Emergency General Surgery and COVID-19 Pandemic: Are There Any Changes? A Scoping Review.

Background and Objectives: The pandemic of SARS-CoV-19 has affected the overall spectrum of General Surgery, either in the case management part, or in the type of cases. The purpose of this review is to gather all the parameters affected and to compare these changes between the pandemic period and the corresponding time frame of the previous year. Materials and Methods: A review of literature in two electronic databases (PubMed and Scopus) was performed examining studies during the pre-pandemic (March to May 2019) and pandemic (March to May 2020) period about emergency surgeries. The differences in case presentation in emergency rooms, patient characteristics, length of hospitalization, type of surgery, complications and mortality rate were compared. Results: The comparison of the studies revealed significant results highlighting the differences between the two time periods for each parameter. There has been observed an overall decrease in the number of cases presented for emergency and urgent surgery. In terms of age, sex, and BMI, there were no significant variations amongst the patients. About the length of hospitalization, the patients hospitalized longer during the pandemic period. In terms of pathologies, the most common types of surgery were appendectomy, gastrointestinal, and colorectal resection. Mortality did not differ between the two study periods. Conclusions: COVID-19 affected a large part of Emergency General Surgery mainly concerns the type of operations performed. The hospitalization of patients, the complications that may have arisen and the recognition of emergencies were the most important issues faced by health care officials in hospitals during the period of COVID-19; however, there were parameters like mortality and patients' characteristics that did not appear to differ with pre-pandemic era.

A four-probiotic preparation for ventilator-associated pneumonia in multi-trauma patients: results of a randomized clinical trial.

The role of probiotics in the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) remains inconclusive. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of a probiotic regimen for VAP prophylaxis in mechanically ventilated multi-trauma patients, intubated immediately after the injurious insult. In a randomized, placebo-controlled study enrolling multi-trauma patients, patients expected to require mechanical ventilation for >10 days were assigned at random to receive prophylaxis with a probiotic formula (n=59) or placebo (n=53). The probiotic formula was a preparation of Lactobacillus acidophilus LA-5 [1.75 × 109 colony-forming units (cfu)], Lactobacillus plantarum (0.5 × 109 cfu), Bifidobacterium lactis BB-12 (1.75 × 109 cfu) and Saccharomyces boulardii (1.5 × 109 cfu) in sachets. Each patient received two sachets twice daily for 15 days: one through the nasogastric tube and one spread on the oropharynx. The incidence of VAP was the primary endpoint. The incidence of other infections and sepsis, and the duration of hospital stay were the secondary endpoints. Administration of probiotics reduced the incidence of VAP [11.9% vs 28.3%, hazard ratio (HR) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13-0.92; P=0.034] and sepsis [6.8% vs 24.5%, odds ratio 0.22, 95% CI 0.07-0.74: P=0.016]. Furthermore, probiotic prophylaxis reduced the time of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and the length of hospital stay. The prophylactic use of probiotics with a combination of enteral and topical application to the oropharynx had a positive effect on the incidence of VAP and sepsis, as well as on ICU and total hospital stay in patients receiving protracted mechanical ventilation.