Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols mitigate the weekend effect on length of stay following elective colectomy.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the effect of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols on the weekend effect after elective colectomies. METHODS: This was a retrospective study on all elective colorectal surgeries at a single institution in New York City between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020. The length of stay (LOS) by day of the week of surgery and the effect of ERAS using univariable and multivariable analyses were compared. RESULTS: A total of 605 patients were included in the study. Of note, 41 cases were performed on Mondays, 197 cases were performed on Tuesdays, 45 cases were performed on Wednesdays, 187 cases were performed on Thursdays, and 135 cases were performed on Fridays. Univariate analysis showed that, for patients who did not undergo ERAS, Monday and Tuesday were significantly associated with decreased LOS (P < .001). For patients who underwent ERAS, there was no statistically significant difference in LOS (P = .06) when operated on early in the week vs later. After controlling for age, race/ethnicity, comorbidities, complications, functional health status, operation type, duration of surgery, presence of ostomy, and albumin level, adhering to the ERAS protocol was significantly associated with a shorter LOS (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that ERAS can mitigate the weekend effect on LOS. ERAS protocols may provide more structure to the expected hospital course and allow patients to reach recovery milestones earlier, facilitating discharge even by covering teams.

SAGES guidelines for the use of laparoscopy during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: When pregnant patients present with nonobstetric pathology, the physicians caring for them may be uncertain about the optimal management strategy. The aim of this guideline is to develop evidence-based recommendations for pregnant patients presenting with common surgical pathologies including appendicitis, biliary disease, and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Guidelines Committee convened a working group to address these issues. The group generated five key questions and completed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. An expert panel then met to form evidence-based recommendations according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Expert opinion was utilized when the available evidence was deemed insufficient. RESULTS: The expert panel agreed on ten recommendations addressing the management of appendicitis, biliary disease, and IBD during pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Conditional recommendations were made in favor of appendectomy over nonoperative treatment of appendicitis, laparoscopic appendectomy over open appendectomy, and laparoscopic cholecystectomy over nonoperative treatment of biliary disease and acute cholecystitis specifically. Based on expert opinion, the panel also suggested either operative or nonoperative treatment of biliary diseases other than acute cholecystitis in the third trimester, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography rather than common bile duct exploration for symptomatic choledocholithiasis, applying the same criteria for emergent surgical intervention in pregnant and non-pregnant IBD patients, utilizing an open rather than minimally invasive approach for pregnant patients requiring emergent surgical treatment of IBD, and managing pregnant patients with active IBD flares in a multidisciplinary fashion at centers with IBD expertise.

Application of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to detect antimicrobial peptides in human intestinal lumen.

Intestinal transplantation is the definitive treatment for intestinal failure. However, tissue rejection and graft-versus-host disease are relatively common complications, necessitating aggressive immunosuppression that can itself pose further complications. Tracking intraluminal markers in ileal effluent from standard ileostomies may present a noninvasive and sensitive way to detect developing pathology within the intestinal graft. This would be an improvement compared to current assessments, which are limited by poor sensitivity and specificity, contributing to under or over-immunosuppression, respectively, and by the need for invasive biopsies. Herein, we report an approach to reproducibly analyze ileal fluid obtained through stoma sampling for antimicrobial peptide/protein concentrations, reasoning that these molecules may provide an assessment of intestinal homeostasis and levels of intestinal inflammation over time. Concentrations of lysozyme (LYZ), myeloperoxidase (MPO), calprotectin (S100A8/A9) and ß-defensin 2 (DEFB2) were assessed using adaptations of commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs). The concentration of α-defensin 5 (DEFA5) was assessed using a newly developed sandwich ELISA. Our data support that with proper preparation of ileal effluent specimens, precise and replicable determination of antimicrobial peptide/protein concentrations can be achieved for each of these target molecules via ELISA. This approach may prove to be reliable as a clinically useful assessment of intestinal homeostasis over time for patients with ileostomies.

Acute Appendicitis in the Epicenter of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A New York City Single-Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: Appendectomy is the gold standard for simple appendicitis. During the coronavirus-19 pandemic, it was estimated that appendectomies in the United States decreased by 24%. We aimed to describe trends in acute appendicitis management at a center located in one of the largest epicenters of the pandemic. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study in a single institution located in Queens, New York, of patients who presented with acute appendicitis. A pre-COVID time period, March-June 2019, was compared to peak-COVID, March-June 2020, and late-COVID, March-June 2021. RESULTS: Of the 382 patients admitted with appendicitis during the time periods, 164 were admitted pre-COVID. Appendicitis presentations decreased by 44% during peak-COVID and 23% in late-COVID. Patients were younger during peak-COVID compared to pre-COVID (39 vs 34 years old, P = .036). Incidence of complicated appendicitis in pre-, peak-, and late-COVID was equivalent (41% vs 46% vs 45%) and operative management was similar (85% vs 76% vs 79%). Non-operative patients had shorter lengths of stay (pre- vs peak-COVID: 4.6 vs 2.9 days, P = .006). Readmission rates were similar between the cohorts across time periods. CONCLUSIONS: During peak-COVID, there was a significant decrease in presentation of acute appendicitis but clinical presentation and outcomes remained similar between the cohorts. Patients who were managed non-operatively may be discharged earlier without increased rates of readmissions.

SAGES 2022 guidelines regarding the use of laparoscopy in the era of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 has changed global healthcare since the pandemic began in 2020. The safety of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) utilizing insufflation from the standpoint of safety to the operating room personnel is currently being explored. The aims of this guideline are to examine the existing evidence to provide guidance regarding MIS for the patient with, or suspecting of having, the SARS-CoV-2 as well as the healthcare team involved. METHODS: Systematic literature reviews were conducted for 2 key questions (KQ) regarding the safety of MIS in the setting of COVID-19 pandemic. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis criteria. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using a narrative synthesis of the literature by subject experts. Recommendations for future research were also proposed. RESULTS: In KQ1, a total of 1361 articles were reviewed, with 2 articles meeting inclusion. In KQ2, a total of 977 articles were reviewed, with 4 articles met inclusions criteria, of which 2 studies reported on the SARS-CoV2 virus specifically. Despite many publications in the field, very little well-controlled and unbiased data exist to inform the recommendations. Of that which is available, it shows that both laparoscopic and open operations in Covid-positive patients had similar rates of OR staff positivity rates; however, patients who underwent laparoscopic procedures had a lower perioperative mortality than open procedures. Also, SARS-CoV-2 particles have been detected in the surgical plume at laparoscopy. CONCLUSION: With demonstrated equivalence of operating room staff exposure, and noninferiority of laparoscopic access with respect to mortality, either laparoscopic or open approaches to abdominal operations may be used in patients with SARS-CoV-2. Measures should be employed for all laparoscopic or open cases to prevent exposure of operating room staff to the surgical plume, as virus can be present in this plume.