Transanal Hemorrhoidal Dearterialization With Mucopexy Versus Vessel-Sealing Device Hemorrhoidectomy for Grade III to IV Hemorrhoids: Long-term Outcomes From the THDLIGA Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Both transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization and vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy are safe for grade III to IV hemorrhoid treatment. Whether one of them is superior regarding long-term results remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To compare long-term results after transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization and vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy.

DESIGN

Multicenter randomized controlled trial.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at 6 centers.

PATIENTS

Patients ≥18 years of age with grade III to IV hemorrhoids were included in the study.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization (n = 39) or vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy (n = 41).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was hemorrhoid symptom recurrence assessed by a specific questionnaire 2 years postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included long-term complications, reoperations, fecal continence, and patient satisfaction and quality of life.

RESULTS

Five of the 80 patients included in the study were lost to follow-up. Thirty-six patients randomly assigned to transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization and 39 patients randomly assigned to vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy were included in the long-term analysis. The differences between mean baseline and mean 2-year score in the 2 groups were similar (-11.0, SD 3.8 vs -12.5, SD 3.6; p = 0.080). Three patients in the transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization group underwent supplementary procedures for hemorrhoid symptoms, compared with none in the vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy group ( p = 0.106). Four patients in the vessel-sealing hemorrhoidectomy group and none in the transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization group experienced chronic opened wound ( p = 0.116).

LIMITATIONS

Lack of stratification for hemorrhoid grade and power calculation based on the main outcome trial but not on the end point of this long-term study.

CONCLUSIONS

Transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy is associated with hemorrhoid symptom recurrence similar to vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy at 2 years. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B933 .

REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov ; ID: NCT02654249.

DESARTERIALIZACIN HEMORROIDAL TRANSANAL CON MUCOPEXIA VERSUS HEMORROIDECTOMA CON DISPOSITIVO DE SELLADO DE VASOS PARA HEMORROIDES DE GRADO IIIIV RESULTADOS A LARGO PLAZO DEL ENSAYO CLNICO ALEATORIZADO THDLIGARCT

ANTECEDENTES:Tanto la desarterialización hemorroidal transanal como la hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos son seguras y bien toleradas para el tratamiento de las hemorroides de grado III-IV. La primera se asocia con una necesidad más breve de analgesia posoperatoria que la hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos. No está claro si uno de ellos es superior con respecto a los resultados a largo plazo.OBJETIVO:El objetivo fue comparar los resultados a largo plazo después de la desarterialización hemorroidal transanal y la hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos.DISEÑO:Se realizó un ensayo clínico aleatorizado multicéntrico.AJUSTE:Este estudio se realizó en 6 centros.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron en el estudio pacientes de ≥18 años con hemorroides de grado III-IV.INTERVENCIONES:Los pacientes fueron asignados al azar a desarterialización hemorroidal transanal (n = 39) o hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos (n = 41).PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado primario fue la recurrencia de los síntomas de hemorroides evaluada mediante un cuestionario específico 2 años después de la operación. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron complicaciones a largo plazo, reoperaciones, continencia fecal, satisfacción del paciente y calidad de vida.RESULTADOS:Cinco de los 80 pacientes incluidos en el estudio se perdieron durante el seguimiento. En el análisis a largo plazo se incluyeron 36 pacientes aleatorizados a desarterialización hemorroidal transanal y 39 aleatorizados a hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos. Las diferencias entre la puntuación inicial media y la puntuación media a los 2 años en los dos grupos fueron similares (-11,0, DE 3,8 frente a -12,5, DE 3,6; p = 0,080). Tres pacientes en el grupo de desarterialización hemorroidal transanal se sometieron a procedimientos complementarios por síntomas de hemorroides, en comparación con ninguno en el grupo de hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos (p = 0,106). Cuatro pacientes en el grupo de hemorroidectomía con sellado de vasos y ninguno en el grupo de desarterialización hemorroidal transanal experimentaron herida abierta crónica (p = 0,116). No se encontraron diferencias en cuanto a continencia fecal (p = 0,657), satisfacción del paciente (p = 0,483) y calidad de vida.LIMITACIONES:No hay estratificación para el grado de hemorroides ni el cálculo del poder basado en el resultado principal del ensayo, pero no en el criterio de valoración de este estudio a largo plazo.CONCLUSIONES:La desarterialización hemorroidal transanal con mucopexia se asocia con una recurrencia de síntomas de hemorroides similar a la hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos a los dos años. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B933 . (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon )REGISTRO DE PRUEBA:Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02654249).

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

BACKGROUND

Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres.

METHODS

This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low-middle-income countries.

RESULTS

In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of 'single-use' consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low-middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia.

CONCLUSION

This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high- and low-middle-income countries.

Prediction of morbidity and mortality after early cholecystectomy for acute calculous cholecystitis: results of the S.P.Ri.M.A.C.C. study

Background

Less invasive alternatives than early cholecystectomy (EC) for acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) treatment have been spreading in recent years. We still lack a reliable tool to select high-risk patients who could benefit from these alternatives. Our study aimed to prospectively validate the Chole-risk score in predicting postoperative complications in patients undergoing EC for ACC compared with other preoperative risk prediction models.

Method

The S.P.Ri.M.A.C.C. study is a World Society of Emergency Surgery prospective multicenter observational study. From 1st September 2021 to 1st September 2022, 1253 consecutive patients admitted in 79 centers were included. The inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of ACC and to be a candidate for EC. A Cochran-Armitage test of the trend was run to determine whether a linear correlation existed between the Chole-risk score and a complicated postoperative course. To assess the accuracy of the analyzed prediction models—POSSUM Physiological Score (PS), modified Frailty Index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, American Society of Anesthesiologist score (ASA), APACHE II score, and ACC severity grade—receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was used to compare the diagnostic abilities.

Results

A 30-day major morbidity of 6.6% and 30-day mortality of 1.1% were found. Chole-risk was validated, but POSSUM PS was the best risk prediction model for a complicated course after EC for ACC (in-hospital mortality: AUC 0.94, p < 0.001; 30-day mortality: AUC 0.94, p < 0.001; in-hospital major morbidity: AUC 0.73, p < 0.001; 30-day major morbidity: AUC 0.70, p < 0.001). POSSUM PS with a cutoff of 25 (defined in our study as a ‘Chole-POSSUM’ score) was then validated in a separate cohort of patients. It showed a 100% sensitivity and a 100% negative predictive value for mortality and a 96–97% negative predictive value for major complications.

Conclusions

The Chole-risk score was externally validated, but the CHOLE-POSSUM stands as a more accurate prediction model. CHOLE-POSSUM is a reliable tool to stratify patients with ACC into a low-risk group that may represent a safe EC candidate, and a high-risk group, where new minimally invasive endoscopic techniques may find the most useful field of action.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrial.gov NCT04995380.

Time for a paradigm shift in shared decision-making in trauma and emergency surgery? Results from an international survey

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) between clinicians and patients is one of the pillars of the modern patient-centric philosophy of care. This study aims to explore SDM in the discipline of trauma and emergency surgery, investigating its interpretation as well as the barriers and facilitators for its implementation among surgeons.

METHODS

Grounding on the literature on the topics of the understanding, barriers, and facilitators of SDM in trauma and emergency surgery, a survey was created by a multidisciplinary committee and endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). The survey was sent to all 917 WSES members, advertised through the society's website, and shared on the society's Twitter profile.

RESULTS

A total of 650 trauma and emergency surgeons from 71 countries in five continents participated in the initiative. Less than half of the surgeons understood SDM, and 30% still saw the value in exclusively engaging multidisciplinary provider teams without involving the patient. Several barriers to effectively partnering with the patient in the decision-making process were identified, such as the lack of time and the need to concentrate on making medical teams work smoothly.

DISCUSSION

Our investigation underlines how only a minority of trauma and emergency surgeons understand SDM, and perhaps, the value of SDM is not fully accepted in trauma and emergency situations. The inclusion of SDM practices in clinical guidelines may represent the most feasible and advocated solutions.

Psychological Health of Surgeons in a Time of COVID-19: A Global Survey

OBJECTIVE

To assess the degree of psychological impact among surgical providers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The COVID-19 pandemic has extensively impacted global healthcare systems. We hypothesized that the degree of psychological impact would be higher for surgical providers deployed for COVID-19 work, certain surgical specialties, and for those who knew of someone diagnosed with, or who died, of COVID-19.

METHODS

We conducted a global web-based survey to investigate the psychological impact of COVID-19. The primary outcomes were the depression anxiety stress scale-21 and Impact of Event Scale-Revised scores.

RESULTS

A total of 4283 participants from 101 countries responded. 32.8%, 30.8%, 25.9%, and 24.0% screened positive for depression, anxiety, stress, and PTSD respectively. Respondents who knew someone who died of COVID-19 were more likely to screen positive for depression, anxiety, stress, and PTSD (OR 1.3, 1.6, 1.4, 1.7 respectively, all P < 0.05). Respondents who knew of someone diagnosed with COVID-19 were more likely to screen positive for depression, stress, and PTSD (OR 1.2, 1.2, and 1.3 respectively, all P < 0.05). Surgical specialties that operated in the head and neck region had higher psychological distress among its surgeons. Deployment for COVID- 19-related work was not associated with increased psychological distress.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic may have a mental health legacy outlasting its course. The long-term impact of this ongoing traumatic event underscores the importance of longitudinal mental health care for healthcare personnel, with particular attention to those who know of someone diagnosed with, or who died of COVID-19.

The ChoCO-W prospective observational global study: Does COVID-19 increase gangrenous cholecystitis?

BACKGROUND

The incidence of the highly morbid and potentially lethal gangrenous cholecystitis was reportedly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of the ChoCO-W study was to compare the clinical findings and outcomes of acute cholecystitis in patients who had COVID-19 disease with those who did not.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected over 6 months (October 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021) with 1-month follow-up. In October 2020, Delta variant of SARS CoV-2 was isolated for the first time. Demographic and clinical data were analyzed and reported according to the STROBE guidelines. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients who had COVID-19 were compared with those who did not.

RESULTS

A total of 2893 patients, from 42 countries, 218 centers, involved, with a median age of 61.3 (SD: 17.39) years were prospectively enrolled in this study; 1481 (51%) patients were males. One hundred and eighty (6.9%) patients were COVID-19 positive, while 2412 (93.1%) were negative. Concomitant preexisting diseases including cardiovascular diseases (p < 0.0001), diabetes (p < 0.0001), and severe chronic obstructive airway disease (p = 0.005) were significantly more frequent in the COVID-19 group. Markers of sepsis severity including ARDS (p < 0.0001), PIPAS score (p < 0.0001), WSES sepsis score (p < 0.0001), qSOFA (p < 0.0001), and Tokyo classification of severity of acute cholecystitis (p < 0.0001) were significantly higher in the COVID-19 group. The COVID-19 group had significantly higher postoperative complications (32.2% compared with 11.7%, p < 0.0001), longer mean hospital stay (13.21 compared with 6.51 days, p < 0.0001), and mortality rate (13.4% compared with 1.7%, p < 0.0001). The incidence of gangrenous cholecystitis was doubled in the COVID-19 group (40.7% compared with 22.3%). The mean wall thickness of the gallbladder was significantly higher in the COVID-19 group [6.32 (SD: 2.44) mm compared with 5.4 (SD: 3.45) mm; p < 0.0001].

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of gangrenous cholecystitis is higher in COVID patients compared with non-COVID patients admitted to the emergency department with acute cholecystitis. Gangrenous cholecystitis in COVID patients is associated with high-grade Clavien-Dindo postoperative complications, longer hospital stay and higher mortality rate. The open cholecystectomy rate is higher in COVID compared with non -COVID patients. It is recommended to delay the surgical treatment in COVID patients, when it is possible, to decrease morbidity and mortality rates. COVID-19 infection and gangrenous cholecystistis are not absolute contraindications to perform laparoscopic cholecystectomy, in a case by case evaluation, in expert hands.

It is time to define an organizational model for the prevention and management of infections along the surgical pathway: a worldwide cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

The objectives of the study were to investigate the organizational characteristics of acute care facilities worldwide in preventing and managing infections in surgery; assess participants' perception regarding infection prevention and control (IPC) measures, antibiotic prescribing practices, and source control; describe awareness about the global burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and IPC measures; and determine the role of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic on said awareness.

METHODS

A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted contacting 1432 health care workers (HCWs) belonging to a mailing list provided by the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery. The self-administered questionnaire was developed by a multidisciplinary team. The survey was open from May 22, 2021, and June 22, 2021. Three reminders were sent, after 7, 14, and 21 days.

RESULTS

Three hundred four respondents from 72 countries returned a questionnaire, with an overall response rate of 21.2%. Respectively, 90.4% and 68.8% of participants stated their hospital had a multidisciplinary IPC team or a multidisciplinary antimicrobial stewardship team. Local protocols for antimicrobial therapy of surgical infections and protocols for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis were present in 76.6% and 90.8% of hospitals, respectively. In 23.4% and 24.0% of hospitals no surveillance systems for surgical site infections and no monitoring systems of used antimicrobials were implemented. Patient and family involvement in IPC management was considered to be slightly or not important in their hospital by the majority of respondents (65.1%). Awareness of the global burden of AMR among HCWs was considered very important or important by 54.6% of participants. The COVID-19 pandemic was considered by 80.3% of respondents as a very important or important factor in raising HCWs awareness of the IPC programs in their hospital. Based on the survey results, the authors developed 15 statements for several questions regarding the prevention and management of infections in surgery. The statements may be the starting point for designing future evidence-based recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Adequacy of prevention and management of infections in acute care facilities depends on HCWs behaviours and on the organizational characteristics of acute health care facilities to support best practices and promote behavioural change. Patient involvement in the implementation of IPC is still little considered. A debate on how operationalising a fundamental change to IPC, from being solely the HCWs responsibility to one that involves a collaborative relationship between HCWs and patients, should be opened.