The COVID-19 pandemic should not take us back to the prelaparoscopic era

Nationwide analysis of inpatient laparoscopic ventral hernia repair in Italy from 2015 to 2020

Since 2010, several guidelines and consensus papers have been proposed to support surgeons in the decision-making process (Cuccurullo et al. in Hernia 17(5):557-566, 2013; Silecchia et al. in Surg Endosc 29:2463-2484, 2015; Bittner et al. in Surg Endosc 33(11):3511-3549, 2015) with the conclusion that laparoscopic repair (LR) has gained popularity in the treatment of IH.To date, however, it is not yet clear as to the uptake of LR for IH on national basis. Only dated studies encompassing of all types of incisional hernia repairs are available in literature (Bisgaard et al. in Br J Surg 96:1452-1457, 2009). The aim of our study is to present a snapshot of Italian data for LR of ventral hernias, over a 6 years period, including volume of LR, procedural features and major postoperative outcomes. Data were extracted from the Italian Hospital Information System (HIS) that collects clinical and administrative information regarding each hospital admission of every patient discharged from any hospital in Italy. Using Hospital Discharge records regional Databases (HDD), all laparoscopic ventral hernia procedures carried out in public and private hospitals between 2015 and 2020, in patients over 18 years and resident in Italy, were collected based on diagnosis and procedure codes. The National Agency for Regional Health Services (AgeNaS) oversees the management and analysis of data. All hospital admissions that occurred between 2015 and 2020 were analyzed.A total of 154,546 incisional hernia repairs were performed in Italy from 2015 to 2020. Of these, 20,789 (13.45%) were minimally invasive repairs. The number of procedures performed increased significantly over time, constituting 11.96 and 15.24% of all procedures performed in 2015 and 2020 respectively. However, considering the whole period, the mean annual change was-5.58% (CI - 28.6% to 17.44%; p < 0.0001).Urgent minimally invasive repairs were performed in 1968 cases (1.27%). The absolute rate of laparoscopically treated patients needing an urgent surgical procedure increased overtime (from 7.36% in 2015 to 13.418% in 2020). The mean annual change registered over the whole period was 7.42%. 92% (CI - 0.03 to 14.09%; p < 0.0001). However, when considering the period from 2015 to 2019, the mean annual change was 10.42% (CI 6.35 to 14.49%; p < 0.0001). To our knowledge this is the first nationwide Italian report presenting the national workload of surgical units and the main perioperative features of minimally invasive surgery for ventral hernia repairs.

Nationwide analysis of laparoscopic groin hernia repair in Italy from 2015 to 2020

Since its introduction, the minimally invasive treatment of groin hernias has become widely accepted as a viable alternative to open surgery. Still, the rates and reasons for its adoption vary highly among countries and the regions within a country. After almost thirty years since its introduction, its spread is still limited. The present study, conducted under the auspices of AGENAS (Italian National Agency for Regional Services), aims at giving a snapshot of the spreading of minimally invasive and robotic techniques for the treatment of groin hernia in Italy. This study is retrospective, with data covering the period from 1st January 2015 to 31st December 2020. AGENAS provided data using the operation and diagnosis codes used at discharge and reported in the International Classification of Diseases 9th revision (ICD9 2002 version). Admissions performed on an outpatient basis, i.e., without an overnight stay of at least one night in hospital, were excluded. A total of 33,925 laparoscopic hernia repairs were performed during the considered period. Overall, a slight increase in the number of procedures performed was observed from 2015 to 2019, with a mean annual change of 8.60% (CI: 6.46-10.74; p < 0.0001). The number of laparoscopic procedures dropped in 2020, and when considering the whole period, the mean annual change was - 0.98% (CI: - 7.41-5.45; p < 0.0001). Urgent procedures ranged from 335 in 2015 to 508 in 2020 referring to absolute frequencies, and from 0.87% to 9.8% in relative frequencies of overall procedures in 2017 and 2020, respectively (mean = 4.51%; CI = 3.02%-6%; p < 0.001). The most relevant observation that could be made according to our analysis was that the adoption of the laparoscopic approach knew a slow but steady increase from 2015 onward.

The ALIGHIERI survey

Background:

The present survey aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the Italian scenario concerning general surgery during the first wave coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak and evaluate the experiences, trends, attitudes, and possible educational outcomes that this emergency brought to light.

Methods:

A 31-item survey was designed and edited by the scientific board of the Associazione Chirurghi Ospedalieri Italiani (ACOI), addressing the impact of the pandemic outbreak on surgical staff and activity during the period from 9 March to 30 May 2020 (phase 1, lockdown period) and addressing the status of surgical activity, staff, and surgery resumption in the period from 1 June to 30 September 2020 (phase 3, restart). The survey was distributed via email and social media to Italian general surgeon working both in COVID-19 and non–COVID-19 hospitals.

Results:

One thousand two hundred and three valid answers were collected for section 1, and 583 for section 2. Fifty percent of the surgery units involved in the study reported that the pandemic had negatively affected their ability to provide surgical assistance. Elective procedures were suppressed for nononcological diseases in 75% of the cases. Seventy-five percent of respondents prioritized oncological surgery over other procedures. During the restart period, the overall surgical activity was resumed entirely only in the 21% of the involved hospital.

Conclusion:

It will be crucial to organize a “recovery plan” t for all the surgical procedures postponed following a spoke-hub model. When “normal circumstances” will be re-established and a clear need for an organization on a national basis to face the subsequent pandemic outbreaks maintaining surgical activity as steady as possible.

COVID-19 pandemic: is it time for shared surgical guidelines? A systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

The recent COrona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused a massive disruption of surgical activity and after a year from its first outbreak surgeons still struggle to keep their regular activity coexisting with the virus exhausting requests of healthcare resources. The aim of this paper is to offer a comprehensive overview of the most important recommendations by the International Guidelines about general surgery, and possibly to invite building common shared guidelines to preserve the potential to provide surgical assistance despite the pandemic.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science databases were searched.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The searches revealed a total of 18579 articles published up to the end of February 2021. Five articles published between March and May 2020, were included in the present study: Guidelines from The European Society of Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ESTES), The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and The European Association for Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES), The Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Surgeons of Asia (ELSA), The European Hernia Society (EHS) and The International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IOS-IBD).

CONCLUSIONS

In the likely scenario that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic will become an endemic chronic problem, we should not be forced to choose between COVID-19 or surgery in the future and find a way to make both coexisting.

Appendectomy during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: a multicenter ambispective cohort study by the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and new technologies (the CRAC study)

Major surgical societies advised using non-operative management of appendicitis and suggested against laparoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic. The hypothesis is that a significant reduction in the number of emergent appendectomies was observed during the pandemic, restricted to complex cases. The study aimed to analyse emergent surgical appendectomies during pandemic on a national basis and compare it to the same period of the previous year. This is a multicentre, retrospective, observational study investigating the outcomes of patients undergoing emergent appendectomy in March-April 2019 vs March-April 2020. The primary outcome was the number of appendectomies performed, classified according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) score. Secondary outcomes were the type of surgical technique employed (laparoscopic vs open) and the complication rates. One thousand five hundred forty one patients with acute appendicitis underwent surgery during the two study periods. 1337 (86.8%) patients met the inclusion criteria: 546 (40.8%) patients underwent surgery for acute appendicitis in 2020 and 791 (59.2%) in 2019. According to AAST, patients with complicated appendicitis operated in 2019 were 30.3% vs 39.9% in 2020 (p = 0.001). We observed an increase in the number of post-operative complications in 2020 (15.9%) compared to 2019 (9.6%) (p < 0.001). The following determinants increased the likelihood of complication occurrence: undergoing surgery during 2020 (+ 67%), the increase of a unit in the AAST score (+ 26%), surgery performed > 24 h after admission (+ 58%), open surgery (+ 112%) and conversion to open surgery (+ 166%). In Italian hospitals, in March and April 2020, the number of appendectomies has drastically dropped. During the first pandemic wave, patients undergoing surgery were more frequently affected by more severe appendicitis than the previous year's timeframe and experienced a higher number of complications. Trial registration number and date: Research Registry ID 5789, May 7th, 2020.

Changes in surgicaL behaviOrs dUring the CoviD-19 pandemic. The SICE CLOUD19 Study

BACKGROUND

The spread of the SARS-CoV2 virus, which causes COVID-19 disease, profoundly impacted the surgical community. Recommendations have been published to manage patients needing surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. This survey, under the aegis of the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery, aims to analyze how Italian surgeons have changed their practice during the pandemic.

METHODS

The authors designed an online survey that was circulated for completion to the Italian departments of general surgery registered in the Italian Ministry of Health database in December 2020. Questions were divided into three sections: hospital organization, screening policies, and safety profile of the surgical operation. The investigation periods were divided into the Italian pandemic phases I (March-May 2020), II (June-September 2020), and III (October-December 2020).

RESULTS

Of 447 invited departments, 226 answered the survey. Most hospitals were treating both COVID-19-positive and -negative patients. The reduction in effective beds dedicated to surgical activity was significant, affecting 59% of the responding units. 12.4% of the respondents in phase I, 2.6% in phase II, and 7.7% in phase III reported that their surgical unit had been closed. 51.4%, 23.5%, and 47.8% of the respondents had at least one colleague reassigned to non-surgical COVID-19 activities during the three phases. There has been a reduction in elective (> 200 procedures: 2.1%, 20.6% and 9.9% in the three phases, respectively) and emergency (< 20 procedures: 43.3%, 27.1%, 36.5% in the three phases, respectively) surgical activity. The use of laparoscopy also had a setback in phase I (25.8% performed less than 20% of elective procedures through laparoscopy). 60.6% of the respondents used a smoke evacuation device during laparoscopy in phase I, 61.6% in phase II, and 64.2% in phase III. Almost all responders (82.8% vs. 93.2% vs. 92.7%) in each analyzed period did not modify or reduce the use of high-energy devices.

CONCLUSION

This survey offers three faithful snapshots of how the surgical community has reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic during its three phases. The significant reduction in surgical activity indicates that better health policies and more evidence-based guidelines are needed to make up for lost time and surgery not performed during the pandemic.

Current status on the adoption of high energy devices in Italy: An Italian Society for Endoscopic Surgery and New Technologies (SICE) national survey

Background

In the past three decades, different High Energy Devices (HED) have been introduced in surgical practice to improve the efficiency of surgical procedures. HED allow vessel sealing, coagulation and transection as well as an efficient tissue dissection. This survey was designed to verify the current status on the adoption of HED in Italy.

Methods

A survey was conducted across Italian general surgery units. The questionnaire was composed of three sections (general information, elective surgery, emergency surgery) including 44 questions. Only one member per each surgery unit was allowed to complete the questionnaire. For elective procedures, the survey included questions on thyroid surgery, lower and upper GI surgery, proctologic surgery, adrenal gland surgery, pancreatic and hepatobiliary surgery, cholecystectomy, abdominal wall surgery and breast surgery. Appendectomy, cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis and bowel obstruction due to adhesions were considered for emergency surgery. The list of alternatives for every single question included a percentage category as follows: “ < 25%, 25–50%, 51–75% or > 75%”, both for open and minimally-invasive surgery.

Results

A total of 113 surgical units completed the questionnaire. The reported use of HED was high both in open and minimally-invasive upper and lower GI surgery. Similarly, HED were widely used in minimally-invasive pancreatic and adrenal surgery. The use of HED was wider in minimally-invasive hepatic and biliary tree surgery compared to open surgery, whereas the majority of the respondents reported the use of any type of HED in less than 25% of elective cholecystectomies. HED were only rarely employed also in the majority of emergency open and laparoscopic procedures, including cholecystectomy, appendectomy, and adhesiolysis. Similarly, very few respondents declared to use HED in abdominal wall surgery and proctology. The distribution of the most used type of HED varied among the different surgical interventions. US HED were mostly used in thyroid, upper GI, and adrenal surgery. A relevant use of H-US/RF devices was reported in lower GI, pancreatic, hepatobiliary and breast surgery. RF HED were the preferred choice in proctology.

Conclusion

HED are extensively used in minimally-invasive elective surgery involving the upper and lower GI tract, liver, pancreas and adrenal gland. Nowadays, reasons for choosing a specific HED in clinical practice rely on several aspects, including surgeon’s preference, economic features, and specific drawbacks of the energy employed.