During the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of Acute Care Surgery procedures performed in Spanish hospitals decreased significantly. The aim of this study was to compare Acute Care Surgery activity during the COVID-19 pandemic and during a control period. a multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed including patients who underwent Acute Care Surgery in three tertiary care hospitals in Spain during a control (11th March 2019 to 21st April 2019) and a pandemic (16th March 2020 to 26th April 2020) period. Type of surgical procedures, patients' features and postoperative complications were compared. two hundred and eighty-five and 117 patients were included in each group. Mean number of patients who underwent Acute Care Surgery during the control and pandemic periods was 2.3 and 0.9 patients per day and hospital (p < 0.001), representing a 58.9% decrease in Acute Care Surgery activity. Time from symptoms onset to patient arrival at the Emergency Department was longer during the pandemic (44.6 vs. 71.0 h, p < 0.001). Surgeries due to acute cholecystitis and complications from previous elective procedures decreased (26.7% vs. 9.4%) during the pandemic, while bowel obstructions and abdominal wall hernia surgeries increased (12.3% vs. 22.2%) (p = 0.001). Morbidity was higher during pandemic period (34.7% vs. 47.1%, p = 0.022), although this difference was not statistically significant in the multivariate analysis. Reoperation rate (17.9% vs. 12.8%, p = 0.212) and mortality (6.7% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.358) were similar in both groups. during the COVID-19 pandemic, a significant reduction in the performance of Acute Care Surgery procedures was observed. Moreso, a longer time from symptoms onset to patient arrival at the Emergency Department was noted. Higher morbidity was observed in patients undergoing Acute Care Surgery during the pandemic period, although there was not any difference in mortality or reoperation rate.

Click on the article title to read more.

Background: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery [ERAS] is widely adopted in patients undergoing colorectal surgery, with demonstrated benefits. Few studies have assessed the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of ERAS in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases [IBD]. The aim of this study was to investigate the current adoption and outcomes of ERAS in IBD. Methods: This PRISMA-compliant systematic review of the literature included all articles reporting on adult patients with IBD who underwent colorectal surgery within an ERAS pathway. PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched. Endpoints included ERAS adoption, perioperative outcomes, and ERAS items more consistently reported, with associated evidence levels [EL] [PROSPERO CRD42021238653]. Results: Out of 217 studies, 16 totalling 2347 patients were included. The median number of patients treated was 50.5. Malnutrition and anaemia optimisation were only included as ERAS items in six and four articles, respectively. Most of the studies included the following items: drinking clear fluids until 2 h before the surgery, fluid restriction, nausea prophylaxis, early feeding, and early mobilisation. Only two studies included postoperative stoma-team and IBD-team evaluation before discharge. Highest EL were observed for ileocaecal Crohn’s disease resection [EL2]. Median in-hospital stay was 5.2 [2.9–10.7] days. Surgical site infections and anastomotic leaks ranged between 3.1–23.5% and 0–3.4%, respectively. Complications occurred in 5.7-48%, and mortality did not exceed 1%. Conclusions: Evidence on ERAS in IBD is lacking, but this group of patients might benefit from consistent adoption of the pathway. Future studies should define if IBD-specific ERAS pathways and selection criteria are needed.

PURPOSE: Organ preservation has become an attractive alternative to surgery (total mesorectal excision [TME]) among patients with rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy who achieve a clinical complete response (cCR). Nearly 30% of these patients will develop local regrowth (LR). Although salvage resection is frequently feasible, there may be an increased risk for development of subsequent distant metastases (DM). The aim of this study is to compare the risk of DM between patients with LR after Watch and Wait (WW) and patients with near-complete pathologic response (nPCR) managed by TME at the time of reassessment of response. METHODS: Data from patients enrolled in the International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD) with cCR managed by WW and subsequent LR were compared with patients managed by TME (with ≤10% cancer cells—nPCR) from the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project (VIKINGO project). The primary end point was DM-free survival at 3 years from decision to WW or TME. The secondary end point was possible risk factors associated with DM. RESULTS: Five hundred and eight patients with LR were compared with 893 patients with near-complete response after TME. Overall, DM rate was significantly higher among LRs (22.8% v 10.2%; P ≤ .001). Independent risk factors for DM included LR ( v TME at reassessment; P = .001), ypT3-4 status ( P = .016), and ypN+ status ( P = .001) at the time of surgery. 3-year DM-free survival was significantly worse for patients with LR (75% v 87%; P = .001). When stratified for pathologic stage, patients with LR did significantly worse through all stages ( P ≤ .009). CONCLUSION: Patients with LR appear to have a higher risk for subsequent DM development than patients with nPCR managed by TME at restaging irrespective of final pathology. Leaving the primary undetectable tumor in situ until development of LR may result in worse oncologic outcomes.