Search

Abstract Background Rib fractures are one of the most common traumatic injuries and may result in significant morbidity and mortality. Despite growing evidence, technological advances and increasing acceptance, surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) remains not uniformly considered in trauma centers. Indications, contraindications, appropriate timing, surgical approaches and utilized implants are part of an ongoing debate. The present position paper, which is endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), and supported by the Chest Wall Injury Society, aims to provide a review of the literature investigating the use of SSRF in rib fracture management to develop graded position statements, providing an updated guide and reference for SSRF. Methods This position paper was developed according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee performed the literature review and drafted the position paper. An international panel of experts then critically revised the manuscript and discussed it in detail, to develop a consensus on the position statements. Results A total of 287 studies (systematic reviews, randomized clinical trial, prospective and retrospective comparative studies, case series, original articles) have been selected from an initial pool of 9928 studies. Thirty-nine graded position statements were put forward to address eight crucial aspects of SSRF: surgical indications, contraindications, optimal timing of surgery, preoperative imaging evaluation, rib fracture sites for surgical fixation, management of concurrent thoracic injuries, surgical approach, stabilization methods and material selection. Conclusion This consensus document addresses the key focus questions on surgical treatment of rib fractures. The expert recommendations clarify current evidences on SSRF indications, timing, operative planning, approaches and techniques, with the aim to guide clinicians in optimizing the management of rib fractures, to improve patient outcomes and direct future research.

Abstract Background The trauma mortality rate is higher in the elderly compared with younger patients. Ageing is associated with physiological changes in multiple systems and correlated with frailty. Frailty is a risk factor for mortality in elderly trauma patients. We aim to provide evidence-based guidelines for the management of geriatric trauma patients to improve it and reduce futile procedures. Methods Six working groups of expert acute care and trauma surgeons reviewed extensively the literature according to the topic and the PICO question assigned. Statements and recommendations were assessed according to the GRADE methodology and approved by a consensus of experts in the field at the 10th international congress of the WSES in 2023. Results The management of elderly trauma patients requires knowledge of ageing physiology, a focused triage, including drug history, frailty assessment, nutritional status, and early activation of trauma protocol to improve outcomes. Acute trauma pain in the elderly has to be managed in a multimodal analgesic approach, to avoid side effects of opioid use. Antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended in penetrating (abdominal, thoracic) trauma, in severely burned and in open fractures elderly patients to decrease septic complications. Antibiotics are not recommended in blunt trauma in the absence of signs of sepsis and septic shock. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis with LMWH or UFH should be administrated as soon as possible in high and moderate-risk elderly trauma patients according to the renal function, weight of the patient and bleeding risk. A palliative care team should be involved as soon as possible to discuss the end of life in a multidisciplinary approach considering the patient’s directives, family feelings and representatives' desires, and all decisions should be shared. Conclusions The management of elderly trauma patients requires knowledge of ageing physiology, a focused triage based on assessing frailty and early activation of trauma protocol to improve outcomes. Geriatric Intensive Care Units are needed to care for elderly and frail trauma patients in a multidisciplinary approach to decrease mortality and improve outcomes. Graphical abstract

A perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) is a surgical emergency with a high mortality rate. PPUs cause secondary peritonitis due to bacterial and fungal peritoneal contamination. Surgery is the main treatment modality and patient’s comorbidites impacts perioperative morbidity and surgical outcomes. Even after surgery, resuscitation efforts should continue. While empiric antibiotics are recommended, the role of empiric anti-fungal treatment is unclear due to a lack of scientific evidence. This literature review demonstrated a paucity of studies evaluating the role of empiric anti-fungals in PPUs, and with conflicting results. Studies were heterogeneous in terms of patient demographics and underlying surgical pathology (PPUs vs. any gastrointestinal perforation), type of anti-fungal agent, timing of administration and duration of use. Other considerations include the need to differentiate between fungal colonization vs. invasive fungal infection. Despite positive fungal isolates from fluid culture, it is important for clinical judgement to identify the right group of patients for anti-fungal administration. Biochemistry investigations including new fungal biomarkers may help to guide management. Multidisciplinary discussions may help in decision making for this conundrum. Moving forward, further research may be conducted to select the right group of patients who may benefit from empiric anti-fungal use.

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a common but often self-limiting disease in the majority of patients. However, in the minority, who may progress to moderately severe or severe AP, high mortality risk has been reported. Infected pancreatitis necrosis (IPN) in necrotising pancreatitis has been shown to result in more than twice the mortality rate compared with in sterile pancreatic necrosis. This raises the question on whether prophylactic antibiotics (PABs) should be given in subgroups of AP to prevent superimposed infection to improve survival outcomes. Despite numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses, and guidelines on the management of AP, there is a lack of strong evidence to suggest the use of PABs in AP. Additionally, use of PABs is associated with antimicrobial resistance. Considerable heterogeneity exists and limits the interpretation of results—subgroup of AP benefitting from PAB use, choice/class of PAB, and timing of administration from symptom onset and duration of PAB use. Only a minority of existing meta-analyses suggest mortality benefits and reduction in IPN. The majority of existing guidelines do not recommend the use of PABs in AP. More research is required to make more definitive conclusions. Currently, PAB should only be administered after multidisciplinary discussions led by pancreatology experts.