Open extent IV thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair: 22-year experience of the Scottish National Service.

BACKGROUND: Since 1999, the Scottish National Service for Thoracoabdominal Aneurysms has offered repair of thoracoabdominal aneurysms (TAAAs) to a population of 5.5 million people. The open operation most commonly performed by the service is the extent IV TAAA repair. METHODS: All extent IV open TAAA repairs performed at the Scottish National Service for TAAAs from June 1999 until April 2021 were evaluated for clinical features, technical details, and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome measure was 30-day mortality; secondary outcomes included short-term (90 days, 6 months, 1 and 2 years) and long-term (5 and 10 years) survival, perioperative complications, and reintervention. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Some 248 patients underwent extent IV TAAA repair, with elective surgery in 204 (82.3 per cent). A totally abdominal transperitoneal approach was used for all patients, with a median visceral ischaemia time of 40 (i.q.r. 35-48) min. Overall, 18 patients (7.3 per cent) died within 30 days. The proportion of patients surviving at 90 days, 6 months, 1, 2, 5, and 10 years was 0.91, 0.90, 0.89, 0.85, 0.72, and 0.41, respectively. Ten patients (4.0 per cent) required a reintervention while in hospital, four (1.6 per cent) experienced permanent spinal cord ischaemia, 19 (7.9 per cent) required temporary renal replacement therapy (RRT), and four (1.6 per cent) required permanent RRT. CONCLUSION: Open extent IV TAAA repair performed in a high-volume national centre is associated with favourable short- and long-term survival, and acceptable complication rates.

Perceptions and practices surrounding the perioperative management of frail emergency surgery patients: a WSES-endorsed cross-sectional qualitative survey.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is associated with poor post-operative outcomes in emergency surgical patients. Shared multidisciplinary models have been developed to provide a holistic, reactive model of care to improve outcomes for older people living with frailty. We aimed to describe current perioperative practices, and surgeons' awareness and perception of perioperative frailty management, and barriers to its implementation. METHODS: A qualitative cross-sectional survey was sent via the World Society of Emergency Surgery e-letter to their members. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and reported by themes: risk scoring systems, frailty awareness and assessment and barriers to implementation. RESULT: Of 168/1000 respondents, 38% were aware of the terms "Perioperative medicine for older people undergoing surgery" (POPS) and Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA). 66.6% of respondents assessed perioperative risk, with 45.2% using the American Society of Anaesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System (ASA-PS). 77.8% of respondents mostly agreed or agreed with the statement that they routinely conducted medical comorbidity management, and pain and falls risk assessment during emergency surgical admissions. Although 98.2% of respondents agreed that frailty was important, only 2.4% performed CGA and 1.2% used a specific frailty screening tool. Clinical frailty score was the most commonly used tool by those who did. Screening was usually conducted by surgical trainees. Key barriers included a lack of knowledge about frailty assessment, a lack of clarity on who should be responsible for frailty screening, and a lack of trained staff. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the ubiquitous lack of awareness regarding frailty assessment and the POPS model of care. More training and clear guidelines on frailty scoring, alongside support by multidisciplinary teams, may reduce the burden on surgical trainees, potentially improving rates of appropriate frailty assessment and management of the frailty syndrome in emergency surgical patients.

Duodenal ulcer perforation: A systematic literature review and narrative description of surgical techniques used to treat large duodenal defects.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on optimal surgical treatment of large duodenal defects arising from perforated ulcers, even though such defects are challenging to repair and inadequate repair is associated with high morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to carry out a systematic literature review of different surgical techniques used to treat large duodenal perforations, provide a narrative description of these techniques, and propose a framework for approaching this pathology. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE database was searched for articles published in English between January 1, 1970, and December 1, 2020. Studies describing surgical techniques used to treat giant duodenal ulcer perforation and their outcomes in adult patients were included. No quantitative analysis was planned because of the heterogeneity across studies. RESULTS: Out of 960 identified records, 25 studies were eligible for inclusion. Two randomized controlled trials, one case-control trial, three cohort studies, 14 case series, and 5 case reports were included. Eight main surgical approaches are described, ranging from simple damage-control operations, such as the omental plug and triple-tube techniques, all the way to complex resections, such as gastrectomy. CONCLUSION: Evidence on surgical treatment of large duodenal defects is of poor quality, with the majority of studies corresponding to Oxford levels 3b-4. Current evidence does not support any single surgical technique as superior in terms of morbidity or mortality, but choice of technique should be guided by several factors including location of the perforation, degree of duodenal tissue loss, hemodynamic stability of the patient, as well as expertise of the operating surgeon. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: SR with more than two negative criteria, Level IV.