7 research outputs found
Erratum to “Practice variation in anastomotic leak after esophagectomy: Unravelling differences in failure to rescue” [Eur J Surg Oncol 49 (5) (May 2023) 974–982](S074879832300032X)(10.1016/j.ejso.2023.01.010)
No full text\ua9 2023 The Author(s)The publisher regrets that when the article was published the following collaboration authors from the “TENTACLE – Esophagus collaborative group” appeared incorrectly in the main author list due to a technical error: Writing Committee, Joos Heisterkamp, Fatih Polat, Jeroen Schouten, Pritam Singh, Study collaborators. This has now been corrected. The publisher would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused
Erratum to “Practice variation in anastomotic leak after esophagectomy: Unravelling differences in failure to rescue” [Eur J Surg Oncol 49 (5) (May 2023) 974–982](S074879832300032X)(10.1016/j.ejso.2023.01.010)
No full textThe publisher regrets that when the article was published the following collaboration authors from the “TENTACLE – Esophagus collaborative group” appeared incorrectly in the main author list due to a technical error: Writing Committee, Joos Heisterkamp, Fatih Polat, Jeroen Schouten, Pritam Singh, Study collaborators. This has now been corrected. The publisher would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused
Correction: Surgeons’ perspectives on artificial intelligence to support clinical decision-making in trauma and emergency contexts: results from an international survey
No full textFollowing publication of the original article [1], in Pub-Med the author name Daniele Bissacco under Team Dynamics Study Group has not been tagged and now it has been rectified
Colorectal neoplastic emergencies in immunocompromised patients: preliminary result from the Web-based International Register of Emergency Surgery and Trauma (WIRES-T trial)
No full textAssociation 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
Prospective Observational Study on acute Appendicitis Worldwide (POSAW)
No full textBackground: Acute appendicitis (AA) is the most common surgical disease, and appendectomy is the treatment of choice in the majority of cases. A correct diagnosis is key for decreasing the negative appendectomy rate. The management can become difficult in case of complicated appendicitis. The aim of this study is to describe the worldwide clinical and diagnostic work-up and management of AA in surgical departments. Methods: This prospective multicenter observational study was performed in 116 worldwide surgical departments from 44 countries over a 6-month period (April 1, 2016-September 30, 2016). All consecutive patients admitted to surgical departments with a clinical diagnosis of AA were included in the study. Results: A total of 4282 patients were enrolled in the POSAW study, 1928 (45%) women and 2354 (55%) men, with a median age of 29 years. Nine hundred and seven (21.2%) patients underwent an abdominal CT scan, 1856 (43.3%) patients an US, and 285 (6.7%) patients both CT scan and US. A total of 4097 (95.7%) patients underwent surgery; 1809 (42.2%) underwent open appendectomy and 2215 (51.7%) had laparoscopic appendectomy. One hundred eighty-five (4.3%) patients were managed conservatively. Major complications occurred in 199 patients (4.6%). The overall mortality rate was 0.28%. Conclusions: The results of the present study confirm the clinical value of imaging techniques and prognostic scores. Appendectomy remains the most effective treatment of acute appendicitis. Mortality rate is low. © 2018 The Author(s)
Physiological parameters for Prognosis in Abdominal Sepsis (PIPAS) Study: A WSES observational study
No full textBackground: Timing and adequacy of peritoneal source control are the most important pillars in the management of patients with acute peritonitis. Therefore, early prognostic evaluation of acute peritonitis is paramount to assess the severity and establish a prompt and appropriate treatment. The objectives of this study were to identify clinical and laboratory predictors for in-hospital mortality in patients with acute peritonitis and to develop a warning score system, based on easily recognizable and assessable variables, globally accepted. Methods: This worldwide multicentre observational study included 153 surgical departments across 56 countries over a 4-month study period between February 1, 2018, and May 31, 2018. Results: A total of 3137 patients were included, with 1815 (57.9%) men and 1322 (42.1%) women, with a median age of 47 years (interquartile range [IQR] 28-66). The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 8.9%, with a median length of stay of 6 days (IQR 4-10). Using multivariable logistic regression, independent variables associated with in-hospital mortality were identified: age > 80 years, malignancy, severe cardiovascular disease, severe chronic kidney disease, respiratory rate ≥ 22 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure < 100 mmHg, AVPU responsiveness scale (voice and unresponsive), blood oxygen saturation level (SpO2) < 90% in air, platelet count < 50,000 cells/mm3, and lactate > 4 mmol/l. These variables were used to create the PIPAS Severity Score, a bedside early warning score for patients with acute peritonitis. The overall mortality was 2.9% for patients who had scores of 0-1, 22.7% for those who had scores of 2-3, 46.8% for those who had scores of 4-5, and 86.7% for those who have scores of 7-8. Conclusions: The simple PIPAS Severity Score can be used on a global level and can help clinicians to identify patients at high risk for treatment failure and mortality. © 2019 The Author(s)
Outcomes of elective liver surgery worldwide: a global, prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study
No full textBackground: The outcomes of liver surgery worldwide remain unknown. The true population-based outcomes are likely different to those vastly reported that reflect the activity of highly specialized academic centers. The aim of this study was to measure the true worldwide practice of liver surgery and associated outcomes by recruiting from centers across the globe. The geographic distribution of liver surgery activity and complexity was also evaluated to further understand variations in outcomes. Methods: LiverGroup.org was an international, prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study following the Global Surgery Collaborative Snapshot Research approach with a 3-month prospective, consecutive patient enrollment within January?December 2019. Each patient was followed up for 90 days postoperatively. All patients undergoing liver surgery at their respective centers were eligible for study inclusion. Basic demographics, patient and operation characteristics were collected. Morbidity was recorded according to the Clavien?Dindo Classification of Surgical Complications. Country-based and hospital-based data were collected, including the Human Development Index (HDI). (NCT03768141). Results: A total of 2159 patients were included from six continents. Surgery was performed for cancer in 1785 (83%) patients. Of all patients, 912 (42%) experienced a postoperative complication of any severity, while the major complication rate was 16% (341/ 2159). The overall 90-day mortality rate after liver surgery was 3.8% (82/2,159). The overall failure to rescue rate was 11% (82/ 722) ranging from 5 to 35% among the higher and lower HDI groups, respectively. Conclusions: This is the first to our knowledge global surgery study specifically designed and conducted for specialized liver surgery. The authors identified failure to rescue as a significant potentially modifiable factor for mortality after liver surgery, mostly related to lower Human Development Index countries. Members of the LiverGroup.org network could now work together to develop quality improvement collaboratives. © Copyright 2023 The Author(s)
