The Hellenic Emergency Laparotomy Study (HELAS): A Prospective Multicentre Study on the Outcomes of Emergency Laparotomy in Greece

Visceral to subcutaneous fat area ratio predicts severe abdominal adhesions in definitive surgery for anastomotic fistula after small intestine resection

Abdominal adhesions manifests following abdominal infections triggered by intestinal fistulas. The severity of such adhesions depends on the extent of fiber deposition and peritoneal fibrinolysis following peritoneal injury, which may be influenced by sustained inflammation within the abdominal cavity. In this regard, the visceral-to-subcutaneous fat area (VFA/SFA) ratio has been implicated as a potential marker of inflammation. This study aimed to explore the relationship between VFA/SFA and abdominal adhesions. This multicenter study was conducted across four tertiary institutions and involved patients who had undergone definitive surgery (DS) for intestinal fistula from January 2009 and October 2023. The presence of abdominal adhesions was determined intraoperatively. VFA/SFA was investigated as a potential risk factor for severe adhesions. The study comprised 414 patients with a median age of 50 [interquartile range (IQR) 35-66] years and a median body mass index of 20.0 (IQR 19.2-22.4) kg/m2, including 231 males with a median VFA/SFA of 1.0 (IQR 0.7-1.2) and 183 females a median VFA/SFA of 0.8 (0.6-1.1). VFA/SFA was associated with severe abdominal adhesions in males [odds ratio (OR) = 3.34, 95% CI 1.14-9.80, p = 0.03] and females (OR = 2.99, 95% CI 1.05-8.53, p = 0.04). J-shaped association between VFA/SFA ratio and severe adhesions was revealed in both sex. The increasing trend can be revealed when OR more than 0.8, and 0.6 in males and females respectively. Preoperative VFA/SFA demonstrates predictive value for statues of severe abdominal adhesions in DS for anastomotic fistula after small intestine resection.

Wound Irrigation in the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection in Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background Surgical site infection in colon surgery is associated with significant cost and increased length of hospital stay. Recently, there has been interest in the use of pulsed lavage to reduce the risk of surgical site infection in contaminated wounds. Although increasingly used and gaining popularity, its effectiveness in elective colorectal surgery has been poorly documented. This study aimed to investigate the incidence of surgical site infection within 30 days of elective colorectal surgery in patients who underwent wound irrigation with pulse lavage versus standard closure. Methodology A retrospective study was conducted at a university hospital over a two-year period between January 2020 and December 2021. All adult patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery were eligible for inclusion. Results A total of 222 patients underwent elective colorectal surgery during the study period. Operative procedures included abdominoperineal resections, left and right hemicolectomies, pelvic exenterations, small bowel or large bowel resections, as well as stoma reversals, formations, and refashioning. In total, 76 patients underwent pulse lavage while 146 did not. The total number of surgical site infections was 39 during the study period. Infection rates in the pulse lavage group were 14.47% compared to 19.18% in the standard closure group. The chi-square analysis concluded the difference in infection rates was not statistically significant (p = 0.213). Conclusions The findings demonstrated a difference in infection rates of almost 5% favouring the pulse lavage group; however, it did not reach a statistical difference. Although infection rates were in keeping with those described in the literature, further studies in the form of randomized controlled trials should be performed to determine the benefits, if any, of pulse lavage in colorectal surgery.

Development and internal validation of a clinical prediction model for serious complications after emergency laparotomy

PURPOSE

Emergency laparotomy (EL) is a common operation with high risk for postoperative complications, thereby requiring accurate risk stratification to manage vulnerable patients optimally. We developed and internally validated a predictive model of serious complications after EL.

METHODS

Data for eleven carefully selected candidate predictors of 30-day postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade >  = 3) were extracted from the HELAS cohort of EL patients in 11 centres in Greece and Cyprus. Logistic regression with Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) was applied for model development. Discrimination and calibration measures were estimated and clinical utility was explored with decision curve analysis (DCA). Reproducibility and heterogeneity were examined with Bootstrap-based internal validation and Internal-External Cross-Validation. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program's (ACS-NSQIP) model was applied to the same cohort to establish a benchmark for the new model.

RESULTS

From data on 633 eligible patients (175 complication events), the SErious complications After Laparotomy (SEAL) model was developed with 6 predictors (preoperative albumin, blood urea nitrogen, American Society of Anaesthesiology score, sepsis or septic shock, dependent functional status, and ascites). SEAL had good discriminative ability (optimism-corrected c-statistic: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.81), calibration (optimism-corrected calibration slope: 1.01, 95% CI 0.99-1.03) and overall fit (scaled Brier score: 25.1%, 95% CI 24.1-26.1%). SEAL compared favourably with ACS-NSQIP in all metrics, including DCA across multiple risk thresholds.

CONCLUSION

SEAL is a simple and promising model for individualized risk predictions of serious complications after EL. Future external validations should appraise SEAL's transportability across diverse settings.

Combining sarcopenia and ASA status to inform emergency laparotomy outcomes: could it be that simple?

BACKGROUND

Risk assessment for emergency laparotomy (EL) is important for guiding decision-making and anticipating the level of perioperative care in acute clinical settings. While established tools such as the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program calculator (ACS-NSQIP), the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit Risk Prediction Calculator (NELA) and the Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity calculation (P-POSSUM) are accurate predictors for mortality, there has been increasing recognition of the benefits from including measurements for frailty in a simple and quantifiable manner. Psoas muscle to 3rd lumbar vertebra area ratio (PM:L3) measured on CT scans was proven to have a significant inverse association with 30-, 90- and 365-day mortality in EL patients.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted of 500 patients admitted to four Australian hospitals who underwent EL during 2016-2017, and had contemporaneous abdomino-pelvic CT scans. Radiological sarcopenia was measured as PM:L3 ratios. ASC-NSQIP, NELA and P-POSSUM were retrospectively calculated. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression modelling was used to assess these ratios and scores, as well as American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) classification separated into ASA I-III and IV/V (simplified ASA), as potential predictors of 30-, 90- and 365-day mortality.

RESULTS

PM:L3, simplified ASA, ACS-NSQIP, NELA and P-POSSUM were each statistically significant predictors of 30-day, 90-day and 365-day mortality (P < 0.001). Logistic regression models of 30-, 90- and 365-day mortality combining PM:L3 (P = 0.001) and simplified ASA (P < 0.001) exhibited AUCs of 0.838 (0.780, 0.896), 0.805 (0.751, 0.860) and 0.775 (0.729, 0.822), respectively, which were comparable to that of ACS-NSQIP and NELA.

CONCLUSION

Combining the semi-physiological parameter ASA classification with PM:L3 provides a quick and simple alternative to the more complex established risk assessment scores and is superior to PM:L3 alone.

Prospective multicenter external validation of postoperative mortality prediction tools in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy

BACKGROUND

Accurate preoperative risk assessment in emergency laparotomy (EL) is valuable for informed decision making and rational use of resources. Available risk prediction tools have not been validated adequately across diverse health care settings. Herein, we report a comparative external validation of four widely cited prognostic models.

METHODS

A multicenter cohort was prospectively composed of consecutive patients undergoing EL in 11 Greek hospitals from January 2020 to May 2021 using the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) inclusion criteria. Thirty-day mortality risk predictions were calculated using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP), NELA, Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity (P-POSSUM), and Predictive Optimal Trees in Emergency Surgery Risk tools. Surgeons' assessment of postoperative mortality using predefined cutoffs was recorded, and a surgeon-adjusted ACS-NSQIP prediction was calculated when the original model's prediction was relatively low. Predictive performances were compared using scaled Brier scores, discrimination and calibration measures and plots, and decision curve analysis. Heterogeneity across hospitals was assessed by random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 631 patients were included, and 30-day mortality was 16.3%. The ACS-NSQIP and its surgeon-adjusted version had the highest scaled Brier scores. All models presented high discriminative ability, with concordance statistics ranging from 0.79 for P-POSSUM to 0.85 for NELA. However, except the surgeon-adjusted ACS-NSQIP (Hosmer-Lemeshow test, p = 0.742), all other models were poorly calibrated ( p < 0.001). Decision curve analysis revealed superior clinical utility of the ACS-NSQIP. Following recalibrations, predictive accuracy improved for all models, but ACS-NSQIP retained the lead. Between-hospital heterogeneity was minimum for the ACS-NSQIP model and maximum for P-POSSUM.

CONCLUSION

The ACS-NSQIP tool was most accurate for mortality predictions after EL in a broad external validation cohort, demonstrating utility for facilitating preoperative risk management in the Greek health care system. Subjective surgeon assessments of patient prognosis may optimize ACS-NSQIP predictions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic Test/Criteria; Level II.

Standardized perioperative management in acute abdominal surgery: Swedish SMASH controlled study

BACKGROUND

Acute high-risk abdominal surgery is common, as are the attendant risks of organ failure, need for intensive care, mortality, or long hospital stay. This study assessed the implementation of standardized management.

METHODS

A prospective study of all adults undergoing emergency laparotomy over an interval of 42 months (2018-2021) was undertaken; outcomes were compared with those of a retrospective control group. A new standardized clinical protocol was activated for all patients including: prompt bedside physical assessment by the surgeon and anaesthetist, interprofessional communication regarding location of resuscitation, elimination of unnecessary factors that might delay surgery, improved operating theatre competence, regular epidural, enhanced recovery care, and frequent early warning scores. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints were duration of hospital stay, need for intensive care, and surgical complications.

RESULTS

A total of 1344 patients were included, 663 in the control group and 681 in the intervention group. The use of antibiotics increased (81.4 versus 94.7 per cent), and the time from the decision to operate to the start of surgery was reduced (3.80 versus 3.22 h) with use of the new protocol. Fewer anastomoses were performed (22.5 versus 16.8 per cent). The 30-day mortality rate was 14.5 per cent in the historical control group and 10.7 per cent in the intervention group (P = 0.045). The mean duration of hospital (11.9 versus 10.2 days; P = 0.007) and ICU (5.40 versus 3.12 days; P = 0.007) stays was also reduced. The rate of serious surgical complications (grade IIIb-V) was lower (37.6 versus 27.3 per cent; P = <0.001).

CONCLUSION

Standardized management protocols improved outcomes after emergency laparotomy.