Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 17 de 17
Filter
1.
Surg Endosc ; 2021 Nov 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1838334

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During laparoscopy, the abdominal cavity is insufflated with carbon dioxide (CO2) that could become contaminated with viruses and surgical smoke. Medical staff is potentially exposed when this gas leaks into the operating room through the instruments and past trocar valves. No detailed studies currently exist that have quantified these leakage pathways. Therefore, the goal of this study was to quantify the gas leakages through trocars and instruments, during minimally invasive procedures. METHODS: A model of the surgical environment was created, consisting of a rigid container with an interface for airtight clamping of laparoscopic equipment such as trocars and surgical instruments. The model was insufflated to 15 mm Hg using a pressure generator and a pneumotachograph measured the equipment gas leak. A protocol of several use cases was designed to simulate the motions and forces the surgeon exerts on the trocar during surgery. RESULTS: Twenty-three individual trocars and twenty-six laparoscopic instruments were measured for leakage under the different conditions of the protocol. Trocar leakages varied between 0 L/min and more than 30 L/min, the instruments revealed a range of leakages between 0 L/min and 5.5 L/min. The results showed that leakage performance varied widely between trocars and instruments and that the performance and location of the valves influenced trocar leakage. CONCLUSIONS: We propose trocar redesigns to overcome specific causes of gas leaks. Moreover, an international testing standard for CO2 leakage for all new trocars and instruments is needed so surgical teams can avoid this potential health hazard when selecting new equipment.

2.
Minerva Surg ; 77(2): 171-179, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1789849

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The recent COrona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused a massive disruption of surgical activity and after a year from its first outbreak surgeons still struggle to keep their regular activity coexisting with the virus exhausting requests of healthcare resources. The aim of this paper is to offer a comprehensive overview of the most important recommendations by the International Guidelines about general surgery, and possibly to invite building common shared guidelines to preserve the potential to provide surgical assistance despite the pandemic. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science databases were searched. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The searches revealed a total of 18579 articles published up to the end of February 2021. Five articles published between March and May 2020, were included in the present study: Guidelines from The European Society of Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ESTES), The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and The European Association for Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES), The Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Surgeons of Asia (ELSA), The European Hernia Society (EHS) and The International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IOS-IBD). CONCLUSIONS: In the likely scenario that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic will become an endemic chronic problem, we should not be forced to choose between COVID-19 or surgery in the future and find a way to make both coexisting.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Laparoscopy , Surgeons , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Surg Endosc ; 36(5): 3340-3346, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1787817

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The protection of intellectual property (IP) is one of the fundamental elements in the process of medical device development. The significance of IP, however, is not well understood among clinicians and researchers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current status of IP awareness and IP-related behaviors among EAES members. METHODS: A web-based survey was conducted via questionnaires sent to EAES members. Data collected included participant demographics, level of understanding the need, new ideas and solutions, basic IP knowledge, e.g., employees' inventions and public disclosure, behaviors before and after idea disclosures. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-nine completed forms were obtained through an email campaign conducted twice in 2019 (response rate = 4.8%). There was a dominancy in male, formally-trained gastrointestinal surgeons, working at teaching hospitals in European countries. Of the respondents, 71% demonstrated a high level of understanding the needs (frustration with current medical devices), with 66% developing specific solutions by themselves. Active discussion with others was done by 53%. Twenty-one percent of respondents presented their ideas at medical congresses, and 12% published in scientific journals. Only 20% took specific precautions or appropriate actions to protect their IPs before these disclosures. CONCLUSIONS: The current level of awareness of IP and IP-related issues is relatively low among EAES members. A structured IP training program to gain basic IP knowledge and skill should be considered a necessity for clinicians. These skills would serve to prevent the loss of legitimate IP rights and avoid failure in the clinical implementation of innovative devices for the benefit of patients.


Subject(s)
Intellectual Property , Surgeons , Europe , Humans , Male , Publications , Surveys and Questionnaires
4.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-320808

ABSTRACT

Background: To determine on a national basis the surgical activity regarding appendectomies during the first Italian wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Major surgical societies advised using non-operative management of appendicitis and suggested against laparoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Multicenter, observational study investigating the outcomes of patients undergoing appendectomy in the two months of March-April 2019 vs. March-April 2020. The primary outcome was the number of appendectomies performed during each of the two months, classified according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) score. Secondary outcomes were the type of surgical technique employed (laparoscopic vs. open), and the complication rates. Results: 1541 patients with acute appendicitis underwent surgery during the two study periods. 1337 (86.8%) patients met the study inclusion criteria. 546 (40.8%) patients underwent surgery for acute appendicitis in 2020 and 791 (59.8%) in 2019. Patients with complicated appendicitis operated in 2019 were 76 (9.6%) vs. 87 (15.9%) in 2020 (p = 0.001). An increase in the number of post-operative complications was found in 2020 (15.9%) compared to 2019 (9.6%) (p < 0.001). The following determinants increased the likelihood of complication occurrence: undergoing surgery during 2020 (+ 67%), having a unit AAST (+ 26%) increase, having waited for surgery > 24 h (+ 58%), being the surgeon aged > 40 years (+ 47%), undergoing open surgery (+ 112%) and being converted to open surgery (+ 166%). Conclusions: In Italian hospitals, in March and April 2020, the number of appendectomies has drastically dropped. Patients undergoing surgery during the first pandemic wave were more frequently affected by more severe appendicitis than the previous year's timeframe and a higher complication rate was reported. Trial registration : ResearchRegistry ID 5789.

6.
Updates Surg ; 73(6): 2205-2213, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1293469

ABSTRACT

Major surgical societies advised using non-operative management of appendicitis and suggested against laparoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic. The hypothesis is that a significant reduction in the number of emergent appendectomies was observed during the pandemic, restricted to complex cases. The study aimed to analyse emergent surgical appendectomies during pandemic on a national basis and compare it to the same period of the previous year. This is a multicentre, retrospective, observational study investigating the outcomes of patients undergoing emergent appendectomy in March-April 2019 vs March-April 2020. The primary outcome was the number of appendectomies performed, classified according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) score. Secondary outcomes were the type of surgical technique employed (laparoscopic vs open) and the complication rates. One thousand five hundred forty one patients with acute appendicitis underwent surgery during the two study periods. 1337 (86.8%) patients met the inclusion criteria: 546 (40.8%) patients underwent surgery for acute appendicitis in 2020 and 791 (59.2%) in 2019. According to AAST, patients with complicated appendicitis operated in 2019 were 30.3% vs 39.9% in 2020 (p = 0.001). We observed an increase in the number of post-operative complications in 2020 (15.9%) compared to 2019 (9.6%) (p < 0.001). The following determinants increased the likelihood of complication occurrence: undergoing surgery during 2020 (+ 67%), the increase of a unit in the AAST score (+ 26%), surgery performed > 24 h after admission (+ 58%), open surgery (+ 112%) and conversion to open surgery (+ 166%). In Italian hospitals, in March and April 2020, the number of appendectomies has drastically dropped. During the first pandemic wave, patients undergoing surgery were more frequently affected by more severe appendicitis than the previous year's timeframe and experienced a higher number of complications. Trial registration number and date: Research Registry ID 5789, May 7th, 2020.


Subject(s)
Appendicitis , COVID-19 , Laparoscopy , Appendectomy , Appendicitis/epidemiology , Appendicitis/surgery , Cohort Studies , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Length of Stay , Pandemics , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
7.
Updates Surg ; 73(5): 1775-1786, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1274974

ABSTRACT

Several regimens of oral and intravenous antibiotics (OIVA) have been proposed with contradicting results, and the role of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is still controversial. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of oral antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing Surgical Site Infections (SSI) in elective colorectal surgery. In a multicentre trial, we randomized patients undergoing elective colorectal resection surgery, comparing the effectiveness of OIVA versus intravenous antibiotics (IVA) regimens to prevent SSI as the primary outcome (NCT04438655). In addition to intravenous Amoxicillin/Clavulanic, patients in the OIVA group received Oral Neomycin and Bacitracin 24 h before surgery. MBP was administered according to local habits which were not changed for the study. The trial was terminated during the COVID-19 pandemic, as many centers failed to participate as well as the pandemic changed the rules for engaging patients. Two-hundred and four patients were enrolled (100 in the OIVA and 104 in the IVA group); 3 SSIs (3.4%) were registered in the OIVA and 14 (14.4%) in the IVA group (p = 0.010). No difference was observed in terms of anastomotic leak. Multivariable analysis indicated that OIVA reduced the rate of SSI (OR 0.21 / 95% CI 0.06-0.78 / p = 0.019), while BMI is a risk factor of SSI (OR 1.15 / 95% CI 1.01-1.30 p = 0.039). Subgroup analysis indicated that 0/22 patients who underwent OIVA/MBP + vs 13/77 IVA/MBP- experienced an SSI (p = 0.037). The early termination of the study prevents any conclusion regarding the interpretation of the data. Nonetheless, Oral Neomycin/Bacitracin and intravenous beta-lactam/beta-lactamases inhibitors seem to reduce SSI after colorectal resections, although not affecting the anastomotic leak in this trial. The role of MBP requires more investigation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colorectal Surgery , Administration, Oral , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Antibiotic Prophylaxis , Bacitracin , Cathartics/therapeutic use , Colectomy , Colorectal Surgery/adverse effects , Elective Surgical Procedures , Humans , Neomycin , Pandemics , Preoperative Care , SARS-CoV-2 , Surgical Wound Infection/epidemiology , Surgical Wound Infection/prevention & control
9.
Front Robot AI ; 8: 612852, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1133995

ABSTRACT

Flexible endoscopy involves the insertion of a long narrow flexible tube into the body for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. In the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, flexible endoscopy plays a major role in cancer screening, surveillance, and treatment programs. As a result of gas insufflation during the procedure, both upper and lower GI endoscopy procedures have been classified as aerosol generating by the guidelines issued by the respective societies during the COVID-19 pandemic-although no quantifiable data on aerosol generation currently exists. Due to the risk of COVID-19 transmission to healthcare workers, most societies halted non-emergency and diagnostic procedures during the lockdown. The long-term implications of stoppage in cancer diagnoses and treatment is predicted to lead to a large increase in preventable deaths. Robotics may play a major role in this field by allowing healthcare operators to control the flexible endoscope from a safe distance and pave a path for protecting healthcare workers through minimizing the risk of virus transmission without reducing diagnostic and therapeutic capacities. This review focuses on the needs and challenges associated with the design of robotic flexible endoscopes for use during a pandemic. The authors propose that a few minor changes to existing platforms or considerations for platforms in development could lead to significant benefits for use during infection control scenarios.

10.
Updates Surg ; 73(2): 731-744, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1114327

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The spread of the SARS-CoV2 virus, which causes COVID-19 disease, profoundly impacted the surgical community. Recommendations have been published to manage patients needing surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. This survey, under the aegis of the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery, aims to analyze how Italian surgeons have changed their practice during the pandemic. METHODS: The authors designed an online survey that was circulated for completion to the Italian departments of general surgery registered in the Italian Ministry of Health database in December 2020. Questions were divided into three sections: hospital organization, screening policies, and safety profile of the surgical operation. The investigation periods were divided into the Italian pandemic phases I (March-May 2020), II (June-September 2020), and III (October-December 2020). RESULTS: Of 447 invited departments, 226 answered the survey. Most hospitals were treating both COVID-19-positive and -negative patients. The reduction in effective beds dedicated to surgical activity was significant, affecting 59% of the responding units. 12.4% of the respondents in phase I, 2.6% in phase II, and 7.7% in phase III reported that their surgical unit had been closed. 51.4%, 23.5%, and 47.8% of the respondents had at least one colleague reassigned to non-surgical COVID-19 activities during the three phases. There has been a reduction in elective (> 200 procedures: 2.1%, 20.6% and 9.9% in the three phases, respectively) and emergency (< 20 procedures: 43.3%, 27.1%, 36.5% in the three phases, respectively) surgical activity. The use of laparoscopy also had a setback in phase I (25.8% performed less than 20% of elective procedures through laparoscopy). 60.6% of the respondents used a smoke evacuation device during laparoscopy in phase I, 61.6% in phase II, and 64.2% in phase III. Almost all responders (82.8% vs. 93.2% vs. 92.7%) in each analyzed period did not modify or reduce the use of high-energy devices. CONCLUSION: This survey offers three faithful snapshots of how the surgical community has reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic during its three phases. The significant reduction in surgical activity indicates that better health policies and more evidence-based guidelines are needed to make up for lost time and surgery not performed during the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Elective Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Infection Control/standards , Laparoscopy/statistics & numerical data , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
11.
Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol ; 31(4): 487-495, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-944106

ABSTRACT

In the era of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, we critically appraised the literature by means of a systematic review on surgical education and propose an educational curriculum with the aid of available technologies. We performed a literature search on 10 May 2020 of Medline/PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar and major journals with specific COVID-19 sections. Articles eligible for inclusion contained the topic of education in surgery in the context of COVID-19. Specific questions we aimed to answer were: Is there any difference in surgical education from pre-COVID-19 to now? How does technology assist us in teaching? Can we better harness technology to augment resident training? Two-hundred and twenty-six articles were identified, 21 relevant for our aim: 14 case studies, three survey analyses, three reviews and one commentary. The collapse of the traditional educational system due to social distancing caused a fragmentation of knowledge, a reduced acquisition of skills and a decreased employment of surgical trainees. These problems can be partially overcome by using new technologies and arranging 2-weeks rotation shifts, alternating clinical activities with learning. While medical care will remain largely based on the interaction with patients, students' adaptability to innovation will be a characteristic of post-COVID classes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Curriculum , Humans , Learning , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2
12.
Surg Endosc ; 35(1): 1-17, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-917120

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pandemic presented an unexpected challenge for the surgical community in general and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) specialists in particular. This document aims to summarize recent evidence and experts' opinion and formulate recommendations to guide the surgical community on how to best organize the recovery plan for surgical activity across different sub-specialities after the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Recommendations were developed through a Delphi process for establishment of expert consensus. Domain topics were formulated and subsequently subdivided into questions pertinent to different surgical specialities following the COVID-19 crisis. Sixty-five experts from 24 countries, representing the entire EAES board, were invited. Fifty clinicians and six engineers accepted the invitation and drafted statements based on specific key questions. Anonymous voting on the statements was performed until consensus was achieved, defined by at least 70% agreement. RESULTS: A total of 92 consensus statements were formulated with regard to safe resumption of surgery across eight domains, addressing general surgery, upper GI, lower GI, bariatrics, endocrine, HPB, abdominal wall and technology/research. The statements addressed elective and emergency services across all subspecialties with specific attention to the role of MIS during the recovery plan. Eighty-four of the statements were approved during the first round of Delphi voting (91.3%) and another 8 during the following round after substantial modification, resulting in a 100% consensus. CONCLUSION: The recommendations formulated by the EAES board establish a framework for resumption of surgery following COVID-19 pandemic with particular focus on the role of MIS across surgical specialities. The statements have the potential for wide application in the clinical setting, education activities and research work across different healthcare systems.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Infection Control/standards , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/standards , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Delphi Technique , Elective Surgical Procedures/methods , Elective Surgical Procedures/standards , Emergencies , Global Health , Health Care Rationing/standards , Health Services Accessibility/standards , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/methods , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
14.
World J Emerg Surg ; 15(1): 38, 2020 06 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-574739

ABSTRACT

Following the spread of the infection from the new SARS-CoV2 coronavirus in March 2020, several surgical societies have released their recommendations to manage the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for the daily clinical practice. The recommendations on emergency surgery have fueled a debate among surgeons on an international level.We maintain that laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains the treatment of choice for acute cholecystitis, even in the COVID-19 era. Moreover, since laparoscopic cholecystectomy is not more likely to spread the COVID-19 infection than open cholecystectomy, it must be organized in such a way as to be carried out safely even in the present situation, to guarantee the patient with the best outcomes that minimally invasive surgery has shown to have.


Subject(s)
Cholecystectomy/standards , Cholecystitis, Acute/surgery , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Infection Control/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Cholecystectomy/methods , Cholecystitis, Acute/virology , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Humans , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Societies, Medical
15.
Int J Colorectal Dis ; 35(9): 1777-1780, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-401299

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic hit Italy early and strongly, challenging the whole health care system. Proctological patients and surgeons are experiencing a previously unseen change in care with unknown repercussion. Here we discuss the proctological experience of 4 Italian hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Following remote brainstorming, the authors summarised their experience in managing proctological patients during the COVID-19 pandemics and put forward some practical observations to further investigate. RESULTS: The 4 hospitals shifted from a high-volume proctological activity to almost "zero" visits and surgery. Every patient accessing the hospital must respect a specific COVID-19 protocol. Proctological patients can be stratified based on presentation and management considerations into (1) neoplastic patients, the only allowed to be surgically treated, (2) the ones requiring urgent care, operated only in highly selected cases and (3) the stable, already known patients, managed remotely. Changes in the clinical management of the proctological disease are presented together with some considerations to be explored. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of scientific evidence, these practical considerations may be valuable to proctological surgeons starting to face the COVID-19 pandemics. Beside the more clinical considerations, this crisis produced unexpected consequences such as an improvement of the therapeutic alliance and a shift towards telemedicine that may be worth exploring also in the post-COVID-19 era.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Elective Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Infection Control/methods , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Proctectomy/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Elective Surgical Procedures/methods , Female , Humans , Italy , Male , Occupational Health/statistics & numerical data , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Safety/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Proctectomy/methods , Risk Assessment , Telemedicine/statistics & numerical data
16.
Surg Endosc ; 34(8): 3298-3305, 2020 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-378322

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Surgical smoke is a well-recognized hazard in the operating room. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, surgical societies quickly published guidelines recommending avoiding laparoscopy or to consider open surgery because of the fear of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through surgical smoke or aerosol. This narrative review of the literature aimed to determine whether there are any differences in the creation of surgical smoke/aerosol between laparoscopy and laparotomy and if laparoscopy may be safer than laparotomy. METHODS: A literature search was performed using the Pubmed, Embase and Google scholar search engines, as well as manual search of the major journals with specific COVID-19 sections for ahead-of-print publications. RESULTS: Of 1098 identified articles, we critically appraised 50. Surgical smoke created by electrosurgical and ultrasonic devices has the same composition both in laparoscopy and laparotomy. SARS-CoV-2 has never been found in surgical smoke and there is currently no data to support its virulence if ever it could be transmitted through surgical smoke/aerosol. CONCLUSION: If laparoscopy is performed in a closed cavity enabling containment of surgical smoke/aerosol, and proper evacuation of smoke with simple measures is respected, and as long as laparoscopy is not contraindicated, we believe that this surgical approach may be safer for the operating team while the patient has the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. Evidence-based research in this field is needed for definitive determination of safety.


Subject(s)
Cautery , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Laparoscopy/methods , Laparotomy/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Smoke , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Operating Rooms , Pandemics , Risk , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL