In December 2019, in Wuhan, China, the first cases of what would be known as COVID-19, a disease caused by an RNA virus called SARS-CoV-2, were described. Its spread was rapid and wide, leading the World Health Organization to declare a pandemic in March 2020. The disease has distinct clinical presentations, from asymptomatic to critical cases, with high lethality. Parallel to this, patients with non-traumatic surgical emergencies, such as acute appendicitis and cholecystitis, continue to be treated at the emergency services. In this regard, there were several doubts on how to approach these cases, among them: how to quickly identify the patient with COVID-19, what is the impact of the abdominal surgical disease and its treatment on the evolution of patients with COVID-19, in addition to the discussion about the role of the non-operative treatment for abdominal disease under these circumstances. In this review, we discuss these problems based on the available evidence.

Purpose: to trauma quality indicators as a tool to identify opportunities of improvement in elderly trauma patient’s’ treatment. Methods: prospective analysis of data collected between 2014-2015, and stored in the iTreg software (by Ecossistemas). Trauma victims, aged older than 60 years and trauma quality indicators were assessed, based on those supported by SBAIT in 2013: (F1) Acute subdural hematoma drainage after 4 hours from admission, in patients with GCS<9; (F2) emergency room transference without definitive airway and GCS <9; (F3) Re-intubation within 48 hours from extubation; (F4) Admission-laparotomy time greater than 60 min. in hemodynamically uinstable patients with abdominal bleeding; (F5) Unprogrammed reoperation; (F6) Laparotomy after 4 hours from admission; (F7) Unfixed femur diaphyseal fracture; (F8) Non-operative treatment for abdominal gunshot; (F9) Admission-tibial exposure fracture treatment time greater than 6 hours; (F10) Surgery after 24 from admission. The indicators, treatments, adverse effects and deaths were analyzed, using the SPSS software, and the chi-squared and Fisher tests were used to calculate the statistical relevance. Results: from the 92 cases, 36 (39,1%) had complications and 15 (16,3%) died. The adequate use of quality indicator’s were substantially different among those who survived (was of 12%) compared to those who died (55,6%). The incidence of complications was of 77,8% (7/9) in patients with compromised indicators and 34,9% (28/83) in those without (p=0.017). Conclusions: trauma quality indicators are directly related with the occurrence of complications and deaths, in elderly trauma patients.

Acute appendicitis (AA) is a frequent cause of abdominal pain requiring surgical treatment. During the COVID-19 pandemic, surgical societies considered other therapeutic options due to uncertainties in the evolution of the disease. The purpose of this study is to assess the treatment of AA by members of two Brazilian surgical societies in this period. A common questionnaire was sent in 2020. There were 382 responses. Most surgeons had more than 15 years of profession (68.3%) and treated more than five cases per month (44.8%). About 72.5% would indicate chest CT to investigate COVID-19 in patients with AA. For those patients sustaining uncomplicated AA, without COVID-19, 60.2% would indicate laparoscopic appendectomy (VLA), followed by open appendectomy (OA) (31.7%) and non-operative management (NOM) (1.3%). For those with mild COVID-19, OA was suggested by 51.0%, followed by VLA (29.6%) and NOM (6.0%). For those with severe COVID-19, OA was proposed by 35.3%, followed by NOM (19.9%) and VLA (18.6%). For patients with periappendiceal abscesses, without COVID-19, VLA was suggested by 54.2%, followed by OA (33.2%) and NOM (4.4%). For those with mild COVID-19, OA was proposed in 49.5%, followed by VLA (29.3%) and NOM (8.9%). In those with severe COVID-19, OA was proposed in 36.6%, followed by NOM (25.1%) and VLA (17.3%). This information, based on two recognized Brazilian surgical societies, can help the surgeon to select the best approach individually.

Purpose: to analyze the relation between Trauma Quality Indicators (QI) and death, as well as clinical adverse events in severe trauma patients. Methods: analysis of data collected in the Trauma Register between 2014-2015, including patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 16, reviewing the QI: (F1) Acute subdural hematoma drainage > 4 hours with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) <9; (F2) emergency room transference without definitive airway and GCS <9; (F3) Re-intubation within 48 hours; (F4) Admission-laparotomy time greater than 60 min in hemodynamically instable patients with abdominal bleeding; (F5) Unprogrammed reoperation; (F6) Laparotomy after 4 hours; (F7) Unfixed femur diaphyseal fracture; (F8) Non-operative treatment for abdominal gunshot; (F9) Admission-tibial exposure fracture treatment time > 6 hours; (F10) Surgery > 24 hours. T the chi-squared and Fisher tests were used to calculate statistical relevance, considering p<0.05 as relevant. Results: 127 patients were included, whose ISS ranged from 17 to 75 (28.8 + 11.5). There were adverse events in 80 cases (63%) and 29 died (22.8%). Twenty-six patients had some QI compromised (20.6%). From the 101 patients with no QI, 22% died, and 7 of 26 patients with compromised QI (26.9%) (p=0.595). From the patients with no compromised QI, 62% presented some adverse event. From the patients with any compromised QI, 18 (65.4%) had some adverse event on clinical evolution (p=0.751). Conclusion: the QI should not be used as death or adverse events predictors in severe trauma patients.

Objective: to identify a subgroup of blunt trauma patients with very low chance of sustaining pelvic fractures based on clinical criteria. Methods: retrospective analysis of the trauma registry data, collected in a period of 24 months. We selected adult blunt trauma patients who had a PXR on admission. The frequency of pelvic fractures was calculated for the following groups: Normal neurological examination at admission (NNE), hemodynamical stability (HS), normal pelvic examination at admission (NPE), less than 60 years old (ID<60) and absence of distracting injuries (ADI). Logistic regression analysis was carried out in order to create a probability model of negative PXR. Results: an abnormal PXR was identified in 101 (3.3%) out of the 3,055 patients who had undergone a PXR at admission. Out of these, 1,863 sustained a NNE, with 38 positive CXRs (2.0%) in this group. Considering only the 1,535 patients with NNE and HS, we found 28 positive PXRs (1.8%). Out of these, 1,506 have NPE, with 21 abnormal PXRs (1.4%). Of these, 1,202 were younger than 60 y, with 11 positive PXRs (0.9%). By adding all these criteria to the ADI, we found 2 abnormal PXRs in 502 (0.4%) cases. The probability model including all these variables had a 0,89 area under the ROC curve. Conclusions: by adding clinical criteria, it is possible to identify a group of trauma patients with very low chance of sustaining pelvic fractures. The necessity of PXR in these patients needs to be reassessed.