Introduction: Preservation of kidney and renal function is the goal of nonoperative management (NOM) of renal trauma (RT). The advantages of NOM for minor blunt RT have already been clearly described, but its value for major blunt and penetrating RT is still under debate. We present a systematic review and meta-analysis on NOM for RT, which was compared with the operative management (OM) with respect to mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement was followed for this study. A systematic search was performed on Embase, Medline, Cochrane, and PubMed for studies published up to December 2015, without language restrictions, which compared NOM versus OM for renal injuries. Results: Twenty nonrandomized retrospective cohort studies comprising 13,824 patients with blunt (2,998) or penetrating (10,826) RT were identified. When all RT were considered (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grades 1–5), NOM was associated with lower mortality and morbidity rates compared to OM (8.3% vs 17.1%, odds ratio [OR] 0.471; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.404–0.548; P<0.001 and 2% vs 53.3%, OR 0.0484; 95% CI 0.0279–0.0839, P<0.001). Likewise, NOM represented the gold standard treatment resulting in a lower mortality rate compared to OM even when only high-grade RT was considered (9.1% vs 17.9%, OR 0.332; 95% CI 0.155–0.708; P=0.004), be they blunt (4.1% vs 8.1%, OR 0.275; 95% CI 0.0957–0.788; P=0.016) or penetrating (9.1% vs 18.1%, OR 0.468; 95% CI 0.398–0.0552; P<0.001). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that NOM for RT is the treatment of choice not only for AAST grades 1 and 2, but also for higher grade blunt and penetrating RT.

Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide. A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study—a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital. Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·85 [95% CI 2·58–5·75]; p<0·0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63·0% vs 82·7%; OR 0·35 [0·23–0·53]; p<0·0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised. National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Background: This systematic review aims to investigate whether percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder biliary drainage (PTGBD) is superior to emergency cholecystectomy (EC) as a definitive treatment in high-risk patients with acute cholecystitis (AC). Material and Methods: A systematic literature search was performed until December 2022 using the Scopus, Medline/PubMed and Web of Science databases. Results: Seventeen studies have been included with a total of 783,672 patients (32,634 treated with PTGBD vs. 4663 who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 343 who had open cholecystectomy and 746,032 who had some form of cholecystectomy, but without laparoscopic or open approach being specified). An analysis of the results shows that PTGBD, despite being less invasive, is not associated with lower morbidity with respect to EC (RR 0.77 95% CI [0.44 to 1.34]; I² = 99%; p = 0.36). A lower postoperative mortality was reported in patients who underwent EC (2.37%) with respect to the PTGBD group (13.78%) (RR 4.21; 95% CI [2.69 to 6.58]; p < 0.00001); furthermore, the risk of hospital readmission for biliary complications (RR 2.19 95% CI [1.72 to 2.79]; I² = 48%; p < 0.00001) and hospital stay (MD 4.29 95% CI [2.40 to 6.19]; p < 0.00001) were lower in the EC group. Conclusions: In our systematic review, the majority of studies have very low-quality evidence and more RCTs are needed; furthermore, PTGBD is inferior in the treatment of AC in high-risk patients. The definition of high-risk patients is important in interpreting the results, but the methods of assessment and definitions differ between studies. The results of our systematic review and meta-analysis failed to demonstrate any advantage of using PTGBD over ER as a definitive treatment of AC in critically ill patients, which suggests that EC should be considered as the treatment of choice even in very high-risk patients. Most likely, the inferiority of PTGBD versus early LC for high-risk patients is related to an association of various patient-side factor conditions and the severity of acute cholecystitis.

Introduction: Hollow viscus injuries (HVIs) are uncommon but potentially catastrophic condi­tions with high mortality and morbidity rates. The aim of this study was to analyze our 16-year experience with patients undergoing surgery for blunt or penetrating bowel trauma to identify prognostic factors with particular attention to the influence of diagnostic delay on outcome. Methods: From our multicenter trauma registry, we selected 169 consecutive patients with an HVI, enrolled from 2000 to 2016. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were analyzed to assess determinants of mortality, morbidity, and length of stay by univariate and multivariate analysis models. Results: Overall mortality and morbidity rates were 15.9% and 36.1%, respectively. The mean length of hospital stay was 23±7 days. Morbidity was independently related to an increase of white blood cells (P=0.01), and to delay of treatment >6 hours (P=0.033), while Injury Severity Score (ISS) (P=0.01), presence of shock (P=0.01), and a low diastolic arterial pressure registered at emergency room admission (P=0.02) significantly affected postoperative mortality.
Conclusion: There is evidence that patients with clinical signs of shock, low diastolic pressure at admission, and high ISS are at increased risk of postoperative mortality. Leukocytosis and delayed treatment (>6 hours) were independent predictors of postoperative morbidity. More effort should be made to increase the preoperative detection rate of HVI and reduce the delay of treatment.

We read with great interest the paper by Daylami and colleagues ¹ Daylami R. Amiri A. Goldsmith B. et al. Inferior vena cava leiomiosarcoma: is reconstruction necessary after resection?. J Am Coll Surg. 2010; 210 : 185-190 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (69) Google Scholar reporting their experience on inferior vena cava (IVC) leiomyosarcoma treatment.

Background: This systematic umbrella review aims to investigate and provide an analysis of guidelines regarding the treatment of diverticular abscesses. Material and methods: A systematic literature search was performed using the Cochrane Overviews of Reviews model and the ‘Clinical Practice Guidelines’; at the end of initial search, only 12 guidelines were included in this analysis. The quality of the guidelines was assessed by adopting the “Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II” (AGREE II). The comparative analysis of these guidelines has highlighted the presence of some differences regarding the recommendations on the treatment of diverticular abscesses. In particular, there are some controversies about the diameter of abscess to be used in order to decide between medical treatment and percutaneous drainage. Different guidelines propose different abscess diameter cutoffs, such as 3 cm, 4–5 cm, or 4 cm, for distinguishing between small and large abscesses. Conclusions: Currently, different scientific societies recommend that diverticular abscesses with diameters larger than 3 cm should be considered for percutaneous drainage whereas abscesses with diameters smaller than 3 cm could be appropriately treated by medical therapy with antibiotics; only a few guidelines suggest the use of percutaneous drainage for abscesses with a diameter greater than 4 cm. The differences among guidelines are the consequence of the different selection of scientific evidence. In conclusion, our evaluation has revealed the importance of seeking new scientific evidence with higher quality to either confirm, reinforce or potentially weaken the existing recommendations from different societies.