Intra-abdominal infections (IAI) are among the most common global healthcare challenges and they are usually precipitated by disruption to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Their successful management typically requires intensive resource utilization, and despite the best therapies, morbidity and mortality remain high. One of the main issues required to appropriately treat IAI that differs from the other etiologies of sepsis is the frequent requirement to provide physical source control. Fortunately, dramatic advances have been made in this aspect of treatment. Historically, source control was left to surgeons only. With new technologies non-surgical less invasive interventional procedures have been introduced. Alternatively, in addition to formal surgery open abdomen techniques have long been proposed as aiding source control in severe intra-abdominal sepsis. It is ironic that while a lack or even delay regarding source control clearly associates with death, it is a concept that remains poorly described. For example, no conclusive definition of source control technique or even adequacy has been universally accepted. Practically, source control involves a complex definition encompassing several factors including the causative event, source of infection bacteria, local bacterial flora, patient condition, and his/her eventual comorbidities. With greater understanding of the systemic pathobiology of sepsis and the profound implications of the human microbiome, adequate source control is no longer only a surgical issue but one that requires a multidisciplinary, multimodality approach. Thus, while any breach in the GI tract must be controlled, source control should also attempt to control the generation and propagation of the systemic biomediators and dysbiotic influences on the microbiome that perpetuate multi-system organ failure and death. Given these increased complexities, the present paper represents the current opinions and recommendations for future research of the World Society of Emergency Surgery, of the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery of Surgical Infection Society Europe and Surgical Infection Society America regarding the concepts and operational adequacy of source control in intra-abdominal infections.

Nonoperative management (NOM) of liver gunshot injuries is yet to gain general acceptance. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of selective NOM of liver gunshot injuries. A prospective, protocol-driven study, which included all liver gunshot injuries admitted to a level I trauma center, was conducted over a 4-year period. Patients with right-sided thoracoabdominal, and right upper quadrant gunshot wounds with or without localized right upper quadrant tenderness underwent contrasted abdominal computed tomography scan evaluation to detect the presence of a liver injury. Patients with confirmed liver injuries were observed with serial clinical examinations. Outcome parameters included need for delayed laparotomy, complications, length of hospital stay, and survival. During the study period, 63 patients with liver gunshot injuries were selected for NOM. The mean injury severity score was 19.6 (range, 4–34). Simple liver injuries (grades I and II) occurred in 26 (41.3%) patients and complex liver injuries (grades III, IV, and V) occurred in 37 (58.7%) patients. Associated injuries included 14 (22.2%) kidney, 44 (69.8%) diaphragm, 43 (68.3%) lung contusion, 42 (66.7%) hemothorax and/or pneuomothorax, and 21 (33.3%) rib fractures. Five patients required delayed laparotomy resulting in successful NOM rate of 92%. Complications included liver abscess (3), biliary fistula (3), retained hemothorax (4), and nosocomial pneumonia (5). The mean hospital stay was 6.1 (range, 3–23 days). There was no mortality. The NOM of appropriately selected patients with liver gunshot injuries is feasible, safe, and effective, regardless of the liver injury severity.

Background: Non-traumatic emergency general surgery involves a heterogeneous population that may present with several underlying diseases. Timeous emergency surgical treatment should be supplemented with high-quality perioperative care, ideally performed by multidisciplinary teams trained to identify and handle complex postoperative courses. Uncontrolled or poorly controlled acute postoperative pain may result in significant complications. While pain management after elective surgery has been standardized in perioperative pathways, the traditional perioperative treatment of patients undergoing emergency surgery is often a haphazard practice. The present recommended pain management guidelines are for pain management after non-traumatic emergency surgical intervention. It is meant to provide clinicians a list of indications to prescribe the optimal analgesics even in the absence of a multidisciplinary pain team. Material and methods: An international expert panel discussed the different issues in subsequent rounds. Four international recognized scientific societies: World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), Global Alliance for Infection in Surgery (GAIS), Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia Intensive Care (SIAARTI), and American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), endorsed the project and approved the final manuscript. Conclusion: Dealing with acute postoperative pain in the emergency abdominal surgery setting is complex, requires special attention, and should be multidisciplinary. Several tools are available, and their combination is mandatory whenever is possible. Analgesic approach to the various situations and conditions should be patient based and tailored according to procedure, pathology, age, response, and available expertise. A better understanding of the patho-mechanisms of postoperative pain for short- and long-term outcomes is necessary to improve prophylactic and treatment strategies.

The effect of lockdown on intentional and nonintentional injury during the COVID-19 pandemic in Cape Town, South Africa: A preliminary report

Introduction: The use of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) for temporary abdominal closure of open abdomen (OA) wounds is widely accepted. Published outcomes vary according to the specific nature and the aetiology that resulted in an OA. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a new NPWT system specifically used OA resulting from abdominal trauma. Methods: A prospective study on trauma patients requiring temporary abdominal closure (TAC) with grade 1or 2 OA was carried out. All patients were treated with NPWT (RENASYS AB Smith & Nephew) to achieve TAC. The primary outcome measure was time taken to achieve fascial closure and secondary outcomes were complications and mortality. Results: A total of 20 patients were included. Thirteen patients (65%) achieved fascial closure following a median treatment period of 3 days. Four patients (20%) died of causes unrelated to NPWT. Complications included fistula formation in one patient (5%) with spontaneous resolution during NPWT), bowel necrosis in a single patient (5%) and three cases of infection (15%). No fistulae were present at the end of NPWT. Conclusion: This new NPWT kit is safe and effective and results in a high rate of fascial closure and low complication rates in the severely injured trauma patient.