Exsanguination following trauma is potentially preventable. Extremity tourniquets have been successfully implemented in military and civilian prehospital care. Prehospital control of bleeding from the torso and junctional area’s remains challenging but offers a great potential to improve survival rates. This review aims to provide an overview of potential treatment options in both clinical as preclinical state of research on truncal and junctional bleeding. Since many options have been developed for application in the military primarily, translation to the civilian situation is discussed. Medline (via Pubmed) and Embase were searched to identify known and potential prehospital treatment options. Search terms were|: haemorrhage/hemorrhage, exsanguination, junctional, truncal, intra-abdominal, intrathoracic, intervention, haemostasis/hemostasis, prehospital, en route, junctional tourniquet, REBOA, resuscitative thoracotomy, emergency thoracotomy, pelvic binder, pelvic sheet, circumferential. Treatment options were listed per anatomical site: axilla, groin, thorax, abdomen and pelvis Also, the available evidence was graded in (pre) clinical stadia of research. Identified treatment options were wound clamps, injectable haemostatic sponges, pelvic circumferential stabilizers, resuscitative thoracotomy, resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA), intra-abdominal gas insufflation, intra-abdominal self-expanding foam, junctional and truncal tourniquets. A total of 70 papers on these aforementioned options was retrieved. No clinical reports on injectable haemostatic sponges, intra-abdominal insufflation or self-expanding foam injections and one type of junctional tourniquets were available. Options to stop truncal and junctional traumatic haemorrhage in the prehospital arena are evolving and may offer a potentially great survival advantage. Because of differences in injury pattern, time to definitive care, different prehospital scenario’s and level of proficiency of care providers; successful translation of various military applications to the civilian situation has to be awaited. Overall, the level of evidence on the retrieved adjuncts is extremely low.

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.

Background: Robotics represents the most technologically advanced approach in minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Its application in general surgery has increased progressively, with some early experience reported in emergency settings. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a systematic review of the literature to develop consensus statements about the potential use of robotics in emergency general surgery. Methods: This position paper was conducted according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee was constituted to draft the position paper according to the literature review. An international expert panel then critically revised the manuscript. Each statement was voted through a web survey to reach a consensus. Results: Ten studies (3 case reports, 3 case series, and 4 retrospective comparative cohort studies) have been published regarding the applications of robotics for emergency general surgery procedures. Due to the paucity and overall low quality of evidence, 6 statements are proposed as expert opinions. In general, the experts claim for a strict patient selection while approaching emergent general surgery procedures with robotics, eventually considering it for hemodynamically stable patients only. An emergency setting should not be seen as an absolute contraindication for robotic surgery if an adequate training of the operating surgical team is available. In such conditions, robotic surgery can be considered safe, feasible, and associated with surgical outcomes related to an MIS approach. However, there are some concerns regarding the adoption of robotic surgery for emergency surgeries associated with the following: (i) the availability and accessibility of the robotic platform for emergency units and during night shifts, (ii) expected longer operative times, and (iii) increased costs. Further research is necessary to investigate the role of robotic surgery in emergency settings and to explore the possibility of performing telementoring and telesurgery, which are particularly valuable in emergency situations. Conclusions: Many hospitals are currently equipped with a robotic surgical platform which needs to be implemented efficiently. The role of robotic surgery for emergency procedures remains under investigation. However, its use is expanding with a careful assessment of costs and timeliness of operations. The proposed statements should be seen as a preliminary guide for the surgical community stressing the need for reevaluation and update processes as evidence expands in the relevant literature.

Immunocompromised patients are a heterogeneous and diffuse category frequently presenting to the emergency department with acute surgical diseases. Diagnosis and treatment in immunocompromised patients are often complex and must be multidisciplinary. Misdiagnosis of an acute surgical disease may be followed by increased morbidity and mortality. Delayed diagnosis and treatment of surgical disease occur; these patients may seek medical assistance late because their symptoms are often ambiguous. Also, they develop unique surgical problems that do not affect the general population. Management of this population must be multidisciplinary.This paper presents the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), Surgical Infection Society Europe (SIS-E), World Surgical Infection Society (WSIS), American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), and Global Alliance for Infection in Surgery (GAIS) joined guidelines about the management of acute abdomen in immunocompromised patients.