Search

Background: Non-traumatic emergency general surgery involves a heterogeneous population that may present with several underlying diseases. Timeous emergency surgical treatment should be supplemented with high-quality perioperative care, ideally performed by multidisciplinary teams trained to identify and handle complex postoperative courses. Uncontrolled or poorly controlled acute postoperative pain may result in significant complications. While pain management after elective surgery has been standardized in perioperative pathways, the traditional perioperative treatment of patients undergoing emergency surgery is often a haphazard practice. The present recommended pain management guidelines are for pain management after non-traumatic emergency surgical intervention. It is meant to provide clinicians a list of indications to prescribe the optimal analgesics even in the absence of a multidisciplinary pain team., Material and Methods: An international expert panel discussed the different issues in subsequent rounds. Four international recognized scientific societies: World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), Global Alliance for Infection in Surgery (GAIS), Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia Intensive Care (SIAARTI), and American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), endorsed the project and approved the final manuscript., Conclusion: Dealing with acute postoperative pain in the emergency abdominal surgery setting is complex, requires special attention, and should be multidisciplinary. Several tools are available, and their combination is mandatory whenever is possible. Analgesic approach to the various situations and conditions should be patient based and tailored according to procedure, pathology, age, response, and available expertise. A better understanding of the patho-mechanisms of postoperative pain for short- and long-term outcomes is necessary to improve prophylactic and treatment strategies., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Lymphadenectomy of colorectal cancer is a decisive factor for the prognostic and therapeutic staging of the patient. For over 15 years, we have asked ourselves if the minimum number of 12 examined lymph nodes (LNs) was sufficient for the prevention of understaging. The debate is certainly still open if we consider that a limit of 12 LNs is still not the gold standard mainly because the research methodology of the first studies has been criticized. Moreover many authors report that to date both in the United States and Europe the number "12" target is uncommon, not adequate, or accessible only in highly specialised centres. It should however be noted that both the pressing nature of the debate and the dissemination of guidelines have been responsible for a trend that has allowed for a general increase in the number of LNs examined. There are different variables that can affect the retrieval of LNs. Some, like the surgeon, the surgery, and the pathology exam, are without question modifiable; however, other both patient and disease-related variables are non-modifiable and pose the question of whether the minimum number of examined LNs must be individually assigned. The lymph nodal ratio, the sentinel LNs and the study of the biological aspects of the tumor could find valid application in this field in the near future.