PurposeAcute mesenteric ischaemia (AMI) accounts for about 1:1000 acute hospital admissions. Untreated, AMI will cause mesenteric infarction, intestinal necrosis, an overwhelming inflammatory response and death. Early intervention can halt and reverse this process leading to a full recovery, but the diagnosis of AMI is difficult and failure to recognize AMI before intestinal necrosis has developed is responsible for the high mortality of the disease. Early diagnosis and prompt treatment are the goals of modern therapy, but there are no randomized controlled trials to guide treatment and the published literature contains a high ratio of reviews to original data. Much of that data comes from case reports and often small, retrospective series with no clearly defined treatment criteria.MethodsA study group of the European Society for Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ESTES) was formed in 2013 with the aim of developing guidelines for the management of AMI. A comprehensive literature search was performed using the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) thesaurus keywords “mesenteric ischaemia”, “bowel ischaemia” and “bowel infarction”. The bibliographies of relevant articles were screened for additional publications. After an initial systematic review of the literature by the whole group, a steering group formulated questions using a modified Delphi process. The evidence was then reviewed to answer these questions, and recommendations formulated and agreed by the whole group.ResultsThe resultant recommendations are presented in this paper.ConclusionsThe aim of these guidelines is to provide recommendations for practice that will lead to improved outcomes for patients.

Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.

Despite the use of contemporary effective antibiotic treatment, aggressive debridements, and state-of-the-art intensive care conditions, FG still has high mortality and morbidity rates. In our series mortality rates were found to be higher in patients with delayed admission to the hospital, those with DM, and those who initially presented with sepsis.

Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04384926 . Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include...

Although there are alternative methods and drugs for preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE), it is not clear which modality is most suitable and efficacious for patients with severe (stable or unstable) head/spinal injures. The aim of this study was to compare intermittent pneumatic compression devices (IPC) with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for preventing VTE. We prospectively randomized 120 head/spinal traumatized patients for comparison of IPC with LMWH as a prophylaxis modality against VTE. Venous duplex color-flow Doppler sonography of the lower extremities was performed each week of hospitalization and 1 week after discharge. When there was a suspicion of pulmonary embolism (PE), patients were evaluated with spiral computed tomography. Patients were analyzed for demographic features, injury severity scores, associated injuries, type of head/spinal trauma, complications, transfusion, and incidence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and PE. Two patients (3.33%) from the IPC group and 4 patients (6.66%) from the LMWH group died, with their deaths due to PE. Nine other patients also succumbed, unrelated to PE. DVT developed in 4 patients (6.66%) in the IPC group and in 3 patients (5%) in the LMWH group. There was no statistically significant difference regarding a reduction in DVT, PE, or mortality between groups ( p = 0.04, p > 0.05, p > 0.05, respectively). IPC can be used safely for prophylaxis of VTE in head/spinal trauma patients.