| 1. |
- Bass, Gary Alan, 1979-, et al.
(author)
-
European society for trauma and emergency surgery member-identified research priorities in emergency surgery : a roadmap for future clinical research opportunities
- 2024
-
In: European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery. - : Urban und Vogel Medien und Medizin Verlagsgesellsc. - 1863-9933 .- 1863-9941. ; 50:2, s. 367-382
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: European Society for Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ESTES) is the European community of clinicians providing care to the injured and critically ill surgical patient. ESTES has several interlinked missions - (1) the promotion of optimal emergency surgical care through networked advocacy, (2) promulgation of relevant clinical cognitive and technical skills, and (3) the advancement of scientific inquiry that closes knowledge gaps, iteratively improves upon surgical and perioperative practice, and guides decision-making rooted in scientific evidence. Faced with multitudinous opportunities for clinical research, ESTES undertook an exercise to determine member priorities for surgical research in the short-to-medium term; these research priorities were presented to a panel of experts to inform a 'road map' narrative review which anchored these research priorities in the contemporary surgical literature.METHODS: Individual ESTES members in active emergency surgery practice were polled as a representative sample of end-users and were asked to rank potential areas of future research according to their personal perceptions of priority. Using the modified eDelphi method, an invited panel of ESTES-associated experts in academic emergency surgery then crafted a narrative review highlighting potential research priorities for the Society.RESULTS: Seventy-two responding ESTES members from 23 countries provided feedback to guide the modified eDelphi expert consensus narrative review. Experts then crafted evidence-based mini-reviews highlighting knowledge gaps and areas of interest for future clinical research in emergency surgery: timing of surgery, inter-hospital transfer, diagnostic imaging in emergency surgery, the role of minimally-invasive surgical techniques and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols, patient-reported outcome measures, risk-stratification methods, disparities in access to care, geriatric outcomes, data registry and snapshot audit evaluations, emerging technologies interrogation, and the delivery and benchmarking of emergency surgical training.CONCLUSIONS: This manuscript presents the priorities for future clinical research in academic emergency surgery as determined by a sample of the membership of ESTES. While the precise basis for prioritization was not evident, it may be anchored in disease prevalence, controversy around aspects of current patient care, or indeed the identification of a knowledge gap. These expert-crafted evidence-based mini-reviews provide useful insights that may guide the direction of future academic emergency surgery research efforts.
|
|
| 2. |
- Bass, Gary Alan, 1979-, et al.
(author)
-
Techniques for mesoappendix transection and appendix resection: insights from the ESTES SnapAppy study
- 2023
-
In: European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1863-9933 .- 1615-3146 .- 1863-9941. ; 49, s. 17-32
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Introduction: Surgically managed appendicitis exhibits great heterogeneity in techniques for mesoappendix transection and appendix amputation from its base. It is unclear whether a particular surgical technique provides outcome benefit or reduces complications. Material and methods: We undertook a pre-specified subgroup analysis of all patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy at index admission during SnapAppy (ClinicalTrials.gov Registration: NCT04365491). We collected routine, anonymized observational data regarding surgical technique, patient demographics and indices of disease severity, without change to clinical care pathway or usual surgeon preference. Outcome measures of interest were the incidence of complications, unplanned reoperation, readmission, admission to the ICU, death, hospital length of stay, and procedure duration. We used Poisson regression models with robust standard errors to calculate incident rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Three-thousand seven hundred sixty-eight consecutive adult patients, included from 71 centers in 14 countries, were followed up from date of admission for 90days. The mesoappendix was divided hemostatically using electrocautery in 1564(69.4%) and an energy device in 688(30.5%). The appendix was amputated by division of its base between looped ligatures in 1379(37.0%), with a stapler in 1421(38.1%) and between clips in 929(24.9%). The technique for securely dividing the appendix at its base in acutely inflamed (AAST Grade 1) appendicitis was equally divided between division between looped ligatures, clips and stapled transection. However, the technique used differed in complicated appendicitis (AAST Grade 2 +) compared with uncomplicated (Grade 1), with a shift toward transection of the appendix base by stapler (58% vs. 38%; p < 0.001). While no statistical difference in outcomes could be detected between different techniques for division of appendix base, decreased risk of any [adjusted IRR (95% CI): 0.58 (0.41–0.82), p = 0.002] and severe [adjusted IRR (95% CI): 0.33 (0.11–0.96), p = 0.045] complications could be detected when using energy devices. Conclusions: Safe mesoappendix transection and appendix resection are accomplished using heterogeneous techniques. Technique selection for both mesoappendix transection and appendix resection correlates with AAST grade. Higher grade led to more ultrasonic tissue transection and stapled appendix resection. Higher AAST appendicitis grade also correlated with infection-related complication occurrence. Despite the overall well-tolerated heterogeneity of approaches to acute appendicitis, increasing disease acuity or complexity appears to encourage homogeneity of intraoperative surgical technique toward advanced adjuncts.
|
|
| 3. |
- Bass, Gary Alan, 1979-, et al.
(author)
-
Techniques for Mesoappendix Transection and Appendix Resection When Performing Acute Appendectomy : Insights from the SnapAppy Group Audit
- 2022
-
In: Journal of the American College of Surgeons. - : Elsevier. - 1072-7515 .- 1879-1190. ; 235:5 Suppl. 2, s. S24-S24
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Introduction: Surgically managed appendicitis exhibits great heterogeneity regarding mesoappendix transection, and appendix amputation from its base. It is unclear whether a particular surgical technique provides an outcome benefit or reduces complication.Methods: We undertook a pre-specified subgroup analysis of all patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy at index admission during the SnapAppy time-bound prospective multi-institutional non-randomized observational cohort study between November 1st 2020 - August 31st 2021 at 71 centers in 14 countries. Poisson regression models were employed for investigating the association between different surgical techniques for mesoappendix as well as stump management and postoperative complication while adjusting for potential confounding.Results: A total of 2,252 patients were included in the analyses of the technique used for dividing the mesoappendix, 69% by electrocautery and 31% by energy device. 3,729 patients were included for analyses of the management of the stump. The appendix was amputated using looped ligatures in 37%, staples in 38%, and clips in 25% of cases. After adjusting for confounders, the risk of postoperative complication was reduced by 42% when an energy device was used for handling the mesoappendix [adjusted incidence rate ratio (95% CI): 0.58 (0.41-0.82), p = 0.002]; however, no difference was detected between the techniques used for dividing the appendix at its base.Conclusion: Safe mesoappendix transection and appendix resection are accomplished using heterogeneous techniques. Energy devices are associated with a lower rate of overall complication while no differences were observed when comparing the techniques used for dividing the appendix base.
|
|
| 4. |
- Diaconescu, Bogdan, et al.
(author)
-
The Bucharest ESTES consensus statement on peritonitis
- 2020
-
In: European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery. - : SPRINGER HEIDELBERG. - 1863-9933 .- 1863-9941. ; 46, s. 1005-1023
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Introduction Peritonitis is still an important health problem associated with high morbidity and mortality. A multidisciplinary approach to the management of patients with peritonitis may be an important factor to reduce the risks for patients and improve efficiency, outcome, and the cost of care. Methods Expert panel discussion on Peritonitis was held in Bucharest on May 2017, during the 17th ECTES Congress, involving surgeons, infectious disease specialists, radiologists and intensivists with the goal of defining recommendations for the optimal management of peritonitis. Conclusion This document is an updated presentation of management of peritonitis and represents the summary of the final recommendations approved by a panel of experts.
|
|
| 5. |
- Forssten, Maximilian Peter, 1996-, et al.
(author)
-
Surgical management of acute appendicitis during the European COVID-19 second wave: safe and effective
- 2023
-
In: European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1863-9933 .- 1615-3146 .- 1863-9941. ; 49, s. 57-67
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Introduction: The COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic drove acute care surgeons to pivot from long established practice patterns. Early safety concerns regarding increased postoperative complication risk in those with active COVID infection promoted antibiotic-driven non-operative therapy for select conditions ahead of an evidence-base. Our study assesses whether active or recent SARS-CoV-2 positivity increases hospital length of stay (LOS) or postoperative complications following appendectomy. Methods: Data were derived from the prospective multi-institutional observational SnapAppy cohort study. This preplanned data analysis assessed consecutive patients aged ≥ 15years who underwent appendectomy for appendicitis (November 2020–May 2021). Patients were categorized based on SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity: no infection, active infection, and prior infection. Appendectomy method, LOS, and complications were abstracted. The association between SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity and complications was determined using Poisson regression, while the association with LOS was calculated using a quantile regression model. Results: Appendectomy for acute appendicitis was performed in 4047 patients during the second and third European COVID waves. The majority were SARS-CoV-2 uninfected (3861, 95.4%), while 70 (1.7%) were acutely SARS-CoV-2 positive, and 116 (2.8%) reported prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. After confounder adjustment, there was no statistically significant association between SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity and LOS, any complication, or severe complications. Conclusion: During sequential SARS-CoV-2 infection waves, neither active nor prior SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with prolonged hospital LOS or postoperative complication. Despite early concerns regarding postoperative safety and outcome during active SARS-CoV-2 infection, no such association was noted for those with appendicitis who underwent operative management.
|
|
| 6. |
- Mohseni, Shahin, 1978-, et al.
(author)
-
Common bile duct stones management : A network meta-analysis
- 2022
-
In: Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 2163-0755 .- 2163-0763. ; 93:5, s. E155-E165
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Timely management is critical for treating symptomatic common bile duct (CBD) stones; however, a single optimal management strategy has yet to be defined in the acute care setting. Consequently, this systematic review and network meta-analysis, comparing one-stage (CBD exploration or intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography [ERCP] with simultaneous cholecystectomy) and two-stage (precholecystectomy or postcholecystectomy ERCP) procedures, was undertaken with the main outcomes of interest being postprocedural complications and hospital length of stay (LOS).METHODS: PubMed, SCOPUS, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were methodically queried for articles from 2010 to 2021. The search terms were a combination of medical subject headings terms and the subsequent terms: gallstone; common bile duct (stone); choledocholithiasis; cholecystitis; endoscopic retrograde cholangiography/ERCP; common bile duct exploration; intraoperative, preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography: stone extraction; and one-stage and two-stage procedure. Studies that compared two procedures or more were included, whereas studies not recording complications (bile leak, hemorrhage, pancreatitis, perforation, intra-abdominal infections, and other infections) or LOS were excluded. A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the four different approaches for managing CBD stones.RESULTS: A total of 16 studies (8,644 participants) addressing the LOS and 41 studies (19,756 participants) addressing postprocedural complications were included in the analysis. The one-stage approaches were associated with a decrease in LOS compared with the two-stage approaches. Common bile duct exploration demonstrated a lower overall risk of complications compared with preoperative ERCP, but there were no differences in the overall risk orcomplications in the remaining comparisons. However, differences in specific postprocedural complications were detected between the four different approaches managing CBD stones.CONCLUSION: This network meta-analysis suggests that both laparoscopic CBD exploration and intraoperative ERCP have equally good outcomes and provide a preferable single-anesthesia patient pathway with a shorter overall length of hospital stay compared with the two-stage approaches.
|
|
