Simplified risk-prediction for benchmarking and quality improvement in emergency general surgery. Prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Emergency General Surgery (EGS) conditions account for millions of deaths worldwide, yet it is practiced without benchmarking-based quality improvement programs. The aim of this observational, prospective, multicenter, nationwide study was to determine the best benchmark cutoff points in EGS, as a reference to guide improvement measures. METHODS: Over a 6-month period, 38 centers (5% of all public hospitals) attending EGS patients on a 24-h, 7-days a week basis, enrolled consecutive patients requiring an emergent/urgent surgical procedure. Patients were stratified into cohorts of low (i.e., expected morbidity risk <33%), middle and high risk using the novel m-LUCENTUM calculator. RESULTS: A total of 7258 patients were included; age (mean ± SD) was 51.1 ± 21.5 years, 43.2% were female. Benchmark cutoffs in the low-risk cohort (5639 patients, 77.7% of total) were: use of laparoscopy ≥40.9%, length of hospital stays ≤3 days, any complication within 30 days ≤ 17.7%, and 30-day mortality ≤1.1%. The variables with the greatest impact were septicemia on length of hospital stay (21 days; adjusted beta coefficient 16.8; 95% CI: 15.3 to 18.3; P < .001), and respiratory failure on mortality (risk-adjusted population attributable fraction 44.6%, 95% CI 29.6 to 59.6, P < .001). Use of laparoscopy (odds ratio 0.764, 95% CI 0.678 to 0.861; P < .001), and intraoperative blood loss (101-500 mL: odds ratio 2.699, 95% CI 2.152 to 3.380; P < .001; and 500-1000 mL: odds ratio 2.875, 95% CI 1.403 to 5.858; P = .013) were associated with increased morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers, for the first time, clinically-based benchmark values in EGS and identifies measures for improvement.

OMENTAL INFARCTION: SURGICAL or CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT? A CASE REPORTS and CASE SERIES SYSTEMATIC REVIEW.

BACKGROUND: Omental infarction (OI) is an infrequent cause of acute abdominal pain and there is no consensus on whether conservative or surgical treatment is the best strategy when performing positive CT diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: To assess which of the two treatments is the most commonly adopted and compare outcomes in terms of success rate in resolution of symptoms and hospital length of stay. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Case report and case series of patients with abdominal pain and positive diagnosis by CT of omental infarction. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Science Direct and Google Scholar in combination with cross-referencing searches and manual searches of eligible articles from January 2000 to June 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Patients older than 18 years of age. METHODS: Patient characteristics and results were summarized descriptively. Categorical variables were assessed by chisquare test or Fischer's exact test, and continuous variables by the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis test. Risk factors for failure of the conservative management were identified using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: 90 articles were included in the final analysis (146 patients). 107 patients (73.3%) received conservative treatment with a failure rate of 15.9% (patients needing surgery) and 39 patients (26.7%) received surgery as first treatment. The mean hospital length of stay was 5.1 days for the conservative treatment group and 2.5 days for the surgery group with statistically significant differences (p = 0.00). Younger age and white blood cells count ≥12000/µl were predictive factors of conservative treatment failure. CONCLUSIONS: Although conservative treatment is effective in most patients, surgery has advantages in terms of hospital length of stay.