Background: Short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), the main microbial fermentation products in the colon, have immunometabolic and anti-neoplastic properties. Alterations in fecal SCFA profiles have been proposed as potential non-invasive biomarkers for colorectal cancer (CRC), but previous findings remain inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether fecal acetate, propionate, and butyrate concentrations differ between patients with CRC and healthy individuals. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library was conducted on 18 September 2025. Eligible studies were observational, included adults with histologically confirmed CRC and healthy controls, and reported fecal concentrations of at least one SCFA quantified using validated analytical methods. Two independent reviewers performed study screening, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment. Random-effects models were applied to calculate pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis, and four (141 CRC cases, 98 controls) were eligible for meta-analysis. Compared with healthy controls, patients with CRC had significantly lower fecal acetate (pooled SMD −0.37; 95% CI −0.63 to −0.10; p = 0.006; I² = 0%) and butyrate (pooled SMD −0.59; 95% CI −1.10 to −0.07; p = 0.026; I² = 64.4%), whereas propionate did not differ significantly (pooled SMD −0.02; 95% CI −0.85 to 0.82; p = 0.971; I² = 89%). Conclusions: CRC is associated with reduced fecal butyrate and, to a lesser extent, acetate, suggesting impaired microbial fermentation. Propionate shows no consistent difference. SCFA profiling currently lacks sufficient standardization and validation for clinical application. Future harmonized, longitudinal studies integrating diet, microbiome, and metabolomic data are warranted to confirm SCFAs as reproducible biomarkers of CRC.

Introduction: High-output stoma (HOS) is a frequent and morbid complication following ileostomy formation. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may reduce intestinal secretions, but no randomized trial has yet tested whether intensified intravenous omeprazole treatment prevents or mitigates early postoperative HOS. We aim to determine whether intensified PPI dosing reduces early postoperative ileostomy output compared with standard dosing. Methods and Analysis: STOP-HOS-1 is a randomized, parallel-group, open-label, superiority trial conducted at two academic centers in Poland. The target sample size is 100 adults undergoing the formation of a loop or end ileostomy. Participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive either: intensified omeprazole group—80 mg IV loading dose, followed by 40 mg IV twice daily through postoperative day (POD) 10, or standard omeprazole group—40 mg IV once daily through POD 10. The primary outcome is mean ileostomy output (mL/24 h) across POD 1–3. A ≥250 mL/day reduction is prespecified as clinically meaningful. Key secondary outcomes include: incidence of HOS (≥1000 mL/day for ≥3 consecutive days or ≥1400 mL on any single day), time to output stabilization (<1400 mL/day for 3 consecutive days), dehydration-related complications (hyponatremia, hypokalemia, acute kidney injury), length of hospital stay and 30-day readmission rate. The primary analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. One interim safety analysis is planned after enrollment of the first 20 patients. Discussion: Although PPIs are commonly used to reduce ileostomy output, high-quality evidence in the early postoperative setting is lacking. STOP-HOS-1 targets the critical period when output is most variable, and complications are most frequent, using a pragmatic randomized design and an objective, clinically meaningful primary endpoint. Conclusions: STOP-HOS-1 will provide the first randomized evidence on whether intensified postoperative PPI therapy reduces early ileostomy output and HOS-related morbidity, informing future standards of care.

Purpose Emergency abdominal surgery carries a high risk of postoperative morbidity, yet prospective multicentre data on real-world abdominal wall closure practices remain limited. This interim analysis of the PROPHECY study aimed primarily to characterise current abdominal wall management and variation in practice across centres, and secondarily to describe early postoperative outcomes. Methods This prespecified interim analysis included adult patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery in a prospective multicentre cohort across Poland (June–December 2025). Patients were grouped by operative access (laparotomy, laparoscopy, conversion). Closure practices and early outcomes, including surgical-site infection (SSI), fascial dehiscence, major postoperative morbidity (Clavien–Dindo ≥ III), in-hospital mortality, and length of stay, were assessed. Multivariable mixed-effects models with a random intercept for centre were used where applicable. Results Of 850 screened patients, 828 from 24 centres were included; 273 (33.0%) underwent laparotomy, 500 (60.4%) laparoscopy, and 55 (6.6%) conversion. Substantial variation between centres was observed in abdominal wall management, particularly in the use of short-stitch closure, subcutaneous drainage, and prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy, whereas fascial closure of larger camera ports was nearly universal. Prophylactic mesh reinforcement was uncommon. SSI occurred in 9.3%, fascial dehiscence in 2.4%, major morbidity in 11.2%, and in-hospital mortality in 3.0%. Differences in early outcomes between operative approaches persisted in adjusted analyses but should be interpreted in the context of substantial differences in case-mix and potential residual confounding. Conclusion Emergency abdominal surgery is characterised by substantial variation in abdominal wall management across centres despite existing recommendations. This prospective real-world benchmark identifies areas of inconsistent practice and provides the clinical context for the planned 12-month assessment of incisional, port-site, and parastomal hernia outcomes in the PROPHECY cohort.

Complicated or unusual cases appear in clinical practice. It’s important to know how to react when we face clinical difficulty. The more unusual the case, the longer or more demanding the decision-making process is. In this case we present a patient with a gigantic ovarian tumor whose diagnosis was overturned, and the choice of the surgical procedure changed, which makes this case a very educative example of why we should consult our patients, whenever we may encounter doubts or difficulties in a therapeutic process. Complicated or unusual cases appear in clinical practice. It’s important to know how to react when we face clinical difficulty. The more unusual the case, the longer or more demanding the decision-making process is. In this case we present a patient with a gigantic ovarian tumor whose diagnosis was overturned, and the choice of the surgical procedure changed, which makes this case a very educative example of why we should consult our patients, whenever we may encounter doubts or difficulties in a therapeutic process.