Mauro Zago

Laparoscopic approach to acute abdomen from the Consensus Development Conference of the Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica e nuove tecnologie (SICE), Associazione Chirurghi Ospedalieri Italiani (ACOI), Società Italiana di Chirurgia (SIC), Società Italiana di Chirurgia d’Urgenza e del Trauma (SICUT), Società Italiana di Chirurgia nell’Ospedalità Privata (SICOP), and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES)

BackgroundIn January 2010, the SICE (Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery), under the auspices of the EAES, decided to revisit the clinical recommendations for the role of laparoscopy in abdominal emergencies in adults, with the primary intent being to update the 2006 EAES indications and supplement the existing guidelines on specific diseases.MethodsOther Italian surgical societies were invited into the Consensus to form a panel of 12 expert surgeons. In order to get a multidisciplinary panel, other stakeholders involved in abdominal emergencies were invited along with a patient’s association. In November 2010, the panel met in Rome to discuss each chapter according to the Delphi method, producing key statements with a grade of recommendations followed by commentary to explain the rationale and the level of evidence behind the statements. Thereafter, the statements were presented to the Annual Congress of the EAES in June 2011.ResultsA thorough literature review was necessary to assess whether the recommendations issued in 2006 are still current. In many cases new studies allowed us to better clarify some issues (such as for diverticulitis, small bowel obstruction, pancreatitis, hernias, trauma), to confirm the key role of laparoscopy (such as for cholecystitis, gynecological disorders, nonspecific abdominal pain, appendicitis), but occasionally previous strong recommendations have to be challenged after review of recent research (such as for perforated peptic ulcer).ConclusionsEvery surgeon has to develop his or her own approach, taking into account the clinical situation, her/his proficiency (and the experience of the team) with the various techniques, and the specific organizational setting in which she/he is working. This guideline has been developed bearing in mind that every surgeon could use the data reported to support her/his judgment.

International consensus conference on open abdomen in trauma.

BACKGROUND A part of damage-control laparotomy is to leave the fascial edges and the skin open to avoid abdominal compartment syndrome and allow further explorations. This condition, known as open abdomen (OA), although effective, is associated with severe complications. Our aim was to develop evidence-based recommendations to define indications for OA, techniques for temporary abdominal closure, management of enteric fistulas, and methods of definitive wall closure. METHODS The literature from 1990 to 2014 was systematically screened according to PRISMA [Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses] protocol. Seventy-six articles were reviewed by a panel of experts to assign grade of recommendations (GoR) and level of evidence (LoE) using the GRADE [Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation] system, and an international consensus conference was held. RESULTS OA in trauma is indicated at the end of damage-control laparotomy, in the presence of visceral swelling, for a second look in vascular injuries or gross contamination, in the case of abdominal wall loss, and if medical treatment of abdominal compartment syndrome has failed (GoR B, LoE II). Negative-pressure wound therapy is the recommended temporary abdominal closure technique to drain peritoneal fluid, improve nursing, and prevent fascial retraction (GoR B, LoE I). Lack of OA closure within 8 days (GoR C, LoE II), bowel injuries, high-volume replacement, and use of polypropylene mesh over the bowel (GoR C, LoE I) are risk factors for frozen abdomen and fistula formation. Negative-pressure wound therapy allows to isolate the fistula and protect the surrounding tissues from spillage until granulation (GoR C, LoE II). Correction of fistula is performed after 6 months to 12 months. Definitive closure of OA has to be obtained early (GoR C, LoE I) with direct suture, traction devices, component separation with or without mesh. Biologic meshes are an option for wall reinforcement if bacterial contamination is present (GoR C, LoE II). CONCLUSION OA and negative-pressure techniques improve the care of trauma patients, but closure must be achieved early to avoid complications.

Healing of Blunt Liver Injury After Non-Operative Management: Role of Ultrasonography Follow-Up

Background:Non-operative management of patients with blunt liver trauma has become the standard of care. Usually after initial computed tomography (CT) evaluation and a short-term intra-hospital instrumental and clinical monitoring, no other imaging assessment is routinely requested. A restriction of physical activities for a few (unfixed number of) months is the most common recommendation. A few studies investigated the re-establishment of normal hepatic parenchymal architecture, but there is no evidence of the correct length of time for a certain resumption to normal life. To understand the progression of traumatic liver damage and the time course of healing, and to indicate the correct spontaneous recovery time, a long-term sonographic followup was done.Methods:Forty-four patients with blunt non-operatively managed hepatic injury were selected by a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database. At admission, in accordance with the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), all lesions were evaluated by CT and graded by the Organ Injury Scale (OIS). The progression of liver repair was followed by ultrasonographic (US) controls on days 3, 5, 10, 15, 30, and 60, and monthly up to a complete clinical recovery and sonographic disappearance of lesions.Results:One OIS grade I, 20 grade II, 13 grade III, eight grade IV, and two grade V hepatic injuries were included in the study. Forty patients were monitored until liver normalization by 218 US examinations. The median time for liver repair in OIS grades II, III, IV, and V was 30, 63, 62, and 118 days, respectively, and 75% of the patients recovered in 60, 80, and 98 days in the II, III, and IV classes, respectively.Conclusion:In our experience, a long time variability for spontaneous liver repair after blunt trauma and non-operative treatment was found, but a parenchymal US normalization was evidenced in a median time shorter than that usually reported in the literature.

Perforated sigmoid diverticulitis: Hartmann’s procedure or resection with primary anastomosis—a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials

IntroductionThe surgical management of perforated sigmoid diverticulitis and generalised peritonitis is challenging. Surgical resection is the established standard of care. However, there is debate as to whether a primary anastomosis (PA) or a Hartmann’s procedure (HP) should be performed. The aim of the present study was to perform a review of the literature comparing HP to PA for the treatment of perforated sigmoid diverticulitis with generalised peritonitis.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed for articles published up to March 2018. We considered only randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing the outcomes of sigmoidectomy with PA versus HP in adults with perforated sigmoid diverticulitis and generalised peritonitis (Hinchey III or IV). Primary outcomes were mortality and permanent stoma rate. Outcomes were pooled using a random-effects model to estimate the risk ratio and 95% confidence intervals.ResultsOf the 1,204 potentially relevant articles, 3 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis with 254 patients in total (116 and 138 in the PA and HP groups, respectively). All three RCTs had significant limitations including small size, lack of blinding and possible selection bias. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality or overall morbidity. Although 2 out of the 3 trials reported a lower permanent stoma rate in the PA arm, the difference in permanent stoma rates was not statistically significant (RRu2009=u20090.40, 95% CI 0.14–1.16). The incidence of anastomotic leaks, including leaks after stoma reversal, was not statistically different between PA and HP (RRu2009=u20091.42, 95% CI 0.41–4.87, pu2009=u20090.58) while risk of a postoperative intra-abdominal abscess was lower after PA than after HP (RRu2009=u20090.34, 95% CI 0.12–0.96, pu2009=u20090.04).ConclusionsPA and HP appear to be equivalent in terms of most outcomes of interest, except for a lower intra-abdominal abscess risk after PA. The latter finding needs further investigation as it was not reported in any of the individual trials. However, given the limitations of the included RCTs, no firm conclusion can be drawn on which is the best surgical optionxa0in patients with generalised peritonitis due to diverticular perforation.

A systematic review on the use of topical hemostats in trauma and emergency surgery

BackgroundA wide variety of hemostats are available as adjunctive measures to improve hemostasis during surgical procedures if residual bleeding persists despite correct application of conventional methods for hemorrhage control. Some are considered active agents, since they contain fibrinogen and thrombin and actively participate at the end of the coagulation cascade to form a fibrin clot, whereas others to be effective require an intact coagulation system. The aim of this study is to provide an evidence-based approach to correctly select the available agents to help physiciansxa0to use the most appropriate hemostat according to the clinical setting, surgical problem and patient’s coagulation status.MethodsThe literature from 2000 to 2016 was systematically screened according to PRISMA [Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses] protocol. Sixty-six articles were reviewed by a panel of experts to assign grade of recommendation (GoR) and level of evidence (LoE) using the GRADE [Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation] system, and a national meeting was held.ResultsFibrin adhesives, in liquid form (fibrin glues) or with stiff collagen fleece (fibrin patch) are effective in the presence of spontaneous or drug-induced coagulation disorders. Mechanical hemostats should be preferred in patients who have an intact coagulation system. Sealants are effective, irrespective of patient’s coagulation status, to improve control of residual oozing. Hemostatic dressings represent a valuable option in case of external hemorrhage at junctional sites or when tourniquets are impractical or ineffective.ConclusionsLocal hemostatic agents are dissimilar products with different indications. A knowledge of the properties of each single agent should be in the armamentarium of acute care surgeons in order to select the appropriate product in different clinical conditions.

Meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes of acute laparoscopic vs open repair of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers

BACKGROUND Surgery is the treatment of choice for perforated peptic ulcer disease. The aim of the present review was to compare the perioperative outcomes of acute laparoscopic versus open repair for peptic ulcer disease. METHODS A systematic literature search was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science. RESULTS The search included eight RCTs: 615 patients comparing laparoscopic (307 patients) versus open peptic perforated ulcer repair (308 patients). Only few studies reported the Boey score, the Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation score, and the Mannheim Peritonitis Index. In the RCTs, there is a significant heterogeneity about the gastric or duodenal location of peptic ulcer and perforation size. All trials were with high risk of bias. This meta-analysis reported a significant advantage of laparoscopic repair only for postoperative pain in first 24 hours (−2.08; 95% confidence interval, −2.79 to −1.37) and for postoperative wound infection (risk ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.23–0.66). An equivalence of the other clinical outcomes (postoperative mortality rate, overall reoperation rate, overall leaks of the suture repair, intra-abdominal abscess rate, operative time of postoperative hospital stay, nasogastric aspiration time, and time to return to oral diet) was reported. CONCLUSION In this meta-analysis, there were no significant differences in most of the clinical outcomes between the two groups; there was less early postoperative pain and fewer wound infections after laparoscopic repair. The reported equivalence of clinical outcomes is an important finding. These results parallel the results of several other comparisons of open versus laparoscopic general surgery operations—equally efficacious with lower rates of wound infection and improvement in some measures of enhanced speed or comfort in recovery. Notably, the trials included have been published throughout a considerable time span during which several changes have occurred in most health care systems, not least a widespread use of laparoscopy and increase in the laparoscopic skills. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III.

Laparoscopy in Small Bowel Obstruction

Small bowel obstruction (SBO) due to adhesions is a common disease. Incidence, natural history, treatment approach, and preventability of SBO have very little changed over the years. Little progresses have been made in prevention and treatment until around 15 years ago. The introduction of the laparoscopic approach, the availability of more established criteria for conservative management, and improvement in imaging techniques have all contributed to advancements in this field. This chapter focuses on current evidences about laparoscopy for SBO, including its place in a comprehensive algorithm of management, and some technical tips and tricks to be respected when this surgical approach is adopted.

Emergency Laparoscopy in the Elderly

Due to the steady increase in the elderly population, the issue of frail patients with acute abdomen management is ever more actual. Many questions remain unsolved, concerning both the indication to surgery and the type of surgical approach, open or laparoscopic. This chapter describes the specific problems of the elderly patient, providing to the emergency surgeon, who has to take a quick and often lonely therapeutic choice, a survey of the literature upon which to base a rational approach to treating frail patients with acute abdomen. Some diseases, such as cholecystitis, appendicitis, and complicated Hinchey stage 3 diverticulitis, can be treated with laparoscopic approach, if the answer to a series of 11 questions is always “yes.”