Use of minimally invasive surgery in emergency general surgery procedures

National trends and outcomes of robotic emergency general surgery in the United States

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgery has seen exponential adoption over the last decade. Although the safety and efficacy of robotic surgery in the elective setting have been demonstrated, data regarding robotic emergency general surgery remains sparse.

METHODS

All adults undergoing non-elective appendectomy, cholecystectomy, small or large bowel resection, perforated ulcer repair, or lysis of adhesions were identified in the 2008 to 2020 National Inpatient Sample. Temporal trends were analyzed using a rank-based, non-parametric test developed by Cuzick (nptrend). Using laparoscopy as a reference, multivariable regressions were used to evaluate the association between robotic techniques and in-hospital mortality, major complications, and resource use for each emergency general surgery operation.

RESULTS

Of an estimated 4,040,555 patients undergoing emergency general surgery, 65,853 (1.6%) were performed using robotic techniques. The robotic proportion of minimally invasive emergency general surgery increased significantly overall, with the largest growth seen in robot-assisted large bowel resections and perforated ulcer repairs. After adjustment for various patient and hospital-level factors, robot-assisted large bowel resection (adjusted odds ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.58-0.91) and cholecystectomy (adjusted odds ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.55-0.81) were associated with significantly reduced odds of perioperative blood transfusion compared to traditional laparoscopy. Although robotic techniques were associated with modest reductions in postoperative length of stay, costs were uniformly higher by increments of up to $4,900.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery appears to be a safe and effective adjunct to laparoscopy in minimally invasive emergency general surgery, although comparable cost-effectiveness has yet to be realized. Increasing use of robotic techniques in emergency general surgery may be attributable in part to reduced complications, including blood loss, in certain operative contexts.

A Comparative Analysis between Enhanced Recovery after Surgery and Traditional Care in the Management of Obstructive Colorectal Cancer

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) represents evidence-based transformation in perioperative care, which has been demonstrated to reduce both recovery times and postoperative complication rates. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical significance of the ERAS program in comparison with conventional postoperative care. This longitudinal cohort observational study enrolled 120 consecutive patients diagnosed with intestinal obstruction caused by colorectal cancers, with 40 patients in the ERAS group and 80 patients receiving conventional postoperative care forming the non-ERAS group. Our study compares the effectiveness of ERAS protocols to non-ERAS methods, focusing on the time to first flatus, defecation, the resumption of normal diet, and early mobilization. The main endpoints are morbidity and hospitalization length. The results showed that despite a longer admission-to-surgery interval in the ERAS group, median hospitalization was significantly shorter compared to the non-ERAS group (p = 0.0002). The ERAS group showed a tendency towards a lower incidence of overall postoperative complications, indicating that implementing the ERAS protocol does not increase the risk of postoperative complications, ensuring the safety of enhanced recovery strategies for patients. Also, ERAS patients had notably fewer stomas than those in the non-ERAS group, indicating the potential effectiveness of reducing stoma necessity. This study shows that ERAS surpasses conventional care for colonic or rectal surgery patients, reducing hospital stays and costs while enhancing recovery. This highlights the comprehensive advantages of adopting ERAS in surgical settings.

The impact of minimally invasive surgical approaches on surgical-site infections

We performed a literature review to describe the risk of surgical-site infection (SSI) in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared to standard open surgery. Most studies reported decreased SSI rates among patients undergoing MIS compared to open procedures. However, many were observational studies and may have been affected by selection bias. MIS is associated with reduced risk of surgical-site infection compared to standard open surgery and should be considered when feasible.

Robotic Technology in Emergency General Surgery Cases in the Era of Minimally Invasive Surgery

Importance

Although robotic surgery has become an established approach for a wide range of elective operations, data on its utility and outcomes are limited in the setting of emergency general surgery.

Objectives

To describe temporal trends in the use of laparoscopic and robotic approaches and compare outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for 4 common emergent surgical procedures.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A retrospective cohort study of an all-payer discharge database of 829 US facilities was conducted from calendar years 2013 to 2021. Data analysis was performed from July 2022 to November 2023. A total of 1 067 263 emergent or urgent cholecystectomies (n = 793 800), colectomies (n = 89 098), inguinal hernia repairs (n = 65 039), and ventral hernia repairs (n = 119 326) in patients aged 18 years or older were included.

Exposure

Surgical approach (robotic, laparoscopic, or open) to emergent or urgent cholecystectomy, colectomy, inguinal hernia repair, or ventral hernia repair.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the temporal trend in use of each operative approach (laparoscopic, robotic, or open). Secondary outcomes included conversion to open surgery and length of stay (both total and postoperative). Temporal trends were measured using linear regression. Propensity score matching was used to compare secondary outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery groups.

Results

During the study period, the use of robotic surgery increased significantly year-over-year for all procedures: 0.7% for cholecystectomy, 0.9% for colectomy, 1.9% for inguinal hernia repair, and 1.1% for ventral hernia repair. There was a corresponding decrease in the open surgical approach for all cases. Compared with laparoscopy, robotic surgery was associated with a significantly lower risk of conversion to open surgery: cholecystectomy, 1.7% vs 3.0% (odds ratio [OR], 0.55 [95% CI, 0.49-0.62]); colectomy, 11.2% vs 25.5% (OR, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.32-0.42]); inguinal hernia repair, 2.4% vs 10.7% (OR, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.16-0.26]); and ventral hernia repair, 3.5% vs 10.9% (OR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.25-0.36]). Robotic surgery was associated with shorter postoperative lengths of stay for colectomy (-0.48 [95% CI, -0.60 to -0.35] days), inguinal hernia repair (-0.20 [95% CI, -0.30 to -0.10] days), and ventral hernia repair (-0.16 [95% CI, -0.26 to -0.06] days).

Conclusions and Relevance

While robotic surgery is still not broadly used for emergency general surgery, the findings of this study suggest it is becoming more prevalent and may be associated with better outcomes as measured by reduced conversion to open surgery and decreased length of stay.

The increasing use of minimally invasive surgery in acute general surgical conditions: A decade of results from a national data set

BACKGROUND

To assess the rate of uptake of acute laparoscopic surgery for common general surgical conditions using national-level data.

METHODS

The use of laparoscopic surgery in the acute management of appendicitis, cholecystitis, adhesive small bowel obstruction, and inguinal hernias was assessed between 2013 and 2022 at a national level in New Zealand.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic appendicectomy increased from 83% to 95% (P = .0002). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy increased from 94% to 96% (P = .001). Laparoscopic adhesiolysis increased from 42% to 60% (P = .001). Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair increased from 3% to 18% (P = .004). The rate of laparoscopic conversion demonstrated a decrease for appendicectomy (1.9% to 0.24%), cholecystectomy (0.77% to 0.39%), and adhesiolysis (9% to 2.4%) across this time. The laparoscopic cohorts were all associated with a shorter and less expensive length of stay compared to the open cohort. Māori and Pacific Island patients had largely equitable or superior rates of laparoscopic use compared to the rest of the population. No changes in laparoscopic use were detected during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rates of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and appendicectomy are similar throughout the regions. The largest difference in rates detected was for adhesiolysis, which was more common in the northern region.

CONCLUSION

There has been a statistically significant rise in the use of acute laparoscopic surgery for acute general surgical procedures. This rise is likely clinically and economically significant, particularly in appendicectomy and adhesiolysis, with rises of 12% and 17% across the 10 years, with the known associated patient and health care system benefits.

European society for trauma and emergency surgery member-identified research priorities in emergency surgery: a roadmap for future clinical research opportunities

BACKGROUND

European Society for Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ESTES) is the European community of clinicians providing care to the injured and critically ill surgical patient. ESTES has several interlinked missions - (1) the promotion of optimal emergency surgical care through networked advocacy, (2) promulgation of relevant clinical cognitive and technical skills, and (3) the advancement of scientific inquiry that closes knowledge gaps, iteratively improves upon surgical and perioperative practice, and guides decision-making rooted in scientific evidence. Faced with multitudinous opportunities for clinical research, ESTES undertook an exercise to determine member priorities for surgical research in the short-to-medium term; these research priorities were presented to a panel of experts to inform a 'road map' narrative review which anchored these research priorities in the contemporary surgical literature.

METHODS

Individual ESTES members in active emergency surgery practice were polled as a representative sample of end-users and were asked to rank potential areas of future research according to their personal perceptions of priority. Using the modified eDelphi method, an invited panel of ESTES-associated experts in academic emergency surgery then crafted a narrative review highlighting potential research priorities for the Society.

RESULTS

Seventy-two responding ESTES members from 23 countries provided feedback to guide the modified eDelphi expert consensus narrative review. Experts then crafted evidence-based mini-reviews highlighting knowledge gaps and areas of interest for future clinical research in emergency surgery: timing of surgery, inter-hospital transfer, diagnostic imaging in emergency surgery, the role of minimally-invasive surgical techniques and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols, patient-reported outcome measures, risk-stratification methods, disparities in access to care, geriatric outcomes, data registry and snapshot audit evaluations, emerging technologies interrogation, and the delivery and benchmarking of emergency surgical training.

CONCLUSIONS

This manuscript presents the priorities for future clinical research in academic emergency surgery as determined by a sample of the membership of ESTES. While the precise basis for prioritization was not evident, it may be anchored in disease prevalence, controversy around aspects of current patient care, or indeed the identification of a knowledge gap. These expert-crafted evidence-based mini-reviews provide useful insights that may guide the direction of future academic emergency surgery research efforts.

Outcomes of laparoscopic and open ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement

OBJECTIVE

Ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt placement requires a concurrent abdominal procedure. For peritoneal access laparoscopic or open approach may be utilized. Our aim was to compare patient/procedure characteristics and outcomes by peritoneal approach for VP shunts in children.

METHODS

NSQIP-Pediatric procedure targeted cerebral spinal fluid shunt Participant Use Data Files from 2016 to 2020 were queried. Patients were grouped into laparoscopic vs open abdominal approach. Patient demographics, procedure characteristics and 30-day outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

7742 NSQIP-Pediatric patients underwent VP shunt placement. Patients undergoing laparoscopic approach were older and required less preoperative support. Mean operative time was longer with laparoscopy (mean(SD): 74.2(48.1) vs. 64.6(39) minutes, p ​< ​0.0001) but had shorter hospital LOS. There was no difference in SSI, readmissions, or reoperation rates.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing laparoscopy for distal VP shunts are older with less support needs preoperatively. While laparoscopic approach had a shorter hospital LOS, there was no demonstratable difference in SSI, readmissions or reoperations between approaches. Further studies are needed to assess long-term outcomes.

Enhanced perioperative care in emergency general surgery: the WSES position paper

Enhanced perioperative care protocols become the standard of care in elective surgery with a significant improvement in patients' outcome. The key element of the enhanced perioperative care protocol is the multimodal and interdisciplinary approach targeted to the patient, focused on a holistic approach to reduce surgical stress and improve perioperative recovery. Enhanced perioperative care in emergency general surgery is still a debated topic with little evidence available. The present position paper illustrates the existing evidence about perioperative care in emergency surgery patients with a focus on each perioperative intervention in the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative phase. For each item was proposed and approved a statement by the WSES collaborative group.

National Cohort Study of Resource Utilization in Older Adults With Emergency General Surgery Conditions

INTRODUCTION

Prior studies have sought to describe Emergency General Surgery (EGS) burden, but a detailed description of resource utilization for both operative and nonoperative management of EGS conditions has not been undertaken.

METHODS

Patient and hospital characteristics were extracted from Medicare data, 2015-2018. Operations, nonsurgical procedures, and other resources (i.e., radiology) were defined using Current Procedural Terminology codes.

RESULTS

One million eight hundred two thousand five hundred forty-five patients were included in the cohort. The mean age was 74.7 y and the most common diagnoses were upper gastrointestinal. The majority of hospitals were metropolitan (75.1%). Therapeutic radiology services were available in 78.4% of hospitals and operating rooms or endoscopy suites were available in 92.5% of hospitals. There was variability in resource utilization across EGS subconditions, with hepatobiliary (26.4%) and obstruction (23.9%) patients most frequently undergoing operation.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of EGS diseases in older adults involves several interventional resources. Changes in EGS models, acute care surgery training, and interhospital care coordination may be beneficial to the treatment of EGS patients.

Current status of laparoscopic emergency surgery in Korea: multicenter restrospective cohort study

Purpose

Laparoscopic surgery is a choice in several emergency settings. However, there has been no nationwide study or survey that has compared the clinical use of laparoscopic emergency surgery (LES) versus open abdominal emergency surgery (OES) in Korea. Therefore, we examined the state of LES across multiple centers in Korea and further compared this data with the global state based on published reports.

Methods

Data of 2,122 patients who received abdominal emergency surgery between 2014 and 2019 in three hospitals in Korea were collected and retrospectively analyzed. Several clinical factors were investigated and analyzed.

Results

Of the patients, 1,280 (60.3%) were in the OES group and 842 (39.7%) were in the LES group. The most commonly operated organ in OES was the small bowel (25.8%), whereas that for LES was the appendix. In appendectomy and cholecystectomy, 93.7% and 88.0% were in the LES group. In small bowel surgery, gastric surgery, and large bowel surgery, 89.4%, 92.0%, and 79.1% were in the OES group. The severity-related factors of patient status demonstrated statistically significant limiting factors of selection between LES and OES.

Conclusion

Although our study has several limitations, compared to the LES data from other countries, the general LES state was similar in appendectomies, cholecystectomies, and small bowel surgeries. However, in gastric and colorectal surgeries, the LES state was different from those of other countries. This study demonstrated the LES state and limiting factors of selection between LES and OES in various operated organs. Further studies are required to analyze these differences and the various limiting factors.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Management and Outcomes of Acute Cholecystitis at US Academic Centers

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has had wide-ranging effects on management of medical conditions. Many hospitals encountered staffing shortages, limited operating room availability, and shortage of hospital beds. There was increased psychological stress and fear of contracting COVID-19 infection, leading to delay in medical care for various disease processes. The objective of this study was to examine changes in management and outcomes attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic in patients presenting with acute calculus cholecystitis at US academic centers.

STUDY DESIGN

Using the Vizient database, patients with the diagnosis of acute calculus cholecystitis who underwent intervention during the 15 months before the pandemic (prepandemic, October 2018 to December 2019) were compared with 15 months during the pandemic (pandemic, March 2020 to May 2021). Outcomes measures included demographics, characteristics, type of intervention, length of stay, in-hospital mortality, and direct cost.

RESULTS

There were 146,459 patients with acute calculus cholecystitis identified (prepandemic: 74,605 vs pandemic: 71,854). Patients in the pandemic group were more likely to undergo medical management (29.4% vs 31.8%; p < 0.001) or percutaneous cholecystostomy tube placement (21.5% vs 18%; p < 0.001) and less likely to undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy (69.8% vs 73.0%; p < 0.001). Patients in the pandemic group who underwent procedural intervention had longer length of stay (6.5 days vs 5.9 days; p < 0.001), higher in-hospital death (3.1% vs 2.3%; p < 0.001), and higher cost ($14,609 vs $12,570; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis of patients with acute calculus cholecystitis, there were distinct changes in the management and outcomes of patients due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Changes in the type of intervention and outcomes are likely related to delayed presentation with increases in the severity and complexity of the disease.

Assessing and managing frailty in emergency laparotomy: a WSES position paper

Many countries are facing an aging population. As people live longer, surgeons face the prospect of operating on increasingly older patients. Traditional teaching is that with older age, these patients face an increased risk of mortality and morbidity, even to a level deemed too prohibitive for surgery. However, this is not always true. An active 90-year-old patient can be much fitter than an overweight, sedentary 65-year-old patient with comorbidities. Recent literature shows that frailty-an age-related cumulative decline in multiple physiological systems, is therefore a better predictor of mortality and morbidity than chronological age alone. Despite recognition of frailty as an important tool in identifying vulnerable surgical patients, many surgeons still shun objective tools. The aim of this position paper was to perform a review of the existing literature and to provide recommendations on emergency laparotomy and in frail patients. This position paper was reviewed by an international expert panel composed of 37 experts who were asked to critically revise the manuscript and position statements. The position paper was conducted according to the WSES methodology. We shall present the derived statements upon which a consensus was reached, specifying the quality of the supporting evidence and suggesting future research directions.

Laparoscopic Co-surgeon Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Placement Versus Single Surgeon Mini Laparotomy

Introduction: Ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt placement is one of the most common treatments for pediatric hydrocephalus. However, device failures often occur, requiring operative revision of either the intraventricular or intraperitoneal shunt catheters. Historically, shunt placement was performed via laparotomy, but there has been a trend towards laparoscopic-assisted placement of the intraperitoneal portion of the shunt. We examined the outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted versus open VP shunt placement utilizing a local institutional retrospective review.

Methods: Single institution 2012-2017 retrospective review of all cases was performed. Patients were divided into two groups - laparoscopic and open. Thirty-day outcomes, patient age, surgery performed, surgical control time (SCT), length of stay (LOS), and readmission were analyzed. 

Results: Cohort analysis inclusion criteria included 188 patients. The cohort analysis showed both decreased laparoscopic-assisted SCT (56.4 vs 32.1 min, p<0.0001) and postop complications (16.7% vs 7.1%, p<0.07). There was no significant difference in surgical site infection or readmission rates. 

Conclusion: Local analysis show advantages for laparoscopic-assisted VP shunt placement over open single surgeon techniques with decreased SCT, LOS, and unplanned interventions.

Laparoscopic Versus Laparotomy Surgical Interventions for Trauma Patients with Single Upper Left Quadrant Penetrating Injuries: Analysis of the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program Dataset

BACKGROUND

We aim to identify patient cohorts where laparoscopy can be safely utilized with comparable or better outcomes to laparotomy among patients with single penetrating LUQ injuries with a hypothesis that compared to laparotomy, laparoscopy may be associated with equal or improved outcomes of low injury severity patients.

METHODS

Retrospective review of the ACS-TQP-Participant Use File 2016-2019 dataset. Patients with single LUQ penetrating injuries were included. Primary outcome was risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included: risk-adjusted complication rates, hospital length-of-stay (H-LOS), and ICU-LOS. Descriptive statistics and multivariable regression with reliability adjustments to account for variations in practice were performed.

RESULTS

Of 4149 patients analyzed, 3571 (86.1%) underwent laparotomy, 489 (11.8%) underwent laparoscopy, and 89 (2.1%) underwent laparoscopy-to-laparotomy conversion. Adjusted mortality rates were not significantly different among all study cohorts (P > .05). Compared to laparoscopy, adjusted odds of complications were 4.3-fold higher for all patients who underwent laparotomy and 4-fold higher for laparoscopy-to-laparotomy (LtL) patients (P < .05). Diaphragmatic injuries were associated with significantly increased odds of undergoing LtL, whereas sustaining a colonic injury, gastric injury, hepatic injury, or requiring PRBC transfusions were associated with significantly increased odds of undergoing laparotomy (P < .05). H-LOS (days) was significantly longer for patients who underwent laparotomy compared to laparoscopy (3.9 ± 4.0 vs. 10.8 ± 13.4, P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy may be considered a viable alternative to laparotomy for hemodynamically stable adult patients with single penetrating LUQ injuries of low injury burden validating our hypothesis. Laparoscopy may be less safe for patients with associated diaphragmatic, colonic, or hepatic injuries.

Minimally invasive surgery in emergency surgery: a WSES survey

BACKGROUND

The diffusion of minimally invasive surgery in emergency surgery still represents a developing challenge. Evidence about the use of minimally invasive surgery shows its feasibility and safety; however, the diffusion of these techniques is still poor. The aims of the present survey were to explore the diffusion and variations in the use of minimally invasive surgery among surgeons in the emergency setting.

METHODS

This is a web-based survey administered to all the WSES members investigating the diffusion of minimally invasive surgery in emergency. The survey investigated personal characteristics of participants, hospital characteristics, personal confidence in the use of minimally invasive surgery in emergency, limitations in the use of it and limitations to prosecute minimally invasive surgery in emergency surgery. Characteristics related to the use of minimally invasive surgery were studied with a multivariate ordinal regression.

RESULTS

The survey collected a total of 415 answers; 42.2% of participants declared a working experience > 15 years and 69.4% of responders worked in tertiary level center or academic hospital. In primary emergencies, only 28,7% of participants declared the use of laparoscopy in more than 50% of times. Personal confidence with minimally invasive techniques was the highest for appendectomy and cholecystectomy. At multivariate ordinal regression, a longer professional experience, the use of laparoscopy in major elective surgery and bariatric surgery expertise were related to a higher use of laparoscopy in emergency surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The survey shows that minimally invasive techniques in emergency surgery are still underutilized. Greater focus should be placed on the development of dedicated training in laparoscopy among emergency surgeons.

Robotic surgery in emergency setting: 2021 WSES position paper

Background

Robotics represents the most technologically advanced approach in minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Its application in general surgery has increased progressively, with some early experience reported in emergency settings. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a systematic review of the literature to develop consensus statements about the potential use of robotics in emergency general surgery.

Methods

This position paper was conducted according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee was constituted to draft the position paper according to the literature review. An international expert panel then critically revised the manuscript. Each statement was voted through a web survey to reach a consensus.

Results

Ten studies (3 case reports, 3 case series, and 4 retrospective comparative cohort studies) have been published regarding the applications of robotics for emergency general surgery procedures. Due to the paucity and overall low quality of evidence, 6 statements are proposed as expert opinions. In general, the experts claim for a strict patient selection while approaching emergent general surgery procedures with robotics, eventually considering it for hemodynamically stable patients only. An emergency setting should not be seen as an absolute contraindication for robotic surgery if an adequate training of the operating surgical team is available. In such conditions, robotic surgery can be considered safe, feasible, and associated with surgical outcomes related to an MIS approach. However, there are some concerns regarding the adoption of robotic surgery for emergency surgeries associated with the following: (i) the availability and accessibility of the robotic platform for emergency units and during night shifts, (ii) expected longer operative times, and (iii) increased costs. Further research is necessary to investigate the role of robotic surgery in emergency settings and to explore the possibility of performing telementoring and telesurgery, which are particularly valuable in emergency situations.

Conclusions

Many hospitals are currently equipped with a robotic surgical platform which needs to be implemented efficiently. The role of robotic surgery for emergency procedures remains under investigation. However, its use is expanding with a careful assessment of costs and timeliness of operations. The proposed statements should be seen as a preliminary guide for the surgical community stressing the need for reevaluation and update processes as evidence expands in the relevant literature.

Emergency surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: what you need to know for practice

INTRODUCTION

Several articles have been published about the reorganisation of surgical activity during the COVID-19 pandemic but few, if any, have focused on the impact that this has had on emergency and trauma surgery. Our aim was to review the most current data on COVID-19 to provide essential suggestions on how to manage the acute abdomen during the pandemic.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted of the most relevant English language articles on COVID-19 and surgery published between 15 December 2019 and 30 March 2020.

FINDINGS

Access to the operating theatre is almost exclusively restricted to emergencies and oncological procedures. The use of laparoscopy in COVID-19 positive patients should be cautiously considered. The main risk lies in the presence of the virus in the pneumoperitoneum: the aerosol released in the operating theatre could contaminate both staff and the environment.

CONCLUSIONS

During the COVID-19 pandemic, all efforts should be deployed in order to evaluate the feasibility of postponing surgery until the patient is no longer considered potentially infectious or at risk of perioperative complications. If surgery is deemed necessary, the emergency surgeon must minimise the risk of exposure to the virus by involving a minimal number of healthcare staff and shortening the occupation of the operating theatre. In case of a lack of security measures to enable safe laparoscopy, open surgery should be considered.