Emergency surgery admissions and the COVID-19 pandemic: did the first wave really change our practice? Results of an ACOI/WSES international retrospective cohort audit on 6263 patients

[Severe cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic : Influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the frequency of surgery and outcome for elective and emergency cholecystectomy: a monocentric retrospective cohort analysis]

BACKGROUND

With the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic medical care focused on management of the infectious event. Elective interventions were cancelled and the general advice was to stay at home. How this impacted urgent and elective cholecystectomies is the subject of this work.

METHOD

Urgent and elective cholecystectomy patients during the first year of the pandemic were compared with those of the previous year. The primary endpoint was the frequency of surgery. Furthermore, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, symptom duration until presentation as well as until surgery, preoperative inflammatory parameters, imaging, positive Murphy's sign, type and duration of surgery, intraoperative drain placement, intraoperative and histological severity, need for and duration of postoperative antibiotic therapy, intensive care stay, length of stay and occurrence of postoperative complications were recorded.

RESULTS

During the pandemic patients were sicker (ASA 2.13 vs. 2.31; p = 0.039), the operating time was prolonged (64.4 min vs. 74.9 min; p = 0.001) and patients were more likely to have concomitant peritonitis (15.4% vs. 29.1%: p = 0.007). Furthermore, there was a trend in the presence of leukocytosis, a positive Murphy's sign, intraoperative drain placement, intraoperative severity of inflammation, duration of postoperative antibiotic therapy and complication rate.

CONCLUSION

During the COVID-19 pandemic cholecystitis presented with more pronounced inflammation, the surgical conditions were more difficult and postoperative recovery was prolonged.

COVID-Induced Alterations in Surgical Care and Outcomes in Perforated Diverticulitis

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 caused healthcare systems to significantly alter processes of care. Literature on the pandemic's effect on healthcare processes and resulting surgical outcomes is lacking. This study aims to determine outcomes of open colectomy in patients with perforated diverticulitis during the pandemic.

METHODS

Using CDC data, the highest and lowest COVID mortality rates were calculated and used to establish 9-month COVID-heavy (CH) and COVID-light (CL) timeframes, respectively. Nine-months of 2019 were assigned as pre-COVID (PC) control. Florida AHCA database was utilized for patient-level data. Primary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), morbidity, and in-hospital mortality. Stepwise regression with 10-fold cross-validation determined factors most impacting outcomes. A parallel analysis excluding COVID-positive patients was performed to differentiate COVID-infection from processes of care.

RESULTS

There were 3862 patients in total. COVID-positive patients had longer LOS, more intensive care unit admissions, and higher morbidity and mortality. After excluding 105 COVID-positive patients, individual outcomes were not different per timeframe. Regression showed timeframe did not affect primary outcomes.

DISCUSSION

Outcomes following colectomy for perforated diverticulitis were worse for COVID-positive patients. Despite increased stress on the healthcare system during the pandemic, major outcomes were unchanged for COVID-negative patients. Our results indicate that despite COVID-associated changes in processes of care, acute care surgery can still be performed in COVID-negative patients without increased mortality and minimal change in morbidity.

Are Antibiotics the New Appendectomy?

Prior to the development of laparoscopic procedures, open appendectomy was the standard of care for the majority of appendicitis cases. Recently, studies have debated using antibiotics as a first-line treatment in uncomplicated appendicitis cases. The definition of uncomplicated appendicitis is not always clear-cut; however, with the large-scale accessibility of radiologic techniques, it is becoming increasingly easier to classify patient groups. As suggested by clinical and radiological patient data, this has raised the speculation of considering antibiotic therapy as the sole treatment modality in uncomplicated appendicitis cases. We aim to compare the options of surgery and antibiotics only in terms of efficacy, complications, and financial cost. A range of databases and search strategies were adopted, and various databases were used, including PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and JAMA. Collectively, 30 studies were reviewed, but only 18 were included. Efficacy rates were higher in the appendectomy group. Nevertheless, the antibiotics-only group maintained an efficacy rate greater than 70% at one-year follow-up. Risk factors that decreased the efficacy in medical management included the presence of appendicolith, neoplasm, appendiceal dilatation, peri-appendiceal fluid collection, higher mean temperature, CRP, and bilirubin. Complications were more frequent and significant in the surgery group. These included complications related to anaesthesia, surgical site infections, damage to nearby structures, and pulmonary embolism. Despite several years of follow-up and disease recurrences, higher financial costs were observed in surgically treated patients compared to the antibiotics-only group. Given the high success rates post-appendectomy for acute appendicitis over the decades, the efficacy of conservatively treated acute appendicitis raises a strong argument when choosing one of the two options. The efficacy remained consistently higher across the literature in the surgery group than in the antibiotics-only group. However, it is still arguable that antibiotics may be a preferable option given an efficacy rate of more than 70% at one year and overall higher complications associated with surgery. The argument of missing a neoplasm by avoiding surgery is valid. However, most are carcinoid neuroendocrine neoplasms with a low probability of metastasis (<5%) and are usually considered benign. Given the current practice focused on conservative and minimally invasive treatments and recently the COVID-19 pandemic, with its restrictions and lessons learnt, antibiotics may be the future standard for treating uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Lastly, we noticed higher efficacy rates in articles published recently than those published at least five to ten years earlier. Antibiotics-only therapy for uncomplicated appendicitis is cost-effective with fewer complications than surgery. However, appendectomies have higher efficacy. Thus, surgical treatment prevails as the standard of care. Future literature should yield larger sample sizes and explore the numbers of emergency appendectomies mandated following antibiotics-only therapy.

How future surgery will benefit from SARS-COV-2-related measures: a SPIGC survey conveying the perspective of Italian surgeons

COVID-19 negatively affected surgical activity, but the potential benefits resulting from adopted measures remain unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the change in surgical activity and potential benefit from COVID-19 measures in perspective of Italian surgeons on behalf of SPIGC. A nationwide online survey on surgical practice before, during, and after COVID-19 pandemic was conducted in March-April 2022 (NCT:05323851). Effects of COVID-19 hospital-related measures on surgical patients' management and personal professional development across surgical specialties were explored. Data on demographics, pre-operative/peri-operative/post-operative management, and professional development were collected. Outcomes were matched with the corresponding volume. Four hundred and seventy-three respondents were included in final analysis across 14 surgical specialties. Since SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, application of telematic consultations (4.1% vs. 21.6%; p < 0.0001) and diagnostic evaluations (16.4% vs. 42.2%; p < 0.0001) increased. Elective surgical activities significantly reduced and surgeons opted more frequently for conservative management with a possible indication for elective (26.3% vs. 35.7%; p < 0.0001) or urgent (20.4% vs. 38.5%; p < 0.0001) surgery. All new COVID-related measures are perceived to be maintained in the future. Surgeons' personal education online increased from 12.6% (pre-COVID) to 86.6% (post-COVID; p < 0.0001). Online educational activities are considered a beneficial effect from COVID pandemic (56.4%). COVID-19 had a great impact on surgical specialties, with significant reduction of operation volume. However, some forced changes turned out to be benefits. Isolation measures pushed the use of telemedicine and telemetric devices for outpatient practice and favored communication for educational purposes and surgeon-patient/family communication. From the Italian surgeons' perspective, COVID-related measures will continue to influence future surgical clinical practice.

The COVID - AGICT study: COVID-19 and advanced gastro-intestinal cancer surgical treatment. A multicentric Italian study on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic impact on gastro-intestinal cancers surgical treatment during the 2020. Analysis of perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

This Italian multicentric retrospective study aimed to investigate the possible changes in outcomes of patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHOD

Our primary endpoint was to determine whether the pandemic scenario increased the rate of patients with colorectal, gastroesophageal, and pancreatic cancers resected at an advanced stage in 2020 compared to 2019. Considering different cancer staging systems, we divided tumors into early stages and advanced stages, using pathological outcomes. Furthermore, to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical outcomes, perioperative data of both 2020 and 2019 were also examined.

RESULTS

Overall, a total of 8250 patients, 4370 (53%) and 3880 (47%) were surgically treated during 2019 and 2020 respectively, in 62 Italian surgical Units. In 2020, the rate of patients treated with an advanced pathological stage was not different compared to 2019 (P = 0.25). Nevertheless, the analysis of quarters revealed that in the second half of 2020 the rate of advanced cancer resected, tented to be higher compared with the same months of 2019 (P = 0.05). During the pandemic year 'Charlson Comorbidity Index score of cancer patients (5.38 ± 2.08 vs 5.28 ± 2.22, P = 0.036), neoadjuvant treatments (23.9% vs. 19.5%, P < 0.001), rate of urgent diagnosis (24.2% vs 20.3%, P < 0.001), colorectal cancer urgent resection (9.4% vs. 7.37, P < 0.001), and the rate of positive nodes on the total nodes resected per surgery increased significantly (7 vs 9% - 2.02 ± 4.21 vs 2.39 ± 5.23, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic did not influence the pathological stage of colorectal, gastroesophageal, and pancreatic cancers at the time of surgery, our study revealed that the pandemic scenario negatively impacted on several perioperative and post-operative outcomes.

Is it possible to predict the severity of acute appendicitis? Reliability of predictive models based on easily available blood variables

INTRODUCTION

Recent evidence confirms that the treatment of acute appendicitis is not necessarily surgical, and selected patients with uncomplicated appendicitis can benefit from a non-operative management. Unfortunately, no cost-effective test has been proven to be able to effectively predict the degree of appendicular inflammation as yet, therefore, patient selection is too often left to the personal choice of the emergency surgeon. Our paper aims to clarify if basic and readily available blood tests can give reliable prognostic information to build up predictive models to help the decision-making process.

METHODS

Clinical notes of 2275 patients who underwent an appendicectomy with a presumptive diagnosis of acute appendicitis were reviewed, taking into consideration basic preoperative blood tests and histology reports on the surgical specimens. Variables were compared with univariate and multivariate analysis, and predictive models were created.

RESULTS

18.2% of patients had a negative appendicectomy, 9.6% had mucosal only inflammation, 53% had transmural inflammation and 19.2% had gangrenous appendicitis. A strong correlation was found between degree of inflammation and lymphocytes count and CRP/Albumin ratio, both at univariate and multivariate analysis. A predictive model to identify cases of gangrenous appendicitis was developed.

CONCLUSION

Low lymphocyte count and high CRP/Albumin ratio combined into a predictive model may have a role in the selection of patients who deserve appendicectomy instead of non-operative management of acute appendicitis.

[Consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic for surgical service]

The COVID-19 pandemic has a serious impact on surgical service, emergency and especially elective surgical care. Many hospitals were re-designated as COVID hospitals due to resource constraints and large number of COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization. This led to cancellation or postponement of scheduled surgeries. In addition, restrictions in elective surgery were associated with the risk of infection in surgical patients. Various protocols and guidelines recommended non-surgical or outpatient treatment if possible. During the pandemic, postoperative morbidity and mortality in emergency surgery increased significantly. The same is true for elective surgeries in 7-8 weeks after previous coronavirus infection. The authors analyze the issues of organization, priorities for restoration of elective surgery and criteria for patient selection.

Bariatric surgery: to bleed or not to bleed? This is the question

Background

Bariatric surgery procedures are the most successful and durable treatment for morbid obesity. Hemorrhage represents a life-threatening complication, occurring in 1.3–1.7% of bariatric surgeries.

Materials and methods

We examined patients undergoing Bariatric Surgery from July 2017 to June 2020 (Group A) and those operated from July 2020 to June 2022 (Group B) in our Department. Starting from July 2020 we have implemented intraoperative measures to prevent postoperative bleeding, increasing mean arterial pressure (MAP) by 30% compared to preoperative and reducing the pneumoperitoneal pressure of CO₂ to 8 mmHg in the last 15 min of the operation.

Results

The study gathered 200 patients divided into the two described groups. The mean age of Group A is 44 ± 8.49 and 43.73 ± 9.28. The mean preoperative BMI is 45.6 kg/m² ± 6.71 for Group A and 48.9 ± 7.15 kg/m² for Group B. Group A recorded a mean MAP of 83.06 ± 18.58 mmHg and group B a value of 111.88 ± 12.46 mmHg (p value < 0.05 and z-score is 4.15226 and the value of U is 13,900). We observed 9 cases of bleeding in group A, most of them being treated with medical therapy and transfusions; only 1 hemodynamically unstable patient underwent re-laparoscopy. We reported only 2 cases of bleeding in group B, one of which required blood transfusions.

Conclusion

From our study we can conclude that increasing mean arterial pressure (MAP) by 30% compared to preoperative and reducing the pneumoperitoneum pressure of CO₂ to 8 mmHg in the last 15 min of the operation led to a decrease in bleeding cases in group B and, most importantly, all the bleedings were easily controllable with medical therapy and/or transfusions. These measures allowed us to reduce postoperative bleeding.

Two years later: Is the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic still having an impact on emergency surgery? An international cross-sectional survey among WSES members

BACKGROUND

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is still ongoing and a major challenge for health care services worldwide. In the first WSES COVID-19 emergency surgery survey, a strong negative impact on emergency surgery (ES) had been described already early in the pandemic situation. However, the knowledge is limited about current effects of the pandemic on patient flow through emergency rooms, daily routine and decision making in ES as well as their changes over time during the last two pandemic years. This second WSES COVID-19 emergency surgery survey investigates the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on ES during the course of the pandemic.

METHODS

A web survey had been distributed to medical specialists in ES during a four-week period from January 2022, investigating the impact of the pandemic on patients and septic diseases both requiring ES, structural problems due to the pandemic and time-to-intervention in ES routine.

RESULTS

367 collaborators from 59 countries responded to the survey. The majority indicated that the pandemic still significantly impacts on treatment and outcome of surgical emergency patients (83.1% and 78.5%, respectively). As reasons, the collaborators reported decreased case load in ES (44.7%), but patients presenting with more prolonged and severe diseases, especially concerning perforated appendicitis (62.1%) and diverticulitis (57.5%). Otherwise, approximately 50% of the participants still observe a delay in time-to-intervention in ES compared with the situation before the pandemic. Relevant causes leading to enlarged time-to-intervention in ES during the pandemic are persistent problems with in-hospital logistics, lacks in medical staff as well as operating room and intensive care capacities during the pandemic. This leads not only to the need for triage or transferring of ES patients to other hospitals, reported by 64.0% and 48.8% of the collaborators, respectively, but also to paradigm shifts in treatment modalities to non-operative approaches reported by 67.3% of the participants, especially in uncomplicated appendicitis, cholecystitis and multiple-recurrent diverticulitis.

CONCLUSIONS

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic still significantly impacts on care and outcome of patients in ES. Well-known problems with in-hospital logistics are not sufficiently resolved by now; however, medical staff shortages and reduced capacities have been dramatically aggravated over last two pandemic years.

The weekend effect on the provision of Emergency Surgery before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: case-control analysis of a retrospective multicentre database

Introduction

The concept of “weekend effect”, that is, substandard healthcare during weekends, has never been fully demonstrated, and the different outcomes of emergency surgical patients admitted during weekends may be due to different conditions at admission and/or different therapeutic approaches. Aim of this international audit was to identify any change of pattern of emergency surgical admissions and treatments during weekends. Furthermore, we aimed at investigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the alleged “weekend effect”.

Methods

The database of the CovidICE-International Study was interrogated, and 6263 patients were selected for analysis. Non-trauma, 18+ yo patients admitted to 45 emergency surgery units in Europe in the months of March–April 2019 and March–April 2020 were included. Demographic and clinical data were anonymised by the referring centre and centrally collected and analysed with a statistical package. This study was endorsed by the Association of Italian Hospital Surgeons (ACOI) and the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES).

Results

Three-quarters of patients have been admitted during workdays and only 25.7% during weekends. There was no difference in the distribution of gender, age, ASA class and diagnosis during weekends with respect to workdays. The first wave of the COVID pandemic caused a one-third reduction of emergency surgical admission both during workdays and weekends but did not change the relation between workdays and weekends. The treatment was more often surgical for patients admitted during weekends, with no difference between 2019 and 2020, and procedures were more often performed by open surgery. However, patients admitted during weekends had a threefold increased risk of laparoscopy-to-laparotomy conversion (1% vs. 3.4%). Hospital stay was longer in patients admitted during weekends, but those patients had a lower risk of readmission. There was no difference of the rate of rescue surgery between weekends and workdays. Subgroup analysis revealed that interventional procedures for hot gallbladder were less frequently performed on patients admitted during weekends.

Conclusions

Our analysis revealed that demographic and clinical profiles of patients admitted during weekends do not differ significantly from workdays, but the therapeutic strategy may be different probably due to lack of availability of services and skillsets during weekends. The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic did not impact on this difference.

Surgical safety in the COVID-19 era: present and future considerations

The impacts of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been globally paradigm shifting in all aspects. Surgeons have experienced unprecedented changes regarding operation schedules, preparations before surgery, and the precautions needed both during and after surgery. Many medical centers simultaneously reported a decrease in their numbers of surgeries, whether they were elective or emergent, or for cancerous or benign resections. However, accumulated surgical outcomes from the last 2 years of experience presented postoperative morbidity and mortality data that were comparable to the pre-pandemic era, whether in elective or urgent settings. Although COVID-19 showed a significant association with postoperative morbidity and mortality, the majority of noninfected patients could be treated successfully with stringent mitigation protocols. Initially recommended to be avoided at the start of the pandemic, minimally invasive surgery seems to be safe and feasible according to reported surgical outcomes. Numerous sets of guidelines have now been produced from medical societies and adhering to the basic precautions has been found to be practicable. It is crucial that health care systems and surgical staff remain vigilant and attentive to the ever-changing situation in this pandemic in order to provide optimal medical support to their patients.