Search

BACKGROUND: Major emergency abdominal surgery is associated with a high risk of morbidity and mortality. Given the ageing and increasingly frail population, understanding the impact of frailty on complication patterns after surgery is crucial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between clinical frailty and organ-specific postoperative complications after major emergency abdominal surgery.METHODS: A prospective cohort study including all patients undergoing major emergency abdominal surgery at Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev, Denmark, from 1 October 2020 to 1 August 2022, was performed. Clinical frailty scale scores were determined for all patients upon admission and patients were then analysed according to clinical frailty scale groups (scores of 1-3, 4-6, or 7-9). Postoperative complications were registered until discharge.RESULTS: A total of 520 patients were identified. Patients with a low clinical frailty scale score (1-3) experienced fewer total complications (120 complications per 100 patients) compared with patients with clinical frailty scale scores of 4-6 (250 complications per 100 patients) and 7-9 (277 complications per 100 patients) (P < 0.001). A high clinical frailty scale score was associated with a high risk of pneumonia (P = 0.009), delirium (P < 0.001), atrial fibrillation (P = 0.020), and infectious complications in general (P < 0.001). Patients with severe frailty (clinical frailty scale score of 7-9) suffered from more surgical complications (P = 0.001) compared with the rest of the cohort. Severe frailty was associated with a high risk of 30-day mortality (33% for patients with a clinical frailty scale score of 7-9 versus 3.6% for patients with a clinical frailty scale score of 1-3, P < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, an increasing degree of clinical frailty was found to be significantly associated with developing at least one complication.CONCLUSION: Patients with frailty have a

PURPOSE: Major emergency abdominal surgery is associated with severe in-hospital complications and loss of performance. After discharge, a substantial fraction of patients are readmitted emergently; however, limited knowledge exists of the long-term consequences. The aim of this study was to examine the risks and causes of short-term (30-day) and long-term (180-day) readmission among patients undergoing major emergency abdominal surgery.METHODS: This study included 504 patients who underwent major emergency abdominal surgery at the Zealand University Hospital between March 1, 2017, and February 28, 2019. The population was followed from 0 to 180 days after discharge, and detailed readmission information was registered. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to examine the independent risk factors for readmission within 30 and 180 days.RESULTS: From 0 to 30 days after discharge, 161 (31.9%) patients were readmitted emergently, accumulating to 241 (47.8%) patients within 180 days after discharge. The main reasons for short-term readmission were related to the gastrointestinal tract and surgical wounds, whereas long-term readmissions were due to infections, cardiovascular complications, and abdominal pain. Stomal placement was an independent risk factor for short-term readmission, whereas an ASA score of 3 was a risk factor for both short-term and long-term readmission.CONCLUSION: Close to 50% of all patients who underwent major emergency abdominal surgery had one or more emergency readmission within 180 days of discharge, and these data points towards the risk factors involved.

Background Risk prediction models are used for many purposes in emergency surgery, including critical care triage and benchmarking. Several risk prediction models have been developed, and some are used for purposes other than those for which they were developed. We aim to provide an overview of the existing literature on risk prediction models used in emergency surgery and highlight knowledge gaps. Methods We will conduct a scoping review on risk prediction models used for patients undergoing emergency surgery in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We will search Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library and include all study designs. We aim to answer the following questions: (1) What risk prediction models are used in emergency surgery? (2) Which variables are used in these models? (3) Which surgical specialties are the models used for? (4) Have the models been externally validated? (5) Where have the models been externally validated? (6) What purposes were the models developed for? (7) What are the strengths and limitations of the included models? We will summarize the results descriptively. The certainty of evidence will be evaluated using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Conclusion The outlined scoping review will summarize the existing literature on risk prediction models used in emergency surgery and highlight knowledge gaps., Background: Risk prediction models are used for many purposes in emergency surgery, including critical care triage and benchmarking. Several risk prediction models have been developed, and some are used for purposes other than those for which they were developed. We aim to provide an overview of the existing literature on risk prediction models used in emergency surgery and highlight knowledge gaps. Methods: We will conduct a scoping review on risk prediction models used for patients undergoing emergency surgery in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We will search Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library and include all study designs. We aim to answer the following questions: (1) What risk prediction models are used in emergency surgery? (2) Which variables are used in these models? (3) Which surgical specialties are the models used for? (4) Have the models been externally validated? (5) Where have the models been externally validated? (6) What purposes were the models developed for? (7) What are the strengths and limitations of the included models? We will summarize the results descriptively. The certainty of evidence will be evaluated using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Conclusion: The outlined scoping review will summarize the existing literature on risk prediction models used in emergency surgery and highlight knowledge gaps.

Endothelial dysfunction result from inflammation and excessive production of reactive oxygen species as part of the surgical stress response. Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) potentially exerts anti-oxidative and anti-inflammatory properties, which might stabilise the endothelial function after non-cardiac surgery. This was a single centre randomised clinical trial including 60 patients undergoing sub-acute laparoscopic cholecystectomy due to acute cholecystitis. Patients were randomised to RIPC or control. The RIPC procedure consisted of four cycles of five minutes of ischaemia and reperfusion of one upper extremity. Endothelial function was assessed as the reactive hyperaemia index (RHI) and circulating biomarkers of nitric oxide (NO) bioavailability (L-arginine, asymmetric dimethylarginine (ADMA), L-arginine/ADMA ratio, tetra- and dihydrobiopterin (BH 4 and BH 2), and total plasma biopterin) preoperative, 2-4 h after surgery and 24 h after surgery. RHI did not differ between the groups ( p = 0.07). Neither did levels of circulating biomarkers of NO bioavailability change in response to RIPC. L-arginine and L-arginine/ADMA ratio was suppressed preoperatively and increased 24 h after surgery ( p < 0.001). The BH 4/BH 2-ratio had a high preoperative level, decreased 2-4 h after surgery and remained low 24 h after surgery ( p = 0.01). RIPC did not influence endothelial function or markers of NO bioavailability until 24 h after sub-acute laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In response to surgery, markers of NO bioavailability increased, and oxidative stress decreased. These findings support that a minimally invasive removal of the inflamed gallbladder countereffects reduced markers of NO bioavailability and increased oxidative stress caused by acute cholecystitis.

BACKGROUND: Associations between degrees of postoperative hyperglycemia and morbidity has previously been established. There may be an association between the glycemic profile and patient-reported recovery, and this may be a target for perioperative quality improvements. We aimed to investigate the association between metrics of the 30-day glycemic profile and patient-reported recovery in non-diabetic patients after major abdominal surgery.METHODS: In a prospective, explorative cohort study, non-diabetic adult patients undergoing acute, major abdominal surgery were included within 24 hours after surgery. Interstitial fluid glucose concentration was measured for 30 consecutive days with a continuous glucose measurement device. The validated questionnaire 'Quality of Recovery-15' was used to assess patient-reported quality of recovery on postoperative days 10, 20, and 30. Follow-up time was divided into five-day postoperative intervals using days 26-30 as a reference. Linear mixed models were applied to investigate temporal changes in mean p-glucose, coefficient of variation, time within 70-140mg/dL, and time above 200mg/dL in relation to patient-reported recovery.RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients completed the study per protocol. A hyperglycemic event (>200 mg/dL) occurred in 18 of 27 patients (67%) within the first three postoperative days. Compared to the reference period, the coefficient of variation was significantly increased during all time intervals, indicating prolonged postoperative insulin resistance. During 30 days of follow-up, patient-reported recovery was associated with the coefficient of variation measured for three and five days before the corresponding recovery score assessment (recovery score estimate -1.52 [p<0.001] and -0.92 [p=0.006], respectively). We did not find an association between the remaining metrics and patient-reported recovery.CONCLUSION: Alterations in the glycemic profile are frequent and prolonged during

Introduction: Care bundles were found to improve postoperative outcomes in elective surgery. However, in major emergency general surgery studies show a divergent impact on mortality and length of stay. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate associations between care bundles and mortality, complications, and length of stay when applied in major emergency general surgery. Methods: A systematic literature search in PubMed and Embase was performed on the May 1, 2021. Only comparative studies on care bundles in major emergency general surgery were included. Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis were performed on 30-d mortality. We undertook a narrative approach of long-term mortality, complications, and length of stay. Results: Meta-analysis of 13 studies with 35,771 patients demonstrated that care bundles in emergency surgery were not associated with a significant reduction in odds of 30-d mortality (odds ratio = 0.8, 95% confidence interval 0.62-1.03). Trial sequential analysis confirmed that the meta-analysis was underpowered with a minimum of 78,901 patients required for firm conclusions. Seven studies reported complication rates whereof six reported lower complication rates using care bundles. Conclusions: Care bundles were reported to decrease postoperative complications in five out of seven studies and seven out of 11 studies reported a shortening in length of stay.

BACKGROUND: Major abdominal emergency surgery (MAES) has a high risk of postoperative mortality and a high complication rate. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the implementation of a perioperative care bundle reduced long-term mortality and the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) after MAES.METHODS: This study was a single-centre retrospective cohort study. Data in the intervention group were collected prospectively and compared with a historical cohort from the same centre. It includes adult patients undergoing MAES. We implemented a care bundle under the name Abdominal Surgery Acute Protocol (ASAP). We initiated fast-track initiatives and standardised optimised care in before, during and after surgery. Data were analysed using survival analysis and multiple regression.RESULTS: We included 120 patients in the intervention cohort and 258 in the historical cohort. The one-year mortality rate was 21.7% in the intervention cohort compared to 28.3% in the standard care cohort. Adjusted odds ratio of one-year mortality 0.81 (CI95% 0.41-1.56). The 30-day mortality was lowered from 19.0 to 6.7% (p = 0.003). The CCI in the intervention cohort was 8.7 (IQR 0-34) compared to 21 (IQR 0-36) in the control cohort (p = 0.932) The length of stay increased by two days (p = 0.021). Most cases had 71-80% protocol compliance.CONCLUSION: Implementing bundle care in major abdominal emergency surgery lowered the 30-day postoperative mortality. The difference in mortality was preserved over time although not significant after one year. The changes in the Comprehensive Complication Index were not statistically significant.

INTRODUCTION: Inter-hospital variation in the management of small bowel obstruction (SBO) has been described in other countries, but the extent to which similar variations exist in Denmark remains unknown. This study aimed to compare the management of SBO between hospitals in Denmark and identify potential areas for improvement METHODS. This was a multicentre prospective study performed at six emergency hospitals. Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of SBO were eligible for inclusion. The primary study endpoints were the proportion of patients undergoing operative versus non-operative management, laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery and the success rate of non-operative management.RESULTS: A total of 316 patients were included. No differences were noted in diagnostic pathways or operative versus non-operative management. However, variations were noted in compliance with peri-operative care bundles, ranging from 63.2% to 95.8%. The surgical approach also varied, with the use of laparoscopic surgery ranging from 20.7% to 71.0% (p less-than 0.001). Variations were also noted in duration of surgery (63-124 minutes, p less-than 0.001), time to re-introduction of normal diet and length of hospital stay (3-8.5 days, p less-than 0.001). No differences were observed in 30-day or 90-day mortality rates.CONCLUSION: The management of SBO in Denmark is relatively standardised. Future efforts should focus on improving adherence to multidisciplinary peri-operative protocols, optimising patient selection for laparoscopic surgery and standardising nutritional therapy.FUNDING: None.TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04750811.

BACKGROUND: A trial of initial non-operative management is recommended in stable patients with adhesional small bowel obstruction. However, recent retrospective studies have suggested that early operative management may be of benefit in reducing subsequent recurrences. This study aimed to compare recurrence rates and survival in patients with adhesional small bowel obstruction treated operatively or non-operatively.METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study conducted at six acute hospitals in Denmark, including consecutive patients admitted with adhesional small bowel obstruction over a 4-month interval. Patients were stratified into two groups according to their treatment (operative versus non-operative) and followed up for 1 year after their index admission. Primary outcomes were recurrence of small bowel obstruction and overall survival within 1 year of index admission.RESULTS: A total of 201 patients were included, 118 (58.7 per cent) of whom were treated operatively during their index admission. Patients undergoing operative treatment had significantly better 1-year recurrence-free survival compared with patients managed non-operatively (operative 92.5 per cent versus non-operative 66.6 per cent, P <0.001). However, when the length of index admission was taken into account, patients treated non-operatively spent significantly less time admitted to hospital in the first year (median 3 days non-operative versus 6 days operative, P <0.001). On multivariable analysis, operative treatment was associated with decreased risks of recurrence (HR 0.22 (95 per cent c.i. 0.10-0.48), P <0.001) but an increased all-cause mortality rate (HR 2.48 (95 per cent c.i. 1.13-5.46), P = 0.024).CONCLUSION: Operative treatment of adhesional small bowel obstruction is associated with reduced risks of recurrence but increased risk of death in the first year after admission.REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04750811 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).prior (re

Risk prediction models are frequently used to identify high-risk patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. The National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) developed a risk prediction model specifically for emergency laparotomy patients, which was recently updated. In this study, we validated the updated NELA model in an external population. Furthermore, we compared it with three other risk prediction models: the original NELA model, the Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity (P-POSSUM) model, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS). We included adult patients undergoing emergency laparotomy at Zealand University Hospital, from March 2017 to January 2019, and Herlev Hospital, from November 2017 to January 2020. Variables included in the risk prediction models were collected retrospectively from the electronic patient records. Discrimination of the risk prediction models was evaluated with area under the curve (AUC) statistics, and calibration was assessed with Cox calibration regression. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Out of 1226 included patients, 146 patients (11.9%) died within 30 days. AUC (95% confidence interval) for 30-day mortality was 0.85 (0.82–0.88) for the updated NELA model, 0.84 (0.81–0.87) for the original NELA model, 0.81 (0.77–0.84) for the P-POSSUM model, and 0.76 (0.72–0.79) for the ASA-PS model. Calibration showed underestimation of mortality risk for both the updated NELA, original NELA and P-POSSUM models. The updated NELA risk prediction model performs well in this external validation study and may be used in similar settings. However, the model should only be used to discriminate between low- and high-risk patients, and not for prediction of individual risk due to underestimation of mortality.