian, American and European Continents: A Comparative Analysis from the International Register of Open Abdomen (IROA).

BACKGROUND: International register of open abdomen (IROA) enrolls patients from several centers in American, European, and Asiatic continent. The aim of our study is to compare the characteristics, management and clinical outcome of adult patients treated with OA in the three continents. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective analysis of adult patients enrolled in the international register of open abdomen (IROA). TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02382770. RESULTS: 1183 patients were enrolled from American, European and Asiatic Continent. Median age was 63 years (IQR 49-74) and was higher in the European continent (65 years, p < 0.001); 57% were male. The main indication for OA was peritonitis (50.6%) followed by trauma (15.4%) and vascular emergency (13.5%) with differences among the continents (p < 0.001). Commercial NPWT was preferred in America and Europe (77.4% and 52.3% of cases) while Barker vacuum pack (48.2%) was the preferred temporary abdominal closure technique in Asia (p < 0.001). Definitive abdominal closure was achieved in 82.3% of cases in America (fascial closure in 90.2% of cases) and in 56.4% of cases in Asia (p < 0.001). Prosthesis were mostly used in Europe (17.3%, p < 0.001). The overall entero-atmospheric fistula rate 2.5%. Median open abdomen duration was 4 days (IQR 2-7). The overall intensive care unit and hospital length-of-stay were, respectively, 8 and 11 days (no differences between continents). The overall morbidity and mortality rates for America, Europe, and Asia were, respectively, 75.8%, 75.3%, 91.8% (p = 0.001) and 31.9%, 51.6%, 56.9% (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: There is no uniformity in OA management in the different continents. Heterogeneous adherence to international guidelines application is evident. Different temporary abdominal closure techniques in relation to indications led to different outcomes across the continents. Adherence to guidelines, combined with more consistent data, will ultimately allow to improving knowledge and outcome.

Laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcers: analysis of outcomes and identification of predictive factors of conversion.

BACKGROUND: The surgical treatment for perforated peptic ulcers (PPUs) can be safely performed laparoscopically. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of patients who received different surgical approaches for PPU and to identify the predictive factors for conversion to open surgery. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed patients treated for PPUs from 2002 to 2020. Three groups were identified: a complete laparoscopic surgery group (LG), a conversion to open group (CG), and a primary open group (OG). After univariate comparisons, a multivariate analysis was conducted to identify the predictive factors for conversion. RESULTS: Of the 175 patients that underwent surgery for PPU, 104 (59.4%) received a laparoscopic-first approach, and 27 (25.9%) required a conversion to open surgery. Patients treated directly with an open approach were older (p < 0.0001), had more comorbidities (p < 0.0001), and more frequently had a previous laparotomy (p = 0.0001). In the OG group, in-hospital mortality and ICU need were significantly higher, while the postoperative stay was longer. Previous abdominal surgery (OR 0.086, 95% CI 0.012-0.626; p = 0.015), ulcer size (OR 0.045, 95% CI 0.010-0.210; p < 0.0001), and a posterior ulcer location (OR 0.015, 95% CI 0.001-0.400; p = 0.012) were predictive factors for conversion to an open approach. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the benefits of the laparoscopic approach for the treatment of PPUs. Previous laparotomies, a greater ulcer size, and a posterior location of the ulcer are risk factors for conversion to open surgery during laparoscopic repair.

Percutaneous cholecystostomy as bridge to surgery vs surgery in unfit patients with acute calculous cholecystitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute cholecystitis is one of the most common causes of acute abdomen. Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the gold standard treatment, still burdened by a risk of intraoperative biliary duct injury. An alternative strategy to manage patients with severe acute cholecystitis is the percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PGBD). METHODS: The Italian Society of Emergency Surgery and Trauma performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim to clarify controversies about the preoperative use of PGBD. We extracted 32 studies: 9 Randomized Control Trial Studies (RCTs) and 23 no RCTs. RESULTS OF CRITICAL OUTCOMES: The incidence of post-operative complications was lower in the PGBD associated at LC than in the LC alone (RCTs: RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.56, I2 = 63%). The incidence of the post-operative biliary leakage was higher in late PGBD' group (RCTs: RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.80). RESULTS OF OTHER OUTCOMES: The incidence of intraabdominal abscess, blood loss, conversion to open, subtotal cholecystectomy, operative time and wound infection was lower in PGBD' group. The total hospital stay was the same. CONCLUSION: A strong recommendation is performed to the use of the PGBD + LC than upfront LC to reduce biliary leakage (recommendation "strong positive") in high risk acute cholecystitis especially in patients with higher perioperative risks or longstanding acute cholecystitis. For post-operative complications a recommendation "positive weak" suggests that PGBD + LC could be used than upfront LC to reduce the rate of post-operative complications.