Aim We aimed to evaluate the knowledge, attitude, and practices in the application of AI in the emergency setting among international acute care and emergency surgeons. Methods An online questionnaire composed of 30 multiple choice and open-ended questions was sent to the members of the World Society of Emergency Surgery between 29th May and 28th August 2021. The questionnaire was developed by a panel of 11 international experts and approved by the WSES steering committee. Results 200 participants answered the survey, 32 were females (16%). 172 (86%) surgeons thought that AI will improve acute care surgery. Fifty surgeons (25%) were trained, robotic surgeons and can perform it. Only 19 (9.5%) were currently performing it. 126 (63%) surgeons do not have a robotic system in their institution, and for those who have it, it was mainly used for elective surgery. Only 100 surgeons (50%) were able to define different AI terminology. Participants thought that AI is useful to support training and education (61.5%), perioperative decision making (59.5%), and surgical vision (53%) in emergency surgery. There was no statistically significant difference between males and females in ability, interest in training or expectations of AI (p values 0.91, 0.82, and 0.28, respectively, Mann–Whitney U test). Ability was significantly correlated with interest and expectations (p < 0.0001 Pearson rank correlation, rho 0.42 and 0.47, respectively) but not with experience (p = 0.9, rho − 0.01). Conclusions The implementation of artificial intelligence in the emergency and trauma setting is still in an early phase. The support of emergency and trauma surgeons is essential for the progress of AI in their setting which can be augmented by proper research and training programs in this area.

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) is gaining traction in medicine and surgery. AI-based applications can offer tools to examine high-volume data to inform predictive analytics that supports complex decision-making processes. Time-sensitive trauma and emergency contexts are often challenging. The study aims to investigate trauma and emergency surgeons’ knowledge and perception of using AI-based tools in clinical decision-making processes. Methods An online survey grounded on literature regarding AI-enabled surgical decision-making aids was created by a multidisciplinary committee and endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). The survey was advertised to 917 WSES members through the society’s website and Twitter profile. Results 650 surgeons from 71 countries in five continents participated in the survey. Results depict the presence of technology enthusiasts and skeptics and surgeons' preference toward more classical decision-making aids like clinical guidelines, traditional training, and the support of their multidisciplinary colleagues. A lack of knowledge about several AI-related aspects emerges and is associated with mistrust. Discussion The trauma and emergency surgical community is divided into those who firmly believe in the potential of AI and those who do not understand or trust AI-enabled surgical decision-making aids. Academic societies and surgical training programs should promote a foundational, working knowledge of clinical AI.

Background Shared decision-making (SDM) between clinicians and patients is one of the pillars of the modern patient-centric philosophy of care. This study aims to explore SDM in the discipline of trauma and emergency surgery, investigating its interpretation as well as the barriers and facilitators for its implementation among surgeons. Methods Grounding on the literature on the topics of the understanding, barriers, and facilitators of SDM in trauma and emergency surgery, a survey was created by a multidisciplinary committee and endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). The survey was sent to all 917 WSES members, advertised through the society’s website, and shared on the society’s Twitter profile. Results A total of 650 trauma and emergency surgeons from 71 countries in five continents participated in the initiative. Less than half of the surgeons understood SDM, and 30% still saw the value in exclusively engaging multidisciplinary provider teams without involving the patient. Several barriers to effectively partnering with the patient in the decision-making process were identified, such as the lack of time and the need to concentrate on making medical teams work smoothly. Discussion Our investigation underlines how only a minority of trauma and emergency surgeons understand SDM, and perhaps, the value of SDM is not fully accepted in trauma and emergency situations. The inclusion of SDM practices in clinical guidelines may represent the most feasible and advocated solutions.

Highlights Robotic subtotal gastrectomy with postoperative detection of parasitic infection. A rare case of parasitic infection. Diagnosis of gastric cancer hindered the suspicious of taeniasis.

Background and Objectives: Although several large studies regarding patients undergoing minimally invasive repair of incisional hernia are currently available, the results are not particularly reliable as they are based on heterogeneous groups, different surgical techniques, different mesh types, or with a too short follow period.Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational trial, collecting data from patients who underwent laparoscopic repair of a primary abdominal wall or an incisional hernia using the laparoscopic Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh technique and a single mesh type, i.e., a composite polyester mesh with a hydrophilic film (Parietex Composite TM mesh -Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN -USA). All patients signed an informed consent.Results: One thousand seven hundred seventy-seven patients were enrolled. The median surgery time was 50 minutes and the median length of hospital stay was 2 days. Intraoperative complications occurred in 12 patients (0.7%), while early postoperative surgical complications occurred in 115 (6.5%); during follow-up, bulging mesh was diagnosed in 4.5% of cases and hernia recurred in 4.3% of patients. An overlap equal or greater than 4 cm resulted as a significant protective factor, while the use of absorbable fixing devices was a risk factor for recurrence (odds ration: 9.06, p < 0.001, 95% confidence interval: 4.19 -19.57).Conclusions: Minimally invasive treatment of primary and postincisional abdominal wall hernias is a safe, effective, and reproducible procedure. An overlap equal or greater than 4 cm, the use of nonabsorbable fixing devices and a postoperative care and follow-up regime are crucial in order to obtain good results and low recurrence rates.