搜索结果：World journal of emergency surgery : WJES

World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), in conjunction with Surgical Infection Society Europe (SIS-E), World Surgical Infection Society (WSIS), American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), and Global Alliance for Infection in Surgery (GAIS) developed guideline about the management of acute abdomen in immunocompromised patients, which was published in the World Journal of Emergency Surgery (WJES) on August 9, 2021. The guidelines elaborate on the definition, classification, diagnosis and treatment of immunocompromised patients. In addition, based on evidence-based medicine, it provides guidance and suggestion on the management of specific acute abdominal infections in immunocompromised patients, common acute abdominal infections in transplanted patients, patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), as well as perioperative steroid management. An interpretation of the guideline was performed to accomplish a better understanding the current status and recommendations for the management of acute abdominal conditions in immunocompromised patients, and to make forward suggestions on its limitations.

BACKGROUND: The diffusion of minimally invasive surgery in emergency surgery still represents a developing challenge. Evidence about the use of minimally invasive surgery shows its feasibility and safety; however, the diffusion of these techniques is still poor. The aims of the present survey were to explore the diffusion and variations in the use of minimally invasive surgery among surgeons in the emergency setting. METHODS: This is a web-based survey administered to all the WSES members investigating the diffusion of minimally invasive surgery in emergency. The survey investigated personal characteristics of participants, hospital characteristics, personal confidence in the use of minimally invasive surgery in emergency, limitations in the use of it and limitations to prosecute minimally invasive surgery in emergency surgery. Characteristics related to the use of minimally invasive surgery were studied with a multivariate ordinal regression. RESULTS: The survey collected a total of 415 answers; 42.2% of participants declared a working experience > 15 years and 69.4% of responders worked in tertiary level center or academic hospital. In primary emergencies, only 28,7% of participants declared the use of laparoscopy in more than 50% of times. Personal confidence with minimally invasive techniques was the highest for appendectomy and cholecystectomy. At multivariate ordinal regression, a longer professional experience, the use of laparoscopy in major elective surgery and bariatric surgery expertise were related to a higher use of laparoscopy in emergency surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The survey shows that minimally invasive techniques in emergency surgery are still underutilized. Greater focus should be placed on the development of dedicated training in laparoscopy among emergency surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy is widely adopted across nearly all surgical subspecialties in the elective setting. Initially finding indication in minor abdominal emergencies, it has gradually become the standard approach in the majority of elective general surgery procedures. Despite many technological advances and increasing acceptance, the laparoscopic approach remains underutilized in emergency general surgery and in abdominal trauma. Emergency laparotomy continues to carry a high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been a growing interest from emergency and trauma surgeons in adopting minimally invasive surgery approaches in the acute surgical setting. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a review of the literature to reach a consensus on the indications and benefits of a laparoscopic-first approach in patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies or abdominal trauma. METHODS: This position paper was developed according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee performed the literature review and drafted the position paper. An international panel of 54 experts then critically revised the manuscript and discussed it in detail, to develop a consensus on a position statement. RESULTS: A total of 323 studies (systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized clinical trial, retrospective comparative cohort studies, case series) have been selected from an initial pool of 7409 studies. Evidence demonstrates several benefits of the laparoscopic approach in stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgical emergencies or abdominal trauma. The selection of a stable patient seems to be of paramount importance for a safe adoption of a laparoscopic approach. In hemodynamically stable patients, the laparoscopic approach was found to be safe, feasible and effective as a therapeutic tool or helpful to identify further management steps and needs, resulting in improved outcomes, regardless of conversion. Appropriate patient selection, surgeon experience and rigorous minimally invasive surgical training, remain crucial factors to increase the adoption of laparoscopy in emergency general surgery and abdominal trauma. CONCLUSIONS: The WSES expert panel suggests laparoscopy as the first approach for stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.

Optimal management of emergency surgical patients represents one of the major health challenges worldwide. Emergency general surgery (EGS) was identified as multidisciplinary surgery performed for traumatic and non-traumatic acute conditions during the same admission in the hospital. EGS represents the easiest viable way to provide affordable and high-quality level of care to emergency surgical and trauma patients. It may result from the association of different physicians with other specialties in a cooperative model. The World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) has been working on the EGS organization and implementation since its foundation believing in the need of common benchmarks for training and educational programs throughout the world. This is a plea in different languages to all World Prime Ministers and Presidents to support the creation in all nations of an organized hub-spoke system for emergency general surgery to improve standards of care and to save lives.

BACKGROUND: The quality of Big Data analysis in medicine and surgery heavily depends on the methods used for clinical data collection, organization, and storage. The Knowledge Graph (KG) represents knowledge through a semantic model, enhancing connections between diverse and complex information. While it can improve the quality of health data collection, it has limitations that can be addressed by the Decentralized (blockchain-powered) Knowledge Graph (DKG). We report our experience in developing a DKG to organize data and knowledge in the field of emergency surgery. METHODS AND RESULTS: The authors leveraged the cyb.ai protocol, a decentralized protocol within the Cosmos network, to develop the Emergency Surgery DKG. They populated the DKG with relevant information using publications from the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) featured in the World Journal of Emergency Surgery (WJES). The result was the Decentralized Knowledge Graph (DKG) for the WSES-WJES bibliography. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing a DKG enables more effective structuring and organization of medical knowledge. This facilitates a deeper understanding of the interrelationships between various aspects of medicine and surgery, ultimately enhancing the diagnosis and treatment of different diseases. The system's design aims to be inclusive and user-friendly, providing access to high-quality surgical knowledge for healthcare providers worldwide, regardless of their technological capabilities or geographical location. As the DKG evolves, ongoing attention to user feedback, regulatory frameworks, and ethical considerations will be critical to its long-term success and global impact in the surgical field.

INTRODUCTION: Open access (OA) medical publishing is growing rapidly. While subscription-based publishing does not charge the author, OA does. This opens the door for "predatory" publishers who take authors' money but provide no substantial peer review or indexing to truly disseminate research findings. Discriminating between predatory and legitimate OA publishers is difficult. METHODS: We searched a number of library indexing databases that were available to us through the University of California, Irvine Libraries for journals in the field of emergency medicine (EM). Using criteria from Jeffrey Beall, University of Colorado librarian and an expert on predatory publishing, and the Research Committee of the International Federation for EM, we categorized EM journals as legitimate or likely predatory. RESULTS: We identified 150 journal titles related to EM from all sources, 55 of which met our criteria for OA (37%, the rest subscription based). Of these 55, 25 (45%) were likely to be predatory. We present lists of clearly legitimate OA journals, and, conversely, likely predatory ones. We present criteria a researcher can use to discriminate between the two. We present the indexing profiles of legitimate EM OA journals, to inform the researcher about degree of dissemination of research findings by journal. CONCLUSION: OA journals are proliferating rapidly. About half in EM are legitimate. The rest take substantial money from unsuspecting, usually junior, researchers and provide no value for true dissemination of findings. Researchers should be educated and aware of scam journals.

Background: Antibiotic resistance (AMR) is a growing public health problem worldwide, in part related to inadequate antibiotic use. A better knowledge of physicians' motivations, attitudes and practice about AMR and prescribing should enable the design and implementation of effective antibiotic stewardship programs (ASPs). The objective of the study was to assess attitudes and perceptions concerning AMR and use of antibiotics among surgeons who regularly perform emergency or trauma surgery. Methods: A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted contacting 4904 individuals belonging to a mailing list provided by the World Society of Emergency Surgery. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. The survey was open for 5 weeks (from May 3, 2017, to June 6, 2017), within which two reminders were sent. The self-administered questionnaire was developed by a multidisciplinary team; reliability and validity were assessed. Results: The overall response rate was 12.5%. Almost all participants considered AMR an important worldwide problem, but 45.6% of them underrated the problem in their own hospitals. Surgeons provided with periodic reports on local AMR demonstrated a lower underrating in their hospital. Only 66.3% of the surgeons stated to receive periodic reports on local AMR data, and among them, 56.2% had consulted them to select an antibiotic in the previous month. Availability of systematic reports about AMR, availability of guidelines for therapy of infections, and advice from an infectious diseases specialist were considered very helpful measures to improve antibiotic prescribing by 68.0, 65.7, and 64.9%, respectively. Persuasive and restrictive ASPs were both considered helpful measures by 64.5%. Moreover, 86.3% considered locally developed guidelines more useful than national ones. Only 21.9% received formal training in antibiotic prescribing in the previous year; among them, 86.6% declared to be interested in receiving more training. Conclusions: Availability of periodic reports on local AMR data was considered an important tool to guide surgeons in choosing the correct antibiotic and to increase awareness of the problem of AMR. Local guidelines for therapy of infections should be implemented in every emergency surgery setting, and developed by a multidisciplinary team directly involving surgeons, infectious diseases specialists, and microbiologists, and formally established in an ASP.

Background: This study aims to compare outcomes of robotic cholecystectomy (RC) versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in the setting of a level 1 trauma center. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of our hospital data (2021-2024) on patients who underwent LC or RC. Using a previously validated intraoperative grading system, four grades of cholecystitis were defined as mild (A), moderate (B), severe (C), and extreme (D). Outcomes were operative times and rates of conversion to open surgery. Results: In total, 260 patients (n=130 RC and n=130 LC) were included. Patients were primarily female (69.2%), with mean age of 47±18.3 years. The majority of cases had grade B cholecystitis (41.2%). Patients undergoing RC had lower operative times compared with LC in grade B (101.87±17.54 vs 114.96±29.44 min, p=0.003) and grade C (134.68±26.97 vs 152.06±31.3 min, p=0.038). Conversion rate to open cholecystectomy were similar in both groups (p=0.19). Conclusion: RC had similar results as LC in terms of operative time and in fact has significantly lower operative time in patients with grade B and grade C cholecystitis. Level of evidence: Level III-retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: During the last decade, the management of blunt hepatic injury has considerably changed. Three options are available as follows: nonoperative management (NOM), transarterial embolization (TAE), and surgery. We aimed to evaluate in a systematic review the current practice and outcomes in the management of Grade III to V blunt hepatic injury. METHOD: The MEDLINE database was searched using PubMed to identify English-language citations published after 2000 using the key words blunt, hepatic injury, severe, and grade III to V in different combinations. Liver injury was graded according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma classification on computed tomography (CT). Primary outcome analyzed was success rate in intention to treat. Critical appraisal of the literature was performed using the validated National Institute for Health and Care Excellence "Quality Assessment for Case Series" system. RESULTS: Twelve articles were selected for critical appraisal (n = 4,946 patients). The median quality score of articles was 4 of 8 (range, 2-6). Overall, the median Injury Severity Score (ISS) at admission was 26 (range, 0.6-75). A median of 66% (range, 0-100%) of patients was managed with NOM, with a success rate of 94% (range, 86-100%). TAE was used in only 3% of cases (range, 0-72%) owing to contrast extravasation on CT with a success rate of 93% (range, 81-100%); however, 9% to 30% of patients required a laparotomy. Thirty-one percent (range, 17-100%) of patients were managed with surgery owing to hemodynamic instability in most cases, with 12% to 28% requiring secondary TAE to control recurrent hepatic bleeding. Mortality was 5% (range, 0-8%) after NOM and 51% (range, 30-68%) after surgery. CONCLUSION: NOM of Grade III to V blunt hepatic injury is the first treatment option to manage hemodynamically stable patients. TAE and surgery are considered in a highly selective group of patients with contrast extravasation on CT or shock at admission, respectively. Additional standardization of the reports is necessary to allow accurate comparisons of the various management strategies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, level IV.

Second WSES convention, WJES impact factor, and emergency surgery worldwide

Background:Acute peritonitis remains an important cause of morbidity and mortality in emergency surgery. The contributory causes are delay in seeking the surgical advice, infection, toxemia, old age, associated illnesses and post-operative complications. The objective of this study was to evaluate the mortality and morbidity in cases of acute peritonitis and to evaluate the factors affecting the outcome of peritonitis.Methods: This is a prospective, non-randomized study of 120 cases which were treated as surgical emergencies for acute peritonitis during July 2009 to July 2011 at S. V. S. Hospital, Mahabubnagar. Thorough clinical examination was done. Clinical symptoms and signs namely pain abdomen, distension, vomiting, tenderness, guarding, rigidity, absent bowel sounds; obliteration of liver dullness formed the criteria for suspicion of peritonitis. Plain x- ray abdomen and ultra sound abdomen were done to confirm the diagnosis.Results:A total of 120 patients were studied out of which 28 died giving a mortality rate of 23.33%. Patient’s age ranged from 10-82 years with a mean age of 39.57 years. Maximum deaths were seen in the age group of 50-64 years. Among the studied cases majority were males i.e. 100 males compared to only 20 females. But the death rates were found to be almost similar among both the sexes. i.e. 24% in males compared to almost similar i.e. 20% in females. From the above table, it is seen that survival was 100% if the exudates was clear. As the exudates consistency deteriorated, the survival rate decreased and the mortality rate increased. Most common cause of peritonitis in the study was DU perforation 40%. Mortality rate was found to be very high in case of peritonitis caused by gangrenous bowel (46.15%) followed by trauma in 37.5% of cases.Conclusions:A total of 120 cases were studied. Mortality was 23.33% and morbidity was 51%. Out of the variables studied Age >50 years was significant. Pre-op duration of >24 hours was significant. Nature of peritoneal fluid was also significant. Female sex was not found to be significant. Early diagnosis and intervention is the best way to prevent mortality and morbidity in peritonitis.

It was considered expedient to study the effectiveness of intraoperative prevention of adhesion formation in children based on the results of our own experimental and clinical studies on the effectiveness of using an anti-adhesive gel based on cross-linked sodium hyaluronate. Purpose - to evaluate clinical efficacy and safety of cross-linked sodium hyaluronate gel (SHG) usage as a barrier agent for primary prevention of postoperative peritoneal adhesions formation in children. Materials and methods. This is a prospective, randomized, controlled, patient blinded observational study, which includes 62 children. All patients underwent laparotomy for appendicular peritonitis and were randomly divided into two equal groups. Patients from group A (n=31) received conventional surgical treatment, SHG was additionally applied in group B (n=31) before abdominal closure. Immediate and long-term effects of SHG usage were investigated to evaluate the influence on adhesions reformation. The average period of postoperative observation was 14.0±2.4 months. Results. SHG application was associated with no increase in complications rate: duration of postoperative ileus, need in nasogastric decompression, intensive care unit state, hospital state, the incidence of surgical site infection, and need for relaparotomy did not differ significantly between compared groups. The prevalence of peritoneal adhesions at the end of in-hospital treatment differs significantly between groups according to the ultrasound data (χ2=10.930; p=0.005). The incidence of small bowel obstruction (SBO) developed during the follow-up period in group A (16.1%) was significantly higher than in group B (3.23%) where the anti-adhesive gel was applied (χ2=4.026; p=0.045). Conclusions. Intraoperative use of SHG based on sodium hyaluronate allows reduction of postoperative adhesions formation in children without worsening the postoperative course. The research was carried out in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki declaration. The study protocol was approved by the Local ethics committee of all participating institutions. The informed consent of the patient was obtained for conducting the studies. No conflict of interests was declared by the authors. Key words: sodium hyaluronate, adhesions, small bowel obstruction.

Emergency surgeons have a crucial role in bridging the gap of skills resulting from the well-known general surgery fragmentation. The multi-specialist general surgery approach is still necessary to define proper diagnosis and therapy priorities in an emergency. Governments have to find effective organizational solutions to maintain emergency general surgery standards of care and to improve them further.

INTRODUCTION: Acute appendicitis is the most common abdominal emergency requiring emergency surgery. However, the diagnosis is often challenging and the decision to operate, observe or further work-up a patient is often unclear. The utility of clinical scoring systems (namely the Alvarado score), laboratory markers, and the development of novel markers in the diagnosis of appendicitis remains controversial. This article presents an update on the diagnostic approach to appendicitis through an evidence-based review. METHODS: We performed a broad Medline search of radiological imaging, the Alvarado score, common laboratory markers, and novel markers in patients with suspected appendicitis. RESULTS: Computed tomography (CT) is the most accurate mode of imaging for suspected cases of appendicitis, but the associated increase in radiation exposure is problematic. The Alvarado score is a clinical scoring system that is used to predict the likelihood of appendicitis based on signs, symptoms and laboratory data. It can help risk stratify patients with suspected appendicitis and potentially decrease the use of CT imaging in patients with certain Alvarado scores. White blood cell (WBC), C-reactive protein (CRP), granulocyte count and proportion of polymorphonuclear (PMN) cells are frequently elevated in patients with appendicitis, but are insufficient on their own as a diagnostic modality. When multiple markers are used in combination their diagnostic utility is greatly increased. Several novel markers have been proposed to aid in the diagnosis of appendicitis; however, while promising, most are only in the preliminary stages of being studied. CONCLUSION: While CT is the most accurate mode of imaging in suspected appendicitis, the accompanying radiation is a concern. Ultrasound may help in the diagnosis while decreasing the need for CT in certain circumstances. The Alvarado Score has good diagnostic utility at specific cutoff points. Laboratory markers have very limited diagnostic utility on their own but show promise when used in combination. Further studies are warranted for laboratory markers in combination and to validate potential novel markers.

Case series (CS) and case reports (CR) consist either of collections of reports on the diagnosis and treatment of individual patients, or of a report on a single patient. Since its launch in March 2006, World Journal of Emergency Surgery (WJES) has received high numbers of CRs for publication: up until December 2006 they represented 39.2% of all articles submitted. Unfortunately the rejection rate of CRs in WJES, like many medical journals, is quite high, (85.2% of submitted CRs), and is significantly higher than other article types in the journal, where the rejection rate so far is 51.7%.

BACKGROUND: Gallstone disease is very common afflicting 20 million people in the USA. In Europe, the overall incidence of gallstone disease is 18.8% in women and 9.5% in men. The frequency of gallstones related disease increases by age. The elderly population is increasing worldwide. AIM: The present guidelines aims to report the results of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and Italian Surgical Society for Elderly (SICG) consensus conference on acute calcolous cholecystitis (ACC) focused on elderly population. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The 2016 WSES guidelines on ACC were used as baseline; six questions have been used to investigate the particularities in elderly population; the answers have been developed in terms of differences compared to the general population and to statements of the 2016 WSES Guidelines. The Consensus Conference discusses, voted, and modified the statements. International experts contributed in the elaboration of final statements and evaluation of the level of scientific evidences. RESULTS: The quality of the studies available decreases when we approach ACC in elderly. Same admission laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be suggested for elderly people with ACC; frailty scores as well as clinical and surgical risk scores could be adopted but no general consensus exist. The role of cholecystostomy is uncertain. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of pro and cons for surgery or for alternative treatments in elderly suffering of ACC is more complex than in young people; also, the oldest old age is not a contraindication for surgery; however, a larger use of frailty and surgical risk scores could contribute to reach the best clinical judgment by the surgeon. The present guidelines offer the opportunity to share with the scientific community a baseline for future researches and discussion.

International Conference of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) in Edinburgh, Scotland, on September 7-10, 2021. This review article represents the proceedings from the expert panel discussions at the WSES congress and was designed to provide an international perspective on optimizing teamwork and non-technical skills in emergency general surgery.

BACKGROUND: An advantage of robotic surgery over laparoscopy is the lower rate of unplanned conversion. One of the implicated reasons for conversion is adhesions from previous abdominal surgeries (PASs). METHODS: A comparative analysis of 98 patients with history of open PAS treated by laparoscopic or robotic surgery was performed. Primary endpoint was the rate of conversion to open surgery related to adhesiolysis. Secondary endpoints were short-term outcomes and complications. RESULTS: Conversion rate specifically related to adhesiolysis was significantly lower in robotic group (13 for laparoscopic group vs. 2 for robotic group; p = 0.046). Conversions occurred during adhesiolysis were significantly related to severity of adhesions expressed by peritoneal adhesion index (PAI) score (p < 0.001), number of abdominal areas involved by adhesions (p < 0.001) and severity of PAI into the target area of surgical intervention (p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Benefits of robotic surgery are more noticeable in performing procedures with increasing technical difficulties.

Although acute pancreatitis is one of the most common conditions that physicians face in daily practice, different approaches are still being followed. Given that in 20–30% of cases, acute pancreatitis progresses to the severe form with single- or multiorgan failure and is often associated with admission to the intensive care unit, proper management is important. This article is aimed at emphasizing the importance of proper conservative treatment of acute pancreatitis and at focusing on intervention criteria in case of complications, analyzing additionally the step-up endoscopic and surgical approaches. The most common mistakes in conservative treatment include inadequate initial fluid resuscitation, abuse in the administration of antibiotics, insufficient analgesia, avoidance of oral feeding, and inappropriate use of imaging techniques. Moreover, the timing and indications for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and cholecystectomy are crucial. Furthermore, in case of unsatisfying response to conservative treatment, which mainly happens during necrotic pancreatitis, early intervention is not indicated and a minimally invasive approach must be adopted firstly, 4 weeks after the onset of the disease, and before any surgical intervention. Each medical procedure has specific indications and must be used in the appropriate occasion. As a result, clinical doctors must be familiar both with the intervention criteria and the indications of each method. The proper management of acute pancreatitis is essential and life-saving. That is valid both for the conservative treatment and for the invasive approaches.