Intestinal ischemia in patients with incarcerated groin hernia: proposal and validation of a score.

PURPOSE: Intestinal ischemia (II) is the most critical factor to determine in patients with incarcerated groin hernia (IGH) because II could be reversible, and it is considered as a "time sensitive condition." Although predictive factors of II were identified in several previous studies, preoperative diagnosis of II cannot be reliably made or excluded by any known parameter. The aims of this study were: to devise and to validate a clinic-biologic score, with a strong discriminatory power, for predicting the risk of II in patients with IGH. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective bicentric study including 335 patients with IGH. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent predictive factors of II. We assigned points for the score according to the regression coefficient. The area under the curve (AUC) was determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The scoring system was then prospectively validated on a second independent population of 45 patients admitted for IGH in the same departments (internal validation). RESULTS: Four independent predictive factors of II were identified: heart rate, duration of symptoms before admission, prothrombin, and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR). A predictive score of II was established based on these independent predictive factors. Sensitivity was 94.50%; specificity was 92.70%. The AUC of this score was 0.97. The AUC was 0.96 when the score was applied on the second population of patients. CONCLUSIONS: We performed a score to predict the risk of intestinal II with a good accuracy (the AUC of our score was 0.97). This score is reliable and reproducible, so it can help a surgeon to prioritize patients with II for surgery (especially at this time of COVID-19 pandemic), because ischemia could be reversible, avoiding thus intestinal necrosis.

A Canadian national survey: Perspectives on routine pathological examination of hernia sacs after inguinal hernia and hydrocele repair among pediatric urologists, surgeons, and pathologists.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand perspectives on routine pathological examination of hernia sacs following pediatric inguinal hernia and hydrocele repair among Canadian pediatric urologists, surgeons, and pathologists. STUDY DESIGN: All active members of Pediatric Urologists of Canada (PUC), Canadian Association of Pediatric Surgeons (CAPS), and the divisional heads of anatomical pathology at the Canadian children's hospitals (AP) were invited to participate between June 2019 and January 2021 in an anonymous multiple-choice-based questionnaire. RESULTS: The response rates were 71% from PUC (24/34), 20% from CAPS (25/130), and 64% from AP (7/11). The majority of the surgeons (PUC:54%, CAPS:68%) did not routinely send hernia sacs for pathological examination after inguinal hernia repair. Most felt there was a little value in such examination (PUC:96%, CAPS:72%). Among those who submit hernia sacs, the majority did not receive reports that were clinically significant impacting patient management (PUC:82%, CAPS:50%). On the other hand, the pathologists had mixed opinion on the value of examining hernia sacs. Most of them only did gross examination (86%), unless requested by surgeons or concerning features were noted on gross examination. The majority have found clinically meaningful abnormal findings (71%), including vas deferens and portions of the spermatic cord. DISCUSSION: Currently, there are no evidence-based clinical guidelines on pathological assessment of hernia sacs after pediatric inguinal hernia and hydrocele repair. Instead of making it mandatory, future guidelines should highlight specimens that should be submitted for further investigations (e.g., challenging cases where inadvertent surgical injuries might have occurred). Future studies should also address whether patients who may be at higher risk of having clinically significant pathology can be identified pre- or perioperatively to more efficiently triage specimens that would benefit from pathological examination. Limitation of the study includes low response rate from the CAPS members during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: While most of the pediatric urologists and surgeons felt there is a little value of pathological examination of hernia sacs following inguinal hernia and hydrocele repair, half of the anatomical pathologists felt there is value. Future studies should aim to establish evidence-based clinical guidelines taking stakeholders perspectives into consideration.

Do surgical emergencies stay at home? Observations from the first United States Coronavirus epicenter.

BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, New York instituted a statewide stay-at-home mandate to lower viral transmission. While public health guidelines advised continued provision of timely care for patients, disruption of safety-net health care and public fear have been proposed to be related to indirect deaths because of delays in presentation. We hypothesized that admissions for emergency general surgery (EGS) diagnoses would decrease during the pandemic and that mortality for these patients would increase. METHODS: A multicenter observational study comparing EGS admissions from January to May 2020 to 2018 and 2019 across 11 NYC hospitals in the largest public health care system in the United States was performed. Emergency general surgery diagnoses were defined using International Classification Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes and grouped into seven common diagnosis categories: appendicitis, cholecystitis, small/large bowel, peptic ulcer disease, groin hernia, ventral hernia, and necrotizing soft tissue infection. Baseline demographics were compared including age, race/ethnicity, and payor status. Outcomes included coronavirus disease (COVID) status and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1,376 patients were admitted for EGS diagnoses from January to May 2020, a decrease compared with both 2018 (1,789) and 2019 (1,668) (p < 0.0001). This drop was most notable after the stay-at-home mandate (March 22, 2020; week 12). From March to May 2020, 3.3%, 19.2%, and 6.0% of EGS admissions were incidentally COVID positive, respectively. Mortality increased in March to May 2020 compared with 2019 (2.2% vs. 0.7%); this difference was statistically significant between April 2020 and April 2019 (4.1% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.045). CONCLUSION: Supporting our hypothesis, the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and subsequent stay-at-home mandate resulted in decreased EGS admissions between March and May 2020 compared with prior years. During this time, there was also a statistically significant increase in mortality, which peaked at the height of COVID infection rates in our population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological, level IV.